Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-09-19September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 19, 1990, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Edward H. Bain, Jr., David P. Bowerman, F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mr. Peter T. Way. 21 BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowie. 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. Ms. Marcelle Schubert presented a petition requesting the Board to consider officially naming a portion of Route 678 between Route 676 and Route 614 as "Briar Lane". She said the Post Office is planning to change the addresses on the rural route on which she lives. The residents decided to submit a request to name the road to avoid the possibility of having the route number changed again in the future. Unfortunately, while she was in the process of researching the historic maps and obtaining signatures for the petition, the Board of Supervisors decided at its meeting last week to not consider any more road name changes until the E911 study is completed. Ms. Schubert asked the Board to consider this request since an address change is already planned by the Post Office, and another one will occur when the Egll system is implemented. Also, she said the portion of road on which she lives is very difficult to find because the through road number changes. Mr. Bain said these residents have already researched the name extensive- ly and obtained 25 signatures. He feels it is appropriate to advertise this request for public hearing under the circumstances. There are a number of rural routes being changed by the Post Office, but no one else has done this amount of research. Mr. Bain then offered motion to set a public hearing for the next available night meeting. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Mr. Perkins said he would like to discuss Item 5.7. Mrs. Humphris said she would like the Board to discuss Item 5.6. Mr. Bowie said these items could be discussed at the end of the meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Perkins to accept the items on the consent agenda as information with the exception of Items 5.6 and 5.7. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Item 5.1. Memorandum from Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke dated September 11, 1990, concerning the Beautification Committee's meeting to discuss landscaping in front of the County Office Building was received as information. She also noted that the Charlottesville/Albemarle Art Association is to hang exhibits September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 22C by local artists in the Second Floor Lobby area for three to four months at a time and then changed. Item 5.2. Letter dated September 5, 1990, from Mr. H. C. Miller, Depart- ment of Historic Resources, stating that Monticola, Albemarle County, has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places, was received as informa- tion. Item 5.3. Audit for the year ended June 30, 1989, for the Clerk of the Circuit Court was received as information (Copy on file in the Board Clerk's Office). Item 5.4. Planning Commission minutes for September 4, 1990, received as information. Item 5.5. Letter dated September 12, 1990, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Depart- ment of Transportation, re: repair of the existing superstructure on Route 731 over Carroll Creek, during the period of September 24 through September 28, 1990, received as information. Item 5.5a. Superintendent's Memo #191, dated September 13, 1990, from the State Department of Education to Division Superintendents re: Budget Reductions for 1990-91, was received as information. Item 5.5b. Special Budget Reduction Issue of the TJPDC Legislative Newsletter dated September 14, 1990, re: State Budget Cuts, was received as information. Item 5.5c. Letter from Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, dated September 14, 1990, forwarding copy of lawsuit re: Samuel T. Clark, et al. v. County of Albemarle, et al, received as information (Copy on file in Clerk's Office). Item 5.6. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated September 13, 1990, recommending that the Annual Report be discontinued in order to reduce costs. Mrs. Humphris asked that this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda for Board discussion at the end of the agenda. Item 5.7. Memorandum from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, dated September 13, 1990, recommending the adoption of a "Memorandum of Agreement" for concurrent law enforcement jurisdiction in the Shenandoah National Park, was received as follows: "You were advised in January that a draft of a proposed 'Memorandum of Agreement' had been received from the National Park Service which delineated the functions of the Park Service and of the County, if the State accepts concurrent police jurisdiction over the park land in the Shenandoah National Park. At that time, staff indicated a review of the memorandum would be completed, and the agreement presented to you at a later date for review and approval. That review has been com- pleted, and staff recommends adoption of the agreement subject to the attached amendment recommended by Mr. St. John as it relates to reimbursement for prisoner detention. Background Information to Staff's Recommendation: Please find attached a copy of the agreement. You will note on the cover that it includes Counties contiguous to the Shenandoah Park. In general, .concurrent jurisdiction in the Park enables the enforcement of State criminal laws either by Park Rangers for the Park Service, by Sheriff or Police Departments for each of the Counties, and by State September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 221 Police and Game Wardens for the Commonwealth. The agreement provides for Park Rangers to continue serving as the primary law enforcement agency within the Park, and to be Conservators of the Peace enforcing State and Federal laws outside of the Park. It does not obligate the County to expand its law enforcement coverage beyond its present patrol limits, but allows law enforcement activity by theCounty investigation of incidents, where appropriate, sharing information regarding criminal activity, responding to emergency calls for backup when possible, and providing mutual aid in emergencies when the aid rendered does not jeopardize the assisting agency's response capabil- ity. Staff recognizes the positive value of this concurrent jurisdiction in the enforcement of criminal laws, particularly, drug related activi- ties, and recommends its adoption." Mr. Perkins asked that this item be pulled from the Consent Agenda for Board discussion at the end of the agenda. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-90-42. Kathleen Pearson. Public hearing on a request for a Home Occupation-Class B (10.2.2.31) and (5.2) with two part-time employees (Deferred from July 18, 1990). The Chairman noted that the applicant has requested by letter dated September 17, that this request now be returned to the Planning Commission for consideration of additional conditions. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to refer SP-90-42 back to the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-90-24. Michael Shifflett. Public hearing on a request to permit a bridge in the flood plain of the Doyles River (30.3.5.2.1.1) on 3.4 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property on east side of Route 810 approx. 1.4 miles north of Route 668. Tax Map 14, Parcel 29H. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4 and September 11, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "CHARACTER OF THE AREA: The Doyles River runs parallel to Route 810. The land in the area is largely forested. A large number of resi- dences are located adjacent to Route 810 in this area. An existing low-water bridge is located approximately 150 feet upstream of the proposed bridge location. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is proposing to construct a bridge on Parcel 29H across the Doyles River in order to provide access to Tax Map 15, Parcel 11 which is also owned by the applicant. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan states 'Encroachment into flood plain lands by development and other inappropriate uses can result in increased danger to life, health and property; public costs for flood control measures, rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and general degradation of the natural and man-made environment.' The Doyles River has been designated by the State Water Control Board as a natural trout stream. The Comprehensive Plan states as a strategy to preserve water quality, 'Restrict all clearing, grading and construc- tion activities to the minimum area required for the proposed develop- ment.' SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION: The applicant's proposal is to construct a bridge on Parcel 29H in order to provide access to Parcel 11 on 222 September 19, lg90 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) which the applicant proposes to construct a house. Currently Parcel 11 has access across the Doyles River by means of a ford which also serves other parcels. This ford is located in a pipestem of Parcel 11 which crosses the river to Route 810. Staff has recommended that the bridge be constructed at the existing ford which would then continue to provide access to other parcels. The applicant objects to this proposal and has submitted his justification for the alternative bridge location. The applicant has further stated that the existing ford will not be abandoned as a means of access but will continue to be used for "farm stock and equipment crossing". Staff has consistently recommended the use of a single stream crossing to serve multiple tracts of land whether the stream crossing involves flood plain or not. The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may recall a recent special use permit for Donnie Dunn, SP-90-50, which was approved with the provision of joint access. This permit allowed for a stream crossing on the Buck Mountain Creek. In approv- ing the permit for Donnie Dunn, the Board of Supervisors noted that a ford' was to remain for farm vehicles which would be too heavy and/or wide for the proposed bridge. The proposed bridge is to be twelve feet wide but its bearing load cannot be determined at this time. Staff is unable to identify any physical limitations which would preclude the provision of a joint stream crossing at the location of the existing ford. Provision of joint access at the proposed bridge location would require a new road to be constructed. The Watershed Management Official has expressed concerns similar to that of the Planning staff. The Engineering Department is unable to recommend approval of the bridge design at this time due to a lack of information. The Engineering Department has approved the hydrologic calculations for the proposed bridge. The Comprehensive Plan cites several potential negative effects that may occur from activity in the flood plain. While staff does not mean to imply that this request will result in all of the potential nega- tive effects, it will have an impact on the river. Approval of this permit as requested by the applicant may lead to additional stream crossings, the cumulative effect of which may result in damage to the water quality of streams both in and out of the watershed. The existing ford is not desirable for the preservation of water quality. Staff would recommend that the proposed bridge replace the ford entirely. The applicant does not agree with staff's recommendation and intends to continue to use the existing ford. In staff opinion this request is inconsistent with the stated goal of the Comprehensive Plan for water resources, 'Protect the County's surface water and groundwater supplies for the benefit of Albemarle County, the City of Charlottesville, the Town of Scottsville, and downstream interests.' The request is inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-90-24 Michael Shifflett. However, should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following condi- tions: The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; b. Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydraulic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Virginia Department of.Transportation issuance of an en- trance permit." 223 Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 4, 1990, recommended approval of the above petition by a vote of 6/1 subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The Planning Commission based their recommendation on the number of existing crossings in the area, the lack of expected participation by other property owners in the maintenance of the bridge and the inability of the applicant to achieve staff's recommendation that the proposed bridge replace the ford entirely. Mrs. Humphris said she has heard that the degradation to the Doyles River is such that it has been closed to trout fishing and asked if staff knew the status of Doyles River. Mr. Cilimberg said he has not heard that. Staff's research has shown that the State Water Control Board designated the Doyles River as a natural trout stream. Mr. Perkins said he is surprised that the Doyles River is designated as a natural trout stream. He has never known any trout to be in the Doyles River, and he knows it has never been stocked with trout. The public hearing was opened at this time, and the applicant, Mr. Michael Shifflett, came forward to speak. Mr. Shifflett said he currently uses a right-of-way to his property which fords the Doyles River. He said the owners of that driveway live within 500 feet of the parking area. However, he is building a ~house about one-quarter of a mile beyond that and would like to have access to his property. Mr. Shifflett said he grew up in this area and has never known there to be trout in the Doyles River. He said in order to build a bridge in place of the existing ford he would have to dig up his neighbor's yard. Mrs. Humphris asked if the bridge would serve only Mr. Shifflett's property. Mr. Shifflett said it would. Ms. Terry Hale from North American Exploration, said she does geologic and environmental research. She pointed out that the hydrogeologic study has already been approved. A structural engineer has looked at the bridge design' and the site. She said it appears that a design in accordance with the wishes of the staff can be worked out. The public hearing was closed at this time and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Perkins said he has no problem with this request. Although the ford will still be used, there are times during high water when the stream cannot be forded. He said he feels that denial of the request means denial of the right of passage to Mr. Shifflett's property. Mr. Perkins offered a motion to approve the request subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Way seconded the motion. Mrs. Hnmphris said she feels the Board should discuss the recommendation for denial by staff, particularly since there may be future requests of this type. She feels that each approval of a stream crossing is adding to the degradation of the streams. She said staff was unable to identify any physi- cal limitations that would preclude a joint stream crossing at the location of the existing ford. She asked if there are legal limitations precluding a joint crossing. Mr. Cilimberg said there is a 30-foot "pipe stem" right-of- way out to Route 810 which is not shown on the tax map. Staff's observation is based on that "pipe stem". Mrs. Humphris said staff recommended that the bridge replace the ford entirely. She asked if the Planning Commission discussed that recommendation at its meeting. Mr. Cilimberg said he understands that it was not discussed. Mrs. Humphris said she feels that building the bridge and leaving the ford open is compounding the problem of damage to the stream. She asked if staff has an alternative proposal. Mr. Bain said he feels there will be similar requests coming before the Board. He asked Mr. St. John if the County can participate in a joint effort September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 22 to improve the ford and require maintenance and upkeep by the property owners who use it. Mr. St. John said the County can make this a public facility by use of the power of eminent domain. Mr. Bain said he feels the County should consider doing something like that. Mr. St. John said the County can create bridges where it feels they are appropriate. Short ~of that, individual applications similar to this one, will be coming ~ the Board similar to this one. He said a right-of-way for mngress and egress allows the owner to maintain the road and keep it accessi- Mr. St. John said he does not know how long the ford has been used, but he has serious doubts that the courts would find that the right to cross a river over a ford which has been in existence for many years implies the right to build a bridge which would be more of a burden on the land than the ford itself was. He questions whether a right-of-way gives Mr. Shifflett the right to build a bridge. In other words, the County may be requiring something that Mr. Shifflett has no legal power to accomplish. Mrs. Humphris said she is trying to understand the precedent that is being set. She is not trying to prevent Mr. Shifflett from getting to his property. She is simply looking for the best way to allow access without adding to the degradation of the stream. Mr. St. John said there are quite a few pieces of land served by a ford over the Doyles River. He feels there will be some precedent to this deci- sion. Mr. Bain said if approval is granted with conditions, can a requirement be imposed that the ford cannot be used by Mr. Shifflett. Mr. St. John said that is a legitimate condition. The question is what type of bridge would have to be built to support the farm equipment, etc. Mr. Perkins said he does not look at a bridge as a detriment to the environment, but rather as an improvement. He said it is a matter of whether landowners can afford to build a bridge. What happens is that someone goes to the expense of building a bridge, and the neighbors want to use it without sharing in the cost. Mr. Cilimberg said that Mr. Shifflett indicated at the Planning Con,his- sion meeting that he would allow other property owners to use the bridge he builds, but with the expectation that others would share in the maintenance. Mr. Bain said he feels there will be other requests at other locations in the County, and he would like staff to consider what actions the County can take in these instances. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Shifflett if he agreed at the Planning Commission meeting to allow his neighbors to use the bridge if they helped pay for it. Mr. Shifflett said he will let his neighbors use his bridge, but he is not willing to give legal rights-of-way to his neighbors. Mr. Bain said if the County is interested in protecting the quality of the streams, then the County must do something about situations like this. He feels the owner has a right of access to his land, although he is aware of staff's concerns regarding protecting the stream. However, the solution is not to require actions on the part of the landowners which they cannot legally comply with. Therefore, Mr. Bain said he supports the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) The bridge shall not be constructed until the following approvals have been obtained: Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 22~ Department of Engineering approval of bridge design; Department of Engineering approval of hydrogeologic and hydrau- lic calculations to ensure compliance with Section 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of an entrance permit. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-90-72. Raymond B. Hellinger. Public hearing on a request for a single-wide mobile home on 78.62 acres zoned Rural Areas. Propert in southwest quadrant of intersection of Route 618 at Woodridge and Route 620. Tax MaP 115, Parcel 29. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progres on September 4 and September 11, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "CHARACTER OF TH~ AREA: The property, adjacent to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District is a mixture of woodlands, hay fields and pasture. A barn and several outbuildings are located near the intersection of Route 618 and Route 620. The mobile home is to be located in an area of mature deciduous trees. The site has been cleared in preparation for the mobile home. No dwellings are visible from the proposed mobile home site. The site is not visible from the state road. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: This parcel is located in Rural Area Four of the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states, 'discourage rural residential development other than dwellings related to bona fide agricultural forestal use.' SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: One letter of objection has been re- ceived from an adjacent property owner. This letter does not specifi- cally object to a mobile home being located on this site but appears to be an objection to the applicant due to past differences. The mobile home will be located as shown on the attached plat (on file). The mobile home will access Route 618. The mobile home is to be occupied by Robert Hellinger who works on the farm and is the son of the applicant. The mobile home will be located adjacent to the Carters Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District. The Comprehensive Plan states 'techniques such as agricultural/forestal district and conser- vation easements preserve agricultural and forestal lands, and, at the same time, provide protection for natural, scenic and historic re- sources' The mobile home will not be visible from properties in the agricultural/forestal district. Further, the mobile home is support- ive of agricultural/forestal activities as it is to be used by an agricultural employee. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions of approval: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 22( Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; 6. The mobile home shall be used by the applicant's family only." The Planning Commission at its meeting on September 4, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the conditions recommended by staff. The public hearing was opened and the applicant, Mr. Ray Hellinger, came forward to speak. Mr. Hellinger explained that the letter of complaint is from a neighbor with whom Mr. Hellinger had a previous disagreement. He said the Health Department has approved the site for a septic system. There were no other members of the public present to speak, and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Way offered a motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the request subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and set out below. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. 1. Albemarle County Building Official approval; Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within 30 days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; The mobile home shall be occupied by the applicant and/or his immediate family only. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-90-74. Crown Orchard Co. (owner), Charlottesville Cellular Partnership (applicant). Public hearing on a request to construct a tower and equipment building for reception and transmission of cellular tele- phone signals (10.2.2.6) on 234 acres zoned Rural Areas. Property on top of Carters Mountain. Tax Map 91, Parcel 28. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 4 and September 11, 1990.) Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report as follows: "BACKGROUND: Staff met with representatives of Charlottesville Cellular to discuss locational issues and other matters related to broadcast facilities. Charlottesville Cellular was provided copies of past staff reports which outlined areas of public concern. The applicant has responded by providing comprehensive information for review. September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) New modes of radiowave communication, combined with the physiography of Albemarle County have resulted in numerous requests for trans- mission/reception tower locations. In response, the County has attempted to confine broadcast towers to clusters or 'tower farms.' In an effort to reduce the total number of new towers, the County has recently encouraged tower design to accommodate additional (future) users (SP-88-14; SP-90-66). 22 Eight major broadcast towers are located in or adjacent to the Carters Mountain Orchard. WCYE-TV, approved in 1988, agreed to design its tower to accommodate other users and one other user has since located antennae on that structure (SP-88-14). Charlottesville Cellular first pursued location on the WCVE tower, however, was unable to come to acceptable terms with the property owner. Subsequently, Charlottes- ville Cellular has proposed location of a tower in the adjoining Carters Mountain Orchard. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant proposes location of a 150-foot broadcast tower toward the northern end of the cluster of towers in Carters Mountain Orchard. Other towers in the area are of comparable or greater height (Due to a structure height of less than 200 feet, FAA requirement of obstruction lighting is unlikely). The tower would be a 16-foot faced (lattice), self-support structure which would accommodate five cellular "whip", top-mounted antennae in candelabra configuration together with two, eight-foot diameter solid parabolic microwave relay antennae side mounted at 110 and 130 feet. (NOTE: Staff has been advised that Charlottesville Cellular intends to pursue at least one other tower location in Albemarle County to provide a greater coverage area. Approval of this petition shall in no manner be deemed as indicative of the County's disposition on any future application. It is staff's understanding that the Carters Mountain tower can function independently of any other tower installa- tions). The tower would not be designed to accommodate other users. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Locationally, the proposed Charlottes- ville Cellular tower is consistent with past County efforts to confine new structures to existing tower cluster sites. The applicant was unable to come to agreeable terms to locate on an existing tower. Under SP-88-14 WCVE-TV and SP-90-66 Centel Cellular Company, towers were designed to accommodate other users. The Charlottesville Cellar tower would not accommodate other users. Staff opinion is that this is an issue for policy determination by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors: Under SP-88-14 WCVE-TV, the tower was 'engineered to accom- modate nine, 10-foot microwave dishes and two FM antennae (with possible combinations to include land-mobile and common carrier use such as paging, two-way radio and cellar telephone uses).' One additional user has located on that tower. It should be noted that television broadcast towers are generally and comparatively more substantial structures. Under SP-90-66, Centel Cellular was required as a part of its lease agreement to design its tower to accommodate a Virginia Tech FM broadcast antennae; Having more than one tower on Carters Mountain designed to accommodate additional users could generate competitive bargaining; In a similar manner, the County has required that bridges and other flood plain crossings be made available to addi- tional users; de In the specific case of Charlottesville Cellular, staff does not know at this writing if additional users could be accommodated with slight (or no) tower redesign or whether wholesale redesign and additional costs would be incurred. Should the Planning Commission and Board determine that the September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) tower be made available for additional usage, staff recom- mends the following be added as the first sentence in Condition 3: Staff approval of additional (future) antennae installation. Attachment A (on file) is the applicant's submittal entitled 'SUMMARY OF INFORMATION', which is presented in the form of a planning staff report and analysis with resolution of the issue of additional tower usage. Staff is in basic agreement with opinions stated by the applicant and recommends that the proposal satisfies criteria for issuance of a special use permit as set forth in 31.2.4.1. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet; 2. Staff approval of site plan; No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even though they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this petition." 22~ Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 4, 1990, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the condi- tions recommended by staff. Mr. Cilimberg clarified that condition No. 3 refers to additional towers, etc., in other locations in the County. Mrs. Humphris asked if the building located on the site is part of the special permit request as well as the tower. Mr. Cilimberg said the special permit includes related facilities which includes the building. He said the building will be addressed as part of site plan approval. Mrs. Humphris asked staff to ensure that the language used in the condi- tions will actually prevent any loop holes, since she is unfamiliar with some of the technical terminology relating to these towers. The public hearing was opened at this time. Mr. Richard Carter came forward to represent the applicant. He noted that Mr. Scott Basham, who is an engineer with Charlottesville Cellular Company, is present to answer any technical questions the Board may have. Mr. Carter said regarding the reference to a second tower site, the applicant is currently negotiating with the owner of an existing tower to use that tower. He said that tower is at an entirely different location and is not before the Board. He said if the negotiation is not successful, the applicant will look for another location and file an application with the County at that time. He said the question came up because staff wanted to ensure that the applicant understands that approval of this application does not imply approval of a future application. He said he agrees with staff and understands that every application stands independently of another. Regarding the question of the building on the site, he said the building is a pre-fabricated, 12 foot by 20 foot building for storing equipment and spare parts. Mr. Carter said the only attachments to the tower planned at this time are the candelabra antennae and two, eight-foot diameter microwave dishes. At some time in the future the number of microwave dishes may expand to five microwave dishes if business requires such expansion. Mr. Carter said, for economic and technical reasons, the applicant decided not to attach to the WCVE-TV tower. He said ~he applicant is not against multiple use towers, but feels more comfortable with the design of the requested tower for the appli- cant's needs at this time. Mrs. Humphris asked if the building will be visible on Carters Mountain. Mr. Carter said he does not know. Mr. Basham said the building will not be September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 22~ visible. He said there are several buildings already located there which cannot be seen, and this building will be much smaller than those. Mr. Carter said this application is in accordance with County policy in that it is located in a "tower farm". Mr. Cilimberg noted that at a recent visit he made to Carters Mountain for another application, the buildings located there are not visible from Interstate 64 and Route 20 because of the terrain and the tree line. The public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mrs. Humphris asked if a condition is necessary to ensure that the building will not be visible. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board could add a statement to include adequate screening of the building from view at lower elevations. Staff will then ensure at the time of site plan review that the screening is sufficient either by natural screening or plantings. He feels that screening will not be an issue, but the condition can be included if the Board feels more comfortable having it. Mrs. Humphris offered a motion for approval with the Planning Commission conditions with Condition No. 2 reworded to the words, "to include screening, if necessary so that the building cannot be seen from any major entry corri- dor'', and adding Condition No. 4 reading, "There shall be no lighting on this tower unless required by a federal agency." Mr. Way seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Tower height not to exceed 150 feet; Staff approval of site plan to include screening if necessary so that the building cannot be seen from any major entry corridor; No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for, or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even though they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this petition; There shall be no lighting on this tower unless required by a federal agency. Agenda Item No. 10. ZTA-90-07. Entrance Corridor Overlay District and Architectural Review Board, Zoning Text Amendment, Deferred from September 5, 1990. At the request of the Planning Commission, motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to defer this amendment until October 3, 1990. The Planning Commission had not been able to reschedule this amendment for further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. (Mr. Bain left the meeting at 8:32 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 11. Sales Contract 4th Street Properties. Mr. Agnor said the County and City jointly own a building and lot at 418 Fourth Street, N.E., containing approximately 0.267 acres shown as Tax map 53, Parcel 25 on the City's real estate records, which was previously used by the Monticello Area Community Action Agency as an office building. The building has been vacant for over a year. At the request of the City last year~, the County agreed to sell the property after review and recommendation by the September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 23( (Page 12) County's Buildings Committee. The property was advertised for sale and bids received and reviewed by the Building Committee. He said the property is being sold for $115,000, to Sandollar, Inc., and the County receives one-half of the sales price after tax and advertising, etc. is deducted. Staff recom- mends that the Chairman be authorized to sign the sales contract and the deed upon approval by the County Attorney. Mr. Bowie said he feels this is a fair price and that the Board should accept the offer. Mrs. Humphris offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Way, to accept staff's recommendation. There was no further discussion of this item. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. (Mr. Bain returned to the meeting at 8:35 P.M.) Agenda Item No. lla. JAUNT Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said as a follow-up to last week's meeting where the Board selected Option 4 regarding operating costs, an appropriation is necessary for anticipated additional JAUNT revenues for year end of FY 89-90 for $9,560 (unaudited). For FY 90-91, a projected need of $23,300 is requested for appropriation. Staff recommends the appropriation be made from the General Fund Balance. Motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bain to adopt the following resolution appropriating $32,860 as recommended by staff. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 90/91 GENERAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR JAUNT. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1100059000563200 JAUNT $32,860.00 TOTAL $32,860.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2100051000510100 FUND BALANCE TOTAL AMOUNT $32~860.00 $32,860.00 Mr. Way noted that the JAUNT Board is appreciative of the guidance given by the Board of Supervisors regarding a funding formula and the amount of subsidy contributed by Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: May 16 and July 18, 1990. Mr. Way had read the minutes for July 18, 1990, and found minor typo- graphical errors. Mr. Way then offered a motion, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve the minutes as read and corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 23~ Agenda Item No. 13a. Appointments: Rockfish State Scenic River Advisory Board. Mr. Way said he has contacted some candidates and is waiting to hear responses. He hopes to have names available at the next meeting. Mr. Bowie noted that several board and committee members are eligible for reappointment and would like to continue serving. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to reappoint Mr. Bruce Locker to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals, term to expire on August 21, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mrs. Humphris to reappoint Mr. Thomas F. Stephens and Mr. D. James Firster to the Jordan Development Corporation, terms to expire on August 13, 1991. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Way to reappoint Mr. Mark Reisler to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, term to expire October 20, 1992. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mr. Bain to reappoint Mr. John Hood to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals, term to expire November 21, 1995. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from Board Members. Mr. Bowie said agenda items for the joint meeting with the School Board on October 3 include the Murray School renovations, cost cutting efforts and traffic controls at the schools. If there are other items to add, please contact the Clerk or the County Executive. Mr. Bain suggested that a status report on the new urban elementary school be added. Mr. Bowie said a joint meeting with the Planning Commission is set for October 10, at 3:00 P.M. in Rooms 5/6. He asked Board members to submit agenda items for discussion. Regarding the status of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Agnor to brief the Board on his conversation with Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, on this issue as of yesterday. Mr. Agnor said the City Council discussed the matter and is proposing to withdraw the paragraph in the agreement that requires a four-fifths vote. Instead, a list of projects agreed to by the City and County will be drawn up, and any projects beyond this list would require the subsequent approval of the City and County. It will be the responsibility of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority to proceed with the list of projects which includes the Ivy Land- fill, a future landfill, a composting facility, a recycling facility, transfer stations, and a wood chipping operation. He said the draft agreement will be considered by the City Council on October 1 and by the Board of Supervisors on October 3. September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 23~ (Page 14) Mr. Bowie said if there is a project which Board members want to include on the list, let the County Executive know. Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the video-taped interviewing for the recycling/solid waste educational coordinator by a Richmond firm. Mr. Agnor said the hiring process is being handled by the City because the land- fill operation is still under their personnel system. He said the process is fairly new; the School System has used it once. Use of the video precludes the need for the applicant to make a trip, and it saves time in selecting among several applicants. He said the applicant is interviewed at his home base with specified questions asked. Mr. Bain said he was told by a constituent, Mr. Webb, that he was in- formed by the County Fire Official that no action can be taken by the Fire Official because the Board and the County Attorney have determined that only organic material cannot burned. Everything else, including petroleum based products, may be burned. Mr. St. John said he has a chain of correspondence with Mr. Webb and the Fire Official. He recommends that he and Mr. Bain get together with Mr. Webb and discuss the issue. Regarding efforts to cut costs by the County, Mr. Bain said he received a call from an attorney who wanted to FAX material to the County Office Building Development Department and was told that the County would not accept a FAX unless it is an emergency. Mr. Bain said this particular citizen is willing to pay a fee to send the FAX, rather than having to drive to the County Office Building. He feels the County should either dispose of the FAX machine or review the costs in each department and set a policy for use. Mr. Agnor said department heads were asked to assimilate ideas for reducing operational costs by September 25. He said administrative policies would then be developed, and he plans to bring that to the Board. He said this particular action is premature. Mr. Agnor said there is one FAX machine, and the charge should only be for documents being sent out. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to know the process for the disposition of the Whitewood Road property in terms of its use for a County facility. Before that happens, this property will obviously have to be turned over to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Bowie said the agreement with the School Board is that when the property is purchased for the urban elementary school, the Whitewood Road property is to be turned over to the Board. The actual project on this property will be handled through the Capital Improvements Plan. Mr. Bowerman said he has received input from various members of the public who would like to participate in the planning for the ultimate use of that site. He said there is a range of ideas for its use. It has also been suggested that half of the funds toward use of this facility could be raised from private sources. Mr. Perkins raised the issue of a late penalty clause on school con- struction contracts and asked that it be placed on the agenda for discussion with the School Board on October 3. Also, he would like to discuss the issue of scheduling site work on school projects earlier in the construction pro- cess. He feels that it is detrimental to the environment for land to remain bare for a year or more. Mr. Agnor added that he feels it is important for the County to get on a project construction cycle that allows completion by May at the latest for school openings scheduled for the fall. In the case of Crozet School, inspec- tors were at the site the night before occupation of the building was to take place. Regarding Item 5.7 of the Consent Agenda, Mr. Perkins said he has re- ceived many calls from constituents who are not in favor of the "Memorandum of Agreement" concerning concurrent law enforcement responsibilities in the September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 232 (Page 15) Shenandoah National Park. He pointed out that there are some corrections which need to be made if the agreement is adopted. Mr. Perkins does not feel that the County will benefit from such an agreement. He suspects that in a few years there will be a request for additional police officers because of the work in the Shenandoah National Park. He feels that the Park Service acts as if it has complete power to shut off private rights-of-way and harass members of the public, and he is not happy with the reports he has received. He said he will not support the agreement because he cannot see the advantage to the County. Mr. Agnor said this is a matter to be decided by the State Legislature and actually requires General Assembly action. He said the Board is being requested to concur with the State's possible action to proceed with concur- rent jurisdiction. Mr. Agnor said the advantage to the County is in the ability to investigate cases involving drug abuse. It also provides for park rangers to have jurisdiction outside the park boundaries. If park rangers need help, they can ask for assistance from the County Police and vice versa. Currently, violators of state criminal laws can go into the Park, and the County Police have no jurisdiction to arrest them. Mr. St. John said the National Park Service is attempting to get support for this procedure before going to the State. This is not a contract at this point. It is a description of how the process will work if the State agrees to it. In addition to drug criminals, another benefit is that Albemarle County game wardens will be able to enforce game laws and to pursue violators who run out of the park into the County and vice versa. Park rangers will only have jurisdiction in the County when a ranger sees a felony or a serious life-threatening crime taking place during the course of his duties within the Park. Mr. Bowie said he is inclined to support concurrent jurisdiction because of the benefit in apprehending drug criminals. Mrs. Humphris said she sees this agreement as advantageous to the County and will support it. She noted several spelling corrections and minor wording changes. She suggested that on Page 4, No. 3(n) should include the statement, "In Albemarle County, this official is the chief of Police." Motion was then offered by Mrs. Humphris to approve the "Memorandum of Agreement" as set out below. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion and said he understands the concerns of citizens who live near the Park boundary. Mr. Perkins said some people who have property within the Park boundaries are harassed by the Park Service. The roads are gated and locked and the Park Service reluctantly gives keys to the owners. He said it is more difficult every year for the property owners to get access to their property. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Bowie and Mrs. Humphris. NAYS: Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way (who prefaced his voting by saying that since so many corrections have been made and he does not clearly understand the purpose, he is opposed to the agreement.) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR coNCURRENT JURISDICTION WITHIN SHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK BETWEENSHENANDOAH NATIONAL PARK AND COUNTIES OF WARREN, PAGE, RAPPAHANNOCK, MADISON, GREENE, ROCKINGHAM, AUGUSTA, AND ALBEMARLE Article I Background and Objectives WHEREAS, the General Authorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-458,§2; codified as 16 USC la-3) directs the National Park Service (herein- after Service) to seek concurrent jurisdiction in units of the Ser- vice; and WHEREAS, Shenandoah National Park (hereinafter Park), is a unit of the National Park System, United States Department of Interior; and September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) 23z. WHEREAS, the Service administers the Park that was established as a unit of the National Park System pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 403(c); and WHEREAS, concurrent jurisdiction over lands in Shenandoah Nation- al Park has been ceded to the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Service and the Counties of Warren, Page, Rappa- hannock, Madison, Rockingham, Greene, Albemarle, and Augusta (here- inafter the Counties) desire to establish an agreement on the handling of law enforcement matters within the Park; and WHEREAS, The Service is authorized (16 U.S.C. la-6(b) to cooper- ate with state and local governments and (16 U.S.C. lb(l) to provide emergency assistance to local law enforcement agencies; and WHEREAS, concurrent jurisdiction in Shenandoah National Park enables the enforcement of state criminal laws within the Park either by park rangers for the Service, sheriff or police departments for each of the Counties and state police officers of the Virginia Depart- ment of State Police and game wardens of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries; and WHEREAS, the Service and each of the Counties recognize the need to cooperate in concurrent jurisdiction to further the objectives, policies and responsibilities of each and such cooperation can help: (1) promote the public's greater understanding of the goals, objec- tives and programs of all agencies; (2) improve public service; and (3) help minimize conflicts. NOW, THEREFORE, each County and the Service do mutually under- stand and agree as follows: Article II Statements of Work The Memorandum of Understanding herein made is subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The Service Agrees: (a) To serve as the primary law enforcement agency within Shen- andoah National Park enforcing all applicable Federal regulations, assimilated or adopted State laws and regulations, Federal laws and other existing regulations promulgated thereunder in the operation of the Park. (b) To recognize that the County may not be able to respond within the Park, because of a lack of available resources, to requests for assistance from the Park. Should this occur the Park will attempt to get assistance elsewhere or handle the situation without County assistance. (c) Not to obligate any County, without the County's concur- rence, to expand the scope of its law enforcement coverage beyond its present patrol limits along the Park Boundary. (d) To allow law enforcement commissioned park rangers to be Conservators of the Peace pursuant to Code of Virginia Section 19.2-12, and to exercise the law enforcement authority by such desig- nation outside of the Park in emergency situations. Emergency situa- tions for the purpose of this agreement are defined as follows: Those serious situations where the Service Ranger, while in the course of official duties, observes the commission of a felony or a serious misdemeanor presenting a direct threat to the public by virtue of personal injury or property damage. (e) Not to require the law enforcement officers of any County to make additional reports to the Park, to issue Park violation notices or to conduct investigations. September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) 235 (f) To use the U. S. Magistrate's Court system except: (i) when the Conservator of the Peace authority is used by park rangers out of the Park. (ii) for bonding of prisoners when Federal Judges and Magistrates are not available and in accordance with ap- proved procedures. (iii) when U. S. Attorney and Commonwealth Attorney have agreed that prosecution is better served in State Courts. (g) That Park law enforcement officers while acting as the Conservators of the Peace outside the Park will, in cases of serious misdemeanors, arrest those persons violating State misdemeanor laws in their presence. (h) To consult with the County during construction planning; upon request from the County to submit plans for review by the County; upon notification to allow inspection by the County of buildings under construction; and to consider recommendations by the County, provided that the construction projects are not subject to unreasonable burdens by application of these recommendations. 2. Each County Agrees: (a) That within its available resources, the County will respond to the Park's calls for assistance. (b) To make arrests for felony situations when Park law enforce- ment officers have detained someone while acting as Conservators of the Peace outside the Park. (c) To permit the incarceration of suspects arrested by Service personnel in jails approved and provided by the U. S. Marshal Service (lS U.S.¢. 4002). (d) To administer the handling of juveniles as ordered by the Federal Court or referred by the U. S. Attorney's Office under provisions of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 5031 et seq. and 42 U.S.C. 5601 et seq). (e) To provide the Service with recommendations within a 30-day period on any construction plans of the Service that the County agrees to review. Any review undertaken by the County will be at the Coun- ty's expense. The Service may not be penalized for failing to carry out the County's recommendations. 3. The service and each County jointly agree: (a) That nothing in this agreement shall restrict or preempt each member to this agreement from exercising its jurisdiction as entitled by law. (b) That the Service will be the primary law enforcement agency for Shenandoah National Park except when local County officers encoun- ter criminal activity (State and local law violations) in the course of their normal operation in and around the Park. (c) To work together in investigating incidents where both State and Federal laws have been violated. (d) To permit officers/rangers to attend training sessions conducted by each agency. (e) To respond to emergency calls for backup, when possible. (f) To identify potential conflicts and work to resolve con- flicts that develop. September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 23 (g) Consult and exchange information and reports with each other regarding criminal activity and programs that may affect the opera- tions of the other. (h) Cooperating in execution of process issued by any court in or outside of the Park. When serving warrants in the jurisdiction of the other agency, the officers from the serving agency will be accom- panied by at least one uniformed officer from the jurisdiction within which the warrant is being served. (i) Provide mutual aid and assistance in emergencies such as searches and rescues, natural disasters, hazardous material spills, mass casualty accidents and life endangering law enforcement incidents when the aid rendered does not jeopardize the assisting agency's response capability. (j) That all requests for mutual aid will originate from the chief law enforcement officer, or his designee, to his counterpart, or his designee, in the agency from whom he is requesting assistance. (k) That SIRS radio frequency (39.54 mhz) will be used for all radio communications during mutual aid activities. (1) To arrange facilities within the limits of each agency's resources for processing, transporting and detaining arrestees result- ing from a mutual aid request. (m) That each party to this Agreement will assume its own costs which may be expended as a direct result of emergency responses executed pursuant to this Agreement, unless where one partner is required by law to assume financial responsibility. (n) That media and information releases regarding joint efforts will be coordinated between the Park's Public Information Officer and the Sheriff of the County with the incident. (In Albemarle County, this official is the Chief of Police.) (o) If one party is the first responder to a crime which shall be investigated by the other party, then the first party shall preserve the scene, detain suspects and attempt to identify witnesses, vehicles, and other perishable types of information for future inves- tigation by the other agency. (p) That within the Park the Service will be in command of any crime scene where personnel from more than one agency are represented, except boundary situations where each agency will maintain control of that part of the incident within their jurisdiction. The agencies will make every effort to share information and coordinate their planning and operations. (q) That any alterations to this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the parties hereto. Renewals will be subject to regula- tions existing at the time of renewal and such other terms and condi- tions deemed necessary to protect the public interest. (r) That nothing contained herein shall establish or be inter- preted as establishing an agency relationship between the parties hereto, nor shall any employee of any party be considered an agent or employee of any other party to this agreement as a result of any act or omission authorized or permitted pursuant to this agreement. (s) No employee of the Service shall receive any extra or addi- tional compensation from any other party hereto by virtue of desig- nation as a Conservator of the Peace. Article III Term of Agreement The Memorandum of Understanding hereby made shall become effec- tive upon the acceptance of the Service's notice and Deed of Cession September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) and Retrocession by the Governor of Virginia and shall remain in effect for two (2) years from the effective date of the change in jurisdiction, unless prior thereto it is relinquished, abandoned, or otherwise terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. In addition, the Agreement will expire at the end of the specified term unless formally reaffirmed or rewritten if necessary. 23 Article IV Key officials Park Superintendent, Shenandoah National Park Chief Ranger, Shenandoah National Park County Administrator, Warren County Sheriff, Warren County County Administrator, Rappahannock County Sheriff, Rappahannock County County Administrator, Page County Sheriff, Page County County Administrator, Rockingham County Sheriff, Rockingham County County Administrator, Madison County Sheriff, Madison County County Administrator, Greene County Sheriff, Greene County County Executive, Albemarle County Chief of Police, Albemarle County County Administrator, Augusta County Sheriff, Augusta County Article V Property Utilization Not applicable. Article VI Prior Approval Not applicable. Article VII Reports Not applicable. Article VIII Termination This Agreement may be terminated with individual Counties by providing ninety (90) days written notice and agreement between the Service and the individual County. Article IX Required Compliance During the performance of this Agreement, the participants agree to abide by the terms of Executive Order 11246 on nondiscrimination and will not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The participants will take affir- mative action to ensure that applicants are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 23 September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) No member or delegate to Congress, or resident Commissioner, shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom, but this provision shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation for its general benefit. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as binding the Service to expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appro- priations made by Congress or administratively allocated for the purpose of this agreement for the fiscal year, or involve the Service in any contract or other obligation, or the further expenditure of money in excess of such appropriations or allocations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, acting on behalf of the United States, in the exercise of the delegated authority from the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and the respective County Administrators for each County, in exercise of the delegated authority by the County Board of Supervisors hereby execute this Memorandum of Understanding. Regarding Item 5.6 of the Consent Agenda, Discontinuing the County's Annual Report, Mrs. Humphris asked if an update can be published periodically so that there is one concise hand-out for the public. Mr. Bowie said he would support reinstating the annual report as soon as possible. Mr. Agnor said the intent of his recommendation was to discontinue the annual report for 1990. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris and seconded by Mr. Way to accept the County Executive's recommendation to discontinue the Annual Report for this year (1990). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Way requested a status report on the Keene Landfill and Transfer Station at the October 3 meeting. Agenda Item No. 14a. Executive Session: Legal Matters. Mr. Bowie said there is a request for an Executive Session for legal matters involving Sanford v. Board of Supervisors and the creche case; for discussion of specific personnel issues; and for the status of the new urban elementary school site under property acquisition. Mrs. Humphris said she thought there was going to be an update on the Ripper case. Mr. St. John said he could give an update on that case as well. At 9:15 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn into Executive Session for the purposes of discussing legal matters under Code Section 2.1-344.A.7 for Sanford v. Board of Supervisors, the creche case, and the Ripper case; personnel matters under Code Section 2.1-344.A.1; and property acquisition under 2.1-344.A.3 relating to the new urban elemen- tary school. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14b. Certify Executive Session. At 9:25 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Bowerman certifying the executive session as follows. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded September 19, 1990 (Regular Night Meeting) 23~ (Page 21) 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 a 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. Bain, Bowie, Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None ABSENT DURING MEETING: None Mr. Way urged Board representation on a committee for the design of the new urban elementary school. Mrs. Humphris said she toured the new Crozet Elementary School and was disappointed in the crowded conditions. She feels there is a flaw in the design in that the room size is not suitable for the open classroom style of teaching. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to October 3, 1990. At 9:30 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Way and seconded by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn to October 3, 1990, at 3:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Bowie, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Way. NAYS: None.