Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-08-10August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 501 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 10, 1988, at 9:45 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. C. Timothy Lindstrom, Walter F. Perkins and Peter T. Way. ABSENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John T. P. Horne. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:50 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bain, to approve Items 4.1 and 4.2, and to accept the remain- ing items on the consent agenda as information. There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. LindstrOm, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Item 4.1. Resolution for the addition/abandonment of portions of Route 729. Request for this resolution was received from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation. The following resolution was adopted by the above recorded vote: WHEREAS, Secondary Route 729, from 0.08 miles north of Buck Island Creek to 0.06 miles south of Buck Island Creek, a distance of 0.14 miles, has been altered, and a new road has been constructed and approved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered; and WHEREAS, certain sections of this new road follow new locations, these being shown on the attached sketch titled "Changes in Secondary System due to Relocation and Construction of Route 729, Albemarle County, dated at Charlottesville, Virginia, November 9, 1987." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the portions of Secondary Route 729, i.e., Section 2, shown in red on the sketch titled "Changes in Secondary System due to RelOcation and Construction on Route 729, Project 0729-002-211, C501, B648, Albemarle County, dated at Charlottesville, Virginia, November ~, 1987," a total distance of 0.14 miles be and hereby is, added to the Secondary System of State Highways pursuant to Section 33.1-229 oC the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; And further, that the section of old location, i.e., Section 1, shown in blue on the aforementioned sketch, a total distance of 0.15 miles, be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road pursu- ant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of ~irginia of 1950, as amended. Item 4.2. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail forl the Month of July, 1988, were approved by the above recorded vote. Item 4.3. 1988 Second Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development was received as information. 502 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meetingl (Page 2) Item 4.4. Copy of letter dated July 21, 1988, addressed to Mrs. Kathlene Baize, from Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, concerning proposed improvements to Route 734, was received as information. Mr. Roosevelt indicated in his letter that the current Secondary Road Six-Year Plan does not include any allocation for improvements to Route 734. The letter further indicated that if Mrs. Baize completed right of way acqui- sition by November 1, 1988, improvements can be included in the next revision of the Six-Year Plan. However, improvement funds for this type of work are already obligated through June, 1993. Item 4.5. Copy of Final 1988-89 Construction Allocations for the Interstate, Primary and Urban Highway Systems, Public Transit, Ports and Airports, including the Six-Year Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 1988-89 through 1993-94, accompanied by letter dated August 1, 1988, from Ray D. Pethtel, Highway Commissioner, was received for information. Item 4.6. Letter dated July 27, 1988, from Thomas F. Farley, District Highway Engineer, concerning District Round Table Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 27, 1988, in Culpeper, was received fQr information. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this item be put on the September 14, 1988 meeting for discussion. Item 4.7. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for May, 1988, was received for information. Item 4.8. Copies of Planning Commission Minutes forl July 19 and July 27, 1988, were received for information. Item 4.9. Copy of letter dated July 28, 1988, addressed to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, School Superintendent, from the Department of Education, stating approval of ECIA Chapter 1, Migrant Education Grant for fiscal year 1989 in the amount of $14,000 was received as information. Item 4.10. Letter dated August 1, 1988, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Highway Commissioner, concerning the addition of and abandonment of certain sections on Route 643 (Projects 6029-002-116,C501; 0678-002-212,C501,B649) was received for information: As requested in your resolutions dated June 8, 1988, the follow- ing additions to and abandonments from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective August 1, 1988. ADDITIONS Sections 3 and 4 of new location Route 643. Section 2 of new location Route 678. Sections 1 and 2 of old location Route 643. Section 1 of old location Route 678. 0.il Mi. 0.I2 Mi. o.il Mi. 0.~2 Mi. Item 4.11. Letter dated July 21, 1988, addressed toiMr. Pat Mullaney, Director'of Parks and Recreation, from Ms. Frances R. Wit~, President, Crozet Park, concerning payment of note by the Crozet Park, was eceived for information. Item 4.12. Letter dated July 8, 1988, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive, from Mr. 3. G. Ripley, High~ay Director of Planning and Programming, was received in reply to a request from the County August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) 503 to study alignment improvements on Route 20 south of Interstate 64 and on Route 240 between Route 810 and Route 250 West. He stated that the Six-Year Plan includes intersection improvement projects at Routes 742 and 726 and a bridge widening near Stony Point. There is a bridge replacement project scheduled on Route 240 at Lickinghole Creek 0.5 miles east of ROute 250. He has asked the Transportation Planning Division to study the two requests and to make recon~nendations later in the year. Item 4.13. Memorandum dated July 13, 1988, addressed to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., from Ms. Judy S. Gough, Administrative Assistant, concerning refunds on business and professional licenses, real estate and personal property taxes made between March 1, 1988, and June 30, 1988, was received as information. Item 4.14. 1987-88 Jefferson-Madison Regional Library Annual Report was received for information. Item 4.15. A copy of the 1988-89 Albemarle County Service Authority Operating Budget was received for information. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: June 4, 1986; December 9, 1987; March 28 and March 29, 1988. Mr. Lindstrom had read pages 1 through l0 of the minutes of December 9, 1987, and found them to be in order. Mr. Perkins read the minutes of March 29, 1988, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes as read. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. None. Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt referenced the following three safety improvement projects on Rio Road: the intersection of the entrance to Pen Park and Rio Road, the intersection of Rio Road and Agnese Street, and the intersection of Rio Road and Woodburn Road. He said that the first p=oject excited the most public concern. At the request of the Board, he said, he has developed a survey and estimate for a realignment of the improvements to the intersection of Rio Road and the entrance to Pen Park (Project 0631-002-219,C501). He presented the following revised cost estimate: "Item OriKinal Plan Revised Plan Right of Way $ 88,800.00 $ 82,800.00 Utility Relocation 72,000.00 75,600.00 Construction 144~400.00 210~400.00 Total $305,200.00 ~ $368,800.00 Increase $ 63,800.00" Mr. Roosevelt said the 6ost of the original plan for the three Rio Road projects was $547,000.00. Substituting the s~cond alignment for the first in the case of the entrance to Pen Park would increase the cost for three projects to $610,800.00. Mr. Roosevelt said this alignment would ~educe the damage to property adjacent to the entrance. Under the original alignment, Ms. Daniels, an adjacent landowner would have lost her rock wall and a good deal of her front lawn and Mr. Stanley, another adjacent landowner, would have lost some of his 504 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 4) lawn as well. Under the revised alignment, Mr. Stanley loses none of his property. He said Ms. Daniels will still lose her rock wall but she will lose less of her property. Mrs. Cooke asked what VDoT would use to replace the rock wall. Mr. Roosevelt said Ms. Daniels would be paid for the loss of the land and the wall. She may choose to use this money to have a new wall built, he said. Mrs. Cooke asked how much front lawn will be left for Ms. Daniels. Mr. Roosevelt said her house is now 58 feet from the edge of the pavement at the closest point. Under the original alignment, the road would have been 45 feet from the house at the closest point. Under the revised alignment, the edge of the pavement will be 55 feet from the house. He added that widening the shoulders of the road will bring the shoulder within 40 feet of her house. Mrs. Cooke asked how YDoT planned to improve the intersection of Agnese Street and Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the banks will be cut back on the inside of the curve so a driver wishing to make a left turn onto Agnese Street will be able to see if someone is coming. He said this ~mprovement will not change the curvature of the intersection, widen the road or provide a turning lane. He said this project is estimated to cost $39,000. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution in support of the revised plan for improvements to Rio Road (Route 631) at the entrance to Pen Park (Route 768), and endorsed the previously presented plans for improvements to Rio Road at Agnese Street and Rio Road at Woodburn Road (Route 659). BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors o~ Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby support the revised plan for Project 0631-002-219, C501, Route 631 at the entrance to RoUte 768 (Pen Park), at a cost of $368,800, as presented at the Board of Supervi- sors meeting on August 10, 1988; and FURTHER endorses the proposed improvements for i';Route 631 at Agnese Street and Route 631 at Route 659 (Woodburn l{~ad) the total costs of all three projects being $610,800. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carrie'd by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins ahd Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Mr. Perkins said he has received a letter from a citizen, Mrs. Candell, concerning a one-lane bridge in Advance Mills. He asked if this bridge could be improved from the operations budget. Mr. Roosevelt said he has written a letter to Mrs. Candell telling her that this project must~be included in the Six Year Plan, which will not be revised again until the Winter of 1989. Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Michael H. Davis Waive~ Request. Proposal to subdivide a 7.704 acre parcel into two lots of 4.0 andi3.704 acres. The 3.704 acre lot is to be served by a new 20 foot easement. The applicant requests that an existing dwelling not be required to use this new easement and instead-continue to use an existing entrance to Route 751. (Waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance.) Propertyi described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 26G, is located on the south side of Routei~751 approximately two-tenths of a mile west of Route 683 and two-£enths of a mile south of Route 250. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District.) Received for the record was a letter dated July 21, t988, requesting a waiver. Mr. Home presented the staff's report as follows: August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 505 "History: This parcel was created in a subdivision that was approved September 28, 1984. A building permit was issued in the spring of 1986. Staff Comment: The owner has requested a separate entrance because a shared entrance would "deter from the value and looks of our proper- ty''. The owner also states that the water line in the front yard of the house would make access across there impossible. The Subdivision Ordinance allows for a waiver of Section 18-36(f) under the following conditions: existing development, topography or other physical consideration as distinguished from a special privi- lege or convenience, or to alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant degradation to the environment of the site or adjacent properties. This parcel was created and developed after the current Subdivision Ordinance went into effect and staff cannot support the argument that existing development prohibits joint access. Topography and safety of access are not, issues here. The property has no restrictive topography and the Virginia Department of Trans- portation has determined that the existing entrance is adequate. The proposed entrance can gain adequate sight distance with only minor clearing of growth in the right-of-way or on-site. Staff recommends denial of this request for a waiver of Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following condition: Recommended Condition of Approval: Planning staff approval of technical notes on the subdivision plat." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 19, 1988, denied this request by a vote of five to one. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to speak to the Board. Mr. John Dezio addressed the Board and said he is representing both Mr. James W. Davis, Jr., the owner of the parcelt and Mr. Michael Davis, the potential purchaser of the second lot. He p~esented several groups of photo- graphs to the Board, showing the proposed sites for the driveway. He said this request meets the requlremgnts for a variance under section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance. The Subdivision Ordinance allows for waivers in the case of existing development,~he said, and he interprets this to mean the development existing at the time~of the subdivision proposed by the Davises, not the division that created the original parcel on September 28, 1984. Mr. James Davis' house ~onstitutes an existing development, he said, and should be granted ~he waiver. If a driveway were to be built across t~e front of the property to the proposed 20-foot right-of-way, it would interfere with the water line serving this property, a utility line and a septic system. If the driveway were built down the western side of the property, it wo~ld traverse hills and gullies and between 200 and 300s tree would have to be c~t. He said this would signifi- cantly degrade the environment. He said his iclients are not seeking a special privilege or convenience; they believe that ~his request for a variance should be granted on the grounds set forth in section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance. ~ Since no one else wished to speak concerning this appeal, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. 506 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meetingl (Page 6) Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the water line is buried deeply enough to withstand a driveway running on top of it and the driveway could be designed to bypass the well. Mr. Perkins, who visited the site with Mr. Bain, said building a driveway over the water line will make the line more likely to freeze, even if the water line is located below the freeze line. He said he thinks the most practical thing to do is to approve the waiver based on the topography of the lot and the environment of the area. He said building the second driveway will cause runoff into the watershed, but he does not think one more entrance onto Route 751 is going to make the road unsafe. Mr. Bain said the Board, the Planning Commission and VDoT have been trying to reduce the number of private entrances onto public roads for years. He said this is a close case, but he believes a reasonabie alternative for a driveway does exist. For this reason, and because he supports the reduction of private roads spilling onto state routes, he said he Will not support the request for a waiver. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John about the dispute over the term "exist- ing structures". Mr. St. John said he does not like to admit it, but he disagrees with the staff's interpretation of this term. He believes the term "existing" refers to the conditions now, as the application comes before the Board. If the term "existing" is ambiguous, he said, the property owner has the benefit of the doubt. He said the applicant may hav~ brought this hard- ship upon himself, but he believes that a judge would side with the applicant. Mr. Home said he must reluctantly disagree with the opinion just pre- sented by the County Attorney. For the past eight years~'., he said, the Plan- ning Commission has interpreted the term "existing development" to mean the development that existed before the passage of the Subdigision Ordinance. If the condition is applied as the County Attorney suggests~!' there will be many applicants who build their houses in inconvenient locations, subdivide their property and complain that they cannot comply with the O~.dinance. He said he does not believe that Mr. Davis was aware of the Ordinanda when he built his house, but other applicants might try to circumvent the ~dinance by building their houses in difficult locations. If a judge is goingi to interpret "exist- ing structures" as Mr. St. John suggested, Mr. Horne said~i he thinks this part of the Ordinance should be clarified to convey the meani~g intended by the staff. ~! Despite the dispute of the meaning of this condition~, Mr. }tome conclud- ed, the staff recommended that this request be denied bec~ause the staff believes a driveway serving both houses can be built on t~his property. He said many such requests have passed through the Planning ~epartment. Waiving the requirements in this case will make it very difficulti~ilfor the staff to enforce this section of the ordinance, he said. i!i Mr. Lindstrom said he believes the focus of the Ordinance is not to make it convenient for property owners to divide their land, b~t to preserve the public investment, in this case, in Route 751, which serves this development. He said he has not heard counsel for the applicant say Mr[ Davis cannot meet the requirements of the Ordinance, but that it is inconvehient for him to meet these requirements. ~ Mr. Perkins said he would agree to this argument if the road in question were Route 250 instead of Route 751. He said there is little traffic on Route 751 and it is unlikely to increase, because nearly all the lots on this road have been developed. He said he is more concerned that the County help people in these situations, because they cannot be expected to know every County ordinance. He said he supports waiving the requirement a~d allowing the applicant an additional 20-foot easement to serve the property behind his lot. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mrs. ~ooke, to approve the waiver request. There was no further discussion. Roll w~s called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Perkins and Way. Messrs. Bain and Lindstrom. Mr. Bowie. August 10, 1988 (Regular DayMeeting) (Page 7) 507 (Note: The Board recessed at 10:56 A.M and reconvened at 11:05 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 9. Tow Truck Policy. Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a revised policy on the use of wreckers by the County Police Department. He said the policy is ready to be imple- mented on September 1, 1988. A policy was first adopted by the Police Depart- ment in 1984, and reviewed and amended in 1986. The 1988 revisions include an expanded record system of calls for service, both those from vehicle owners and those from officers. The responsibility for maintaining the records, and contacting the wrecker operators listed on the rotation list, is being trans- ferred from the 911 Emergency Dispatch Center to the ServiceDivision of the Police Department. A service area map has been drawn to delineate areas that can be reached in approximately twenty minutes by the wrecker service being called. Mr. Agnor said that recommendatiOns from wrecker service operators have been included in this policy. Any ideas rejected were discussed with the wrecker service operators who participated in the review process. Mr. Way said the need for a revised policy on the use of wreckers was brought to his attention a few months ago. He thanked the staff and wrecker operators for working together to revise this policy to everyone's satisfac- tion. · Mr. Jack Marshall of the Airport Auto C&nter, addressed the Board and said his service is listed in Sector One along with other services, such as Herring Wrecker, which must send wreckers from as far as Fifth Street Extended. He said he does not think these services could answer a call on U.S. Route 29 North at Airport Road in 20 minutes or less. In the case of an accident involving two vehicles, he said, itl, does not make sense to him to call in two different wrecker services. He laid he suggested that the same service handle both vehicles and be skipped ~ne turn in the rotation, but he was told this could not be done. NevertheleSs, he said, he is grateful for the revised policy, because he thinks now he3iwill get his fair share of business. ~ If any service consistently takes longer than 20 minutes to answer a call, Mr. Agnor said, the sector for that service will be limited. He said the wrecker operators suggested that more than one company be called in to handle multi-vehicle accidents. ~ Mr. Marshall said he is concerned that the company closest to the acci- dent may not be called in, just because it w~s not that company's turn. He said the policy should be flexible enough to i~allow the wrecker service closest to the accident to handle the call and then ~kip over that company later to distribute the business evenly. Mr. Way said the revised policy should be given a chance to work; adjust- ments may be made later. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: To consider revocation of Special Permits 77-83 and 83-5, issued to David Lee Spradlin. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 26 and August 2, 1988.i) Mr. Charles Burgess, Zoning Administrator, addressed the Board and said Mr. Spradlin has violated the conditions of SP-77-83, allowing the operation of a public garage, and SP-83-5, permitting the use of a mobile home for office space. He said Mr. Spradlin was alloWed to have no more than two inoperable vehicles on his property; as of August 9, 1988, there were 150 inoperable vehicles. Since July 9, 1982, th~ Zoning Department has issued four notices to Mr. Spradlin warning him of His violation of this condition. On November 21, 1983, the Zoning Department obtained a warrant charging Mr. Spradlin for having inoperable vehicles on his property. Mr. Burgess said Mr. Spradlin was found guilty in General Distric6iCourt, fined and ordered to remove the vehicles. These vehicles were removed on January 3, 1984. By May 22, 1987, there were approximately 500 i~operable vehicles on this prop- erty and Mr. Spradlin received a notice from ~the Zoning Department telling him 508 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 8) that the junk yard he was operating was not permitted. Once again, a warrant was issued and on June 13, 1988, the General District Court found Mr. Spradlin guilty, fined him and ordered the removal of the remaining 200 inoperable vehicles from his property. On August 9, 1988, Mr. Burgess said, Mr. Benjamin Dick, legal counsel for Mr. Spradlin, filed two applications with the Zoning Department: a request for an amendment to the special use permit to allow him to keep the inoperable vehicles currently on the property and, a request for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to change the definition of "public garage" to include the salvage and demolition of vehicles. Mr. Burgess said that Mr. Kenny Thacker, the zoning officer who has handled this case for the past four years, is present today and will answer any questions abOut the site. Mr. Way opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Dick if he wished to address the Board. Although he is now a lawyer, Mr. Dick said, he was the Zoning Administra? tor when SP-77-83 was approved. He said he performed the first inspection of this property and noted that Mr. Spradlin had complied with the conditions of the special use permit. He said he thinks the Board should take this opportunity, not to revoke these permits, but to help Mr~ Spradlin, a hard-working man, deal with the Zoning Ordinance. He said he has reviewed all the documentation for this case, and found no sign of the' County's willingness to help Mr. Spradlin, no suggestion that he might requesf a rezoning or a new special permit, or that the definition of "public garage!i does not work. '~ He said Mr. Mr. Dick said Mr. Spradlin has a thriving business.~j Spradlin's neighbors support his business and he presented a petition signed by over 200 citizens asking that the Board either amend ~he special permits or the Zoning Ordinance. He said residents in the southern~ipart of the County need the services provided by Mr. Spradlin and pointed out that even Mr. Spradlin's competitors, Mr. Grant Cosner and Mr. Charlie'i~ingrea, signed the petition. Mr. Dick said there is no salvage yard in the~southern part of the County and it costs residents $20 to $50 more to have an old car towed to the nearest salvage yard in the City. He said Mr. Dick has ~ business license, a State salvage license and pays County taxes on his business. He said he believes that the Zoning Department asked that the State,revoke this salvage license, but the State has not complied with this reques~i. Mr. Dick said many citizens have resisted the changes brought about by the Zoning Ordinance, citizens such as Mr. Bobby Sweeney,. who has run a non-conforming junk yard along Route 53 for years despite warrants, injunc- tions and fines. He said these citizens are fine people i~and have the right tc have their businesses in the County, even though they do '.inot have a lot of money to put into their businesses. He said the busines~ operated by Mr. Spradlin may not be attractive, but it is honorable. ~ Mr. Dick said he thinks a public hearing should be held on whether the Zoning Ordinance is so restrictive that it disallows wha~ should be considered a typical use for a modern garage. Perhaps "garage" to ay now means an operation like Jim Price Chevrolet, he said, where everything is squeaky- clean. ~ Mr. Dick said Mr. Spradlin's operation is not visible from the road and is backed by a dense pine forest. He said friends and m~bers of the familY live on either side of the garage and they do not complaih~ about the business He thinks this would be the first time the Board has revved a special use permit, he said, and he cannot believe that the members ~f the Board would be that hard on this man and his family. He said this business is needed in the southern part of the County and his client is willing to ~omply with any conditions the Board may place on an amended special use ~ermit. He asked that the Board not revoke the special use permits but allgw the requests for an amended permit to go through the normal process. He s~id he is not sure h~ and his client will go through with the request for rezonmng; perhaps Mr. Spradlin's business is better suited to an industrial zone. Ms. Athlene Harris said she owns and lives on five agres of property nex~ to Mr. Spradlin. She said the vehicles on Mr. Spradlins' ~property are visible August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 509 from her house, especially in the winter, and pose a possible danger to her three-year old son. Since no one else wished to speak to this issue, Mr. Way closed the public hearing and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. St. John said he believes the Board has several procedural choices in this case: act on the matter before it today, the revocation of the special use permits, and treat the zoning application as a separate matter; or defer action on the revocation and take time to consider Mr. Dick's suggestions and the applications he has filed. In his opinion, the definition of a junk yard in the Zoning Ordinance covers an automobile salvage yard, which can be operated only in areas zoned Heavy Industrial and only with a special use permit. He said Mr. Spradlin is running a de facto junk yard, which is a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. If the Board feels there is truth in Mr. Dick's comments, then perhaps the Board should consider rezoning. He urged the Board to revoke the license or consider amending the special use permit or rezoning, because this business clearly violates the Zoning Ordinance and the staff must enforce the Ordinance. Either the Ordinance must be changed or the illegal business suppressed, he concluded. Mr. Way said he has been aware of this violation for some time. While many people in the area may support the business, many do not. He agreed that there may be a need for this service in this part of the County and Mr. Spradlin has the reputation of doing a goodljob. He said he has no objection to considering some of Mr. Dick's suggestionS, but he does not think the Board should condone an operation that has been illegal for quite some time now. He said he would be willing to hear Mr. Spradlin's request for rezoning. Mr. St. John said he recently handled ai!.case dealing with a salvage yard in Louisa County and learned that there are ,many environmental issues involved with a salvage yard. He said 500 vehicles can generate a lot of gasoline and oil and there are stringent requirements concerning the handling of petroleum products during the dismantling of vehicles ~n a salvage yard. If this were a new application before t~ie Board, Mr. Way said, the Board could impose conditions to insure the safe d~sposal of petroleum products. He said Mr. Spradlin may even be helping the ar~a; otherwise, residents might just tow their old cars out to the woods. H~ said he thinks the problem should be handled from a beginning point, so !these conditions can be imposed. That the Board is even considering a zoning text amendment or amending the conditions, Mr. Lindstrom said, testifie~ to Mr. Dick's "silver tongue". He said he thinks the Board should remember the history of this case and question the utility of amending the conditiHns because Mr. Spradlin has repetitively violated one condition for the Past ten years. He said everyone in the County is expected to abide by the Zoning Ordinance. How can the Board take the big offenders to court if it does nat make the small offenders comply with the Ordinance, he asked. He said he th~nks changing the law to encourage compliance is a travesty and allows one indigidual to flout the law in a way that encourages everyone to disobey the law. He said he has the obligation to hear any amendment to the Zoning Ordinance teat is proposed in the proper procedure and at the proper time, but such an application is not before the Board now. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said the only reason this !l~problem has gone on as long as it has is because Mr. Spradlin and his represen~atives have repeatedly promised to comply with the Ordinance, have complied for a while and then things returned to the way they were. He said no one from this area has asked that the zoning be changed in this part of the CoUnty until now. He thinks the time to consider amending the special use permit or changing the zoning is when applications for the aforementioned are !before the Board. He said it seems to him that the only issue before the Board today is whether to revoke the permit after it has been violated for ten years. He said he believes that deferring action or amending the permit will ~destroy any incentive for the staff to enforce the Ordinance fairly and se~ a precedent for other business people and developers who find it inconvenient to comply with County regula- tions. He said it appalls him that one person can appear before the Board with a good speech and the resolve behind the Zoning Ordinance crumbles. 510 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting. (Page Mr. Bain said Mr. Spradlin or his representative could have filed for an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance years ago. If the Zoning Ordinance is not enforced, he said, the County might as well not have one. He said it boggles his mind to think the Board might be expected to do something other than revoke these permits today. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bain and she thinks the Board should deal with the matter before it today. Mr. Dick asked if he could address some of the concerns expressed by Board members. He said Mr. Spradlin asked for an amendment to his special use permit and his request was approved by the Board in 1985~ He said Mr. Spradlin's legal counsel in those days did not advise his client as to the options he could pursue, such as requesting that his property be rezoned. He said he does not think his client should be penalized for his ignorance of the zoning law. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Spradlin is also ignorant of the conditions attached to his special use permit. Mr. Dick said his client keeps vehicles because people keep bringing them to him. He said the Board had the chance to revoke the special use permit in 1983 and did not. He said revoking this permit now woul~i deny the citizens a chance to be heard. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr~i Bain, to revoke SP-77-83 and SP-83-5. There was no further discussion. ~Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Telephone System Study. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated lAugust 4, 1988: "As a result of incorporating rescue squad dispatchfng in the 911 Center, the City, County and the University formed ~ijoint committee to look at the long range radio telecommunications meeds of the three jurisdictions with a future goal of integrating and ~oordinating these systems. An outgrowth of the committee's effort was a recogni- tion that a separate study was necessary to assess the telephone and data transmission needs of the County and the City iR light of expanding requirements, demands for service and the ~mpact of changing technology. To determine the feasibility a~d the cost of such a study, an RFP was issued jointly by the City ~nd the County to obtain the services of an independent telecommunications consulting firm. The decision to pursue a study at this time, at leas~ for the County, is the critical need to supplement or replace our ex~sting telephone system which is close to maximum use of its capabilities. When the existing system was installed in 1981, it was recognized that in five to seven years an expansion would be required. In 1986, the system reached capacity, and a reduction in the number of i~struments was accomplished by removing infrequently used extension~, and by taking Federal and State agencies in the building off the s~stem, thereby encouraging those agencies to install their own separate systems. This effort provided additional life to our system, ~hich is again nearing capacity with thirteen extensions remaining ~or any required expanded use. According to Centel, only by purchasing an additional switch or replacing our present system with a digital PBX system, can we expand this capability. Additionally, a line study analysis completed by Cen~ that our system, designed to carry 29,400 seconds of is now carrying an average peak load of 39,500 secon~ this overload, incoming lines that were engineered t~ one failure per 100 incoming calls now experience ei el in May showed usage per hour, s. Because of experience only ht failures, a August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 511 strong indication that the public is having difficulty dialing into our system. The decision to issue a joint RFP with the City was based on two major factors: one, that there would be a cost benefit in contract- ing the study together; and two, that there might be technological benefits as well as economy of scale in a common system or at least compatible systems. The RFP required a breakdown of the costs of studying the telephone systems together and the costs of studying them separately for each jurisdiction. In response to the KFP, 21 proposals were submitted and are currently under review by a staff evaluation committee composed of the Director of Finance, Director of Information Services, Assistant Superinten- dent for Finance and Administration and. the Management Analyst in the County Executive's Office. The City and County committees plan to meet on August 17 to select five or six'top firms to interview during the last two weeks of August with an anticipated selection by September 1. If approved, the consulting firm is expected to com- plete the first two phases of the study by January 1 with a recommen- dation to be incorporated into the FY 1989-90 budget cycle. The proposal itself consists of five separate phases: Phase I, Analysis of Existing Systems; Phase II,ilAssessment of Future Needs and Options; Phase III, Preparation of Bidding Specifications; Phase IV, Bid Evaluation; and Phase V, System Implementation. The proposals for the first two phases indicate an average cost of $38,850 with the County portion estimated to be approximately $20,000 to $25,000. The cost of the study woul~ increase by 12 percent to 33 percent if contracted separately by thei'l"County, dependent upon which proposal would be accepted. Having determined an approximate cost t~ begin the updating of our telephone system with a technical studyi~of our options, and knowing the estimated savings to contract for the study with the City, staff requests your approval to proceed with the first two phases as outlined above to provide hard costs fo~ the FY 89-90 budget. The study can be funded with the unspent bal~ance of the 911 budget in FY 87-88 allocated for rescue squad implementation costs. The Radio- Telecommunications study is proceeding, .~but due to the complexity and diversity of the systems involved is stfll in the information gather- ing and planning stage. The joint committee expects to send out an RFP for the radio study in the fall." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom andlseconded by Mr. Perkins to authorize the staff to proceed with the first two phases of the study as outlined in the August 4 memorandum. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the folIowing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrdm, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Agenda Item No. 13. Request to set a pUblic hearing for extension of Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for water and sewer to Tax Map 56, Parcel 67. Mr. Martin Schulman made his request to the Board in a letter dated July 9, 1988, which is on file in the Clerk's offiee. Mr. Horne said Mr. Schulman has also requested a special use permit to operate a veterinary practice on Lhis property. I-Ie said the property is on the north side of Route 240, across from Con ~gra. If the Board chooses to set this request for public hearing, Mr. I-Iorne said, the staff assumes that the Board will consider the special use permi~ at the same time. Mr. Home said the staff has no recommendation at this time concerning Mr. Shulman's request for extension of water and sewer service. He said it 512 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 12 would be unusual for the Planning Department to recormnend the extension of sewer service outside the growth area. He said the staff must also consider that the applicant is requesting that water and sewer service be extended to a new facility, rather than an existing one. Nor has the applicant demonstrated that there is a problem with the existing water supply. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Schulman claims that excessive levels of Trichloroethylene, an industrial chemical and carcinogen; have been detected in a well at the Acme Visible site, which borders the property on the south. He asked the staff to check this claim. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not think the service area for sewer has been extended since the boundaries were set. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Horne if extending the boundaries for sewer service would require a revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Home said marginal changes in the service area could be made without revising the Comprehensive Plan, but this may not be a margin- al change, since the request is for service to a new facility outside a growth area. Mr. Perkins asked if anyone has estimated the cost of extending the sewage line to Mr. Schulman's property. Mr. Schulman said he has made some casual inquiries concerning the cost he will incur if the Board approves his request. He said the closest access point is the end ofl,the sewer line behind Starke's Market on a property contiguous to his land. He said this line ends about 800 feet from a potential building site on his property. Mr. Perkins asked if the sewer line to Mr. Schulman!is property could be gravity-fed. Mr. Schulman said there is a difference off'around ten feet between the sewer line and his property, but he does not!know whether this slope would suffice for a gravity-fed sewage line. He said it might be possible to place a private pump at the clinic. ~ Mr. Schulman said he has been working with Mr. John ~Knapp, an architect from Wisconsin who specializes in veterinary clinics. Mm. Schulman said Mr. Knapp has visited the site and feels that extending the siewer line to this property would entail only routine engineering practices.~ He said his clinic has been on this site for six years, providing the only veterinary service between Charlottesville and Waynesboro. He said the limited size of the clinic is impeding the service he can provide to the area~ He said the quality of the water source for the existing site is ques- tionable. He said excessive levels of trichloroethylene %have been found in one of the wells at Acme Visible Records. He said he has! contacted the State Water Control Board, the Department of Waste Management and Acme and asked officials of the three bodies to investigate this matter.i~~ He said he is concerned that a private firm hired by Acme is the only ~oup investigating the problem; neither the State Water Control Board nor t~ Health Department is studying the contamination. He said no one knows wheriA the trichloroethy- lene is coming from; an official from Acme claims it origlfnated off the site. Mr. Schulman said it will be at least a year before the Si~ate Water Control Board studies the problem and publishes its findings. In~iithe meantime, he said, he is concerned about his property, which is a natural drainage basin for Acme. i~ Mr. Schulman said there is a water line running alon~ the southern portion of this parcel. He said there also appears to be'i~a mistake in the jurisdictional designation for water and sewer service tol. Tax Map 58, parcel 67A. He said his house and the current Crozet VeterinaryiClinic are on this property and have received water and sewer service for the past eight years, but the Tax Map does not show this parcel within the jurisdiction of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Once this mistake is,,corrected, he said, parcel 67 will be surrounded by four properties that are ~ithin the area designated to receive public water and sewer service. '~ Within the past five years, he continued, waste control experts have decided it is no longer appropriate to have canine wastes~ifrom kennel runs channeled into traditional septic drainage fields. He said he could have a holding tank installed on the property but he thinks the best solution for this kind of effluent in the long run is extending a sewe= line to this parcel. He said he has no interest in developing the property beyond the expansion of the clinic. He said this parcel was in the ~rowth area until 1983, when the Board decided to down-zone land that dramned into the August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) 513 Lickinghole Creek drainage area. He said he believes the building site he is considering is set back at least 200 feet from the stream. One of the reasons he wishes to relocate the clinic, he said, is to allow the building to be set back further from the stream than it is now. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins and seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to set a public hearing for extension of Albemarle County Service Authority service area boundaries for water and sewer to Tax Map 56, Parcel 67, to coincide with the special use permit requested by Mr. Schutman. Mr. St. John asked if the Board intended to go through the process of revising the Comprehensive Plan with the Planning Commission. Mr. Horne said he does not think this case merits a revision of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with the idea of extending sewer service to an area that is incompatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He said he thinks it would be appropriate to have the opinion of the Planning Commis- sion on this request. Mr. Home said it would be easy for the Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan in light of this request. Mr. Bain said he would support the motion for a public hearing but he does not think he can support the request to extend sewer service. In his motion, Mr. Perkins included that the Board request comments from the Planning Commission as to whether a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is necessary. Mrs. Cooke agreed to the amended~motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion Carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Not Docketed: At 12:40 P'.M., a motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Bain for an executive session on legal matters pertaining to the Flea Market on Route 250 East; legal aspects of the Spradlin revocation; and personnel matters. Roll was called and ~he motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Llndstr~m, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ~ ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. The Board reconvened into open session ~t 1:50 P.M. Agenda Item No. 14. Service Officers' unit. August 2, 1988.) Public Hearing: Ordinance creating a Community (Advertised in the Daily Progress July 26 and Mr. Agnor explained that the staff had made the corrections requested by the Board in the operating procedures for this group, but the Board does not need to adopt the procedures. Mr. Way opened the public hearing. SinCe no one wished to speak to this ordinance, Mr. Way closed the public hearing 'and placed the matter before the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he had been concerned about the function of the community service officers. He said "crime prevention" is listed as one of their functions, a term nebulous enough to encompass many things he would rather the volunteers not attempt. He said h~e thought the term "crime preven- tion'' would be excised from the revised ordinance but he sees that it is still listed as a function of the community serviceiofficer. Mr. Agnor said that "crime prevention" i~ intended to include activities such as the Neighborhood Watch program, citizens' groups, and anti-drug programs in the schools. Mr. Lindstrom suggested a change to the fourth paragraph of the proposed ordinance. ; 514 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting (Page 14 Mrs. Cooke asked how much it would cost the County to establish the Community Service Force. Mr. Agnor said it would cost between $4000 and $5000 to furnish between 20 and 25 volunteers with uniforms and equipment. Mrs,. Cooke said the lack of public interest concerns her. Not even a representative from the Police Department showed up at the public hearing, she said. Mr. Agnor said he told the Police Department staff that it was not necessary for any of them to speak at the public hearing~ since they had met many times with the committee seeking to establish the volunteer force. Mr. Way pointed out that Mr. Bowie served on this committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. Perkins to adopt the ordinance as advertised with the amended language in Paragraph Four, Line Five as follows: ". . . control, to provide public education and information in crime detection " Mr. Lindstrom aslso suggested that this same language be included in "Level 2" of the Operating Procedures. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. (The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below:) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia: There is hereby created a volunteer community service force which shall be designated the Albemarle County CommUnity Service Force. " The Albemarle County Community Service Force SHall consist of unpaid volunteer citizens deszgnated Volunteer Communzty Servzce Officers, who shall be under the direct supervisionfiof the Chief of Police of Albemarle County. ~ The purpose and function of the Albemarle County Volunteer Service Force shall be to provide assistance to the~iChief of Police and the regular county police force in the maintenance of police records and communications, and dealing with traffi~ control, crowd control, to provide public education and informatio~ in crime preven- tion and detection, and similar police activities; p~rov~ded, that no Volunteer Community Service Officer shall carry weapons of deadly force or have power of arrest. Uniforms and equipment for Volunteer Community~Mervice Officers; the qualification and training of candidates; duties and operating procedures; and all other matters not specified in this ordinance relating to the Albemarle County Community Service ~orce shall be as prescribed by regulations recommended from time to ~ime by the Chief of Police and County Executive, and approved by the~iBoard of Supervz- sors. Uniforms and equipment shall be provided by ~he County from the budget of the County Police Force. Volunteer Community Service Officers shall not ~e deemed County employees for purposes of tenure nor shall they be s~ubject to the County Employee Grievance Procedure. Agenda Item No. 15. Board and Public. To the extent possible, Volunteer Community Service Officers shall be covered by the County's liability insurance: and by the County's workmen's compensation insurance as to injuries sustained during performance of their duties. Other Matters Not Listed on the4~ Agenda From the August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) 515 Mr. Horne said the staff has been working with the developer of Forest Lakes subdivision for the past few months. Of particular interest to both parties, Mr. Horne said, is the design of a roadway that runs through the subdivision and that has been shown as part of the alignment for the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said this road would lie in the area north of the lake in Hollymead. Mr. Horne said the staff has discussed this matter with VDoT in an attempt to come up with an ultimate design for the roadway if it is to become part of the parkway. He said the staff must reach an agreement with VDoT in order to be allowed to have the road built to less than ultimate standards, and absolving VDoT from having to upgrade the road when and if it becomes a part of the Meadow Creek Parkway. He said VDoT has agreed to allow the road to be built to lower standards under certain conditions. One of these condi- tions is that the road be built so that no more than three inches would have to be added to bring the road up to its final, two-lane capacity. Mr. Home pointed out sections of the road of the Timberwood Boulevard and said all but the yellow section, 300 feet long and in Category 2, could be built by the developer now and would meet the condition mentioned above. The section of the Category 2 road would have to be built up more in order to meet the VDoT's condition, but the County cannot require the developer to add more asphalt. Mr. Horne said he recommlends that the Board authorize the expendi- ture of the funds necessary to bring this section of the road up to a level acceptable to the VDoT. He estimated that this project would cost around $18,000. If the Board does not authorize t~is expenditure, he said, the developer cannot provide public road access to internal subdivision streets and the staff will not be able to grant occupancy permits to houses in this area because they will not have access to a public road. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seco~ded by Mrs. Cooke that the staff be authorized to proceed with the section or, roadway to be called Timberwood Boulevard in Forest Lakes Subdivision on the!~.southernmost end of the Roudabush and Gale plat, before the Board today, and which Mr. Horne indicated is about a 300 foot section, with the understanding that the Board may need to appro- priate from the Capital Improvement Program ~udget approximately $18,000 to thicken the asphalt to VDoT standards. Ther~ was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~m, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None~ ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. 'I Agenda Item No. 10a. Appropriation: C~ean Community Commission. Mr. Agnor said the County received the FY 1988-89 Grant from the Virginia Division of Litter Control and Recycling. Mr. Agnor said it was found this morning that this item is already included in the FY 88-89 budget, so an appropriation is not necessary. Item 10b. Appropriation: Moderate Rehabilitation Grant. Mr. Agnor said this appropriation request is for the estimated FY 88-89 Housing Assistance Payments under the Federal Moderate Rehabilitation Grant. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution approving this request: "Fiscal Year: 88/89 Fund: Moderate Rehabilitation Purpose of Appropriation: Funding of 88-89 Program Expenditure Cost Center Category 1122781920302100 1122781920302110 1122781920302120 1122781920302130 Description Amount Housing Assistance Vacancy Loss Payments Damage/Unpaid Rent Utility Reimbursement Total $ 900,000.00 32,000.00 45,000.00 38,000.00 $1,015,000.00 516 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting~ (Page 16 Revenue 2122733000330001 Description Grant Revenue-Federal Total Amount $1,015,000.00 $1,015,000.00" There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Item 10c. Appropriation: Bennington Channel - Storm Drainage Project. Mr. Agnor said the Capital Improvements budget includes a storm drainage project for the Bennington Channel in the amount of $50,000. The County's share of the project is $46,500 with the balance of $3,500 being paid by the Albemarle County Service Authority. This appropriation is for the Service Authority share which has been received and deposited in the Capital Improve- ment Fund. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke 'and seconded by Mr. Bain to approve the request by adopting the following resolution: "Fiscal Year: 88/89 Fund: CIP Purpose of Appropriation: Funding of balance on Be~nington Woods Stream Improvements. Albemarle County Authority share. Expenditure Cost Center Category 1910041044704000 1900093010596003 Description Amount Bennington Woods Stream $3,500.00 Improvements CIP Transfer to Storm Drainage 3,500.00 Total $7,000.00 Revenue 2900051000510100 2910051000512000 There was no further discussion. by the following recorded vote: Description Amount Appropriations from Fund ~ $3,500.00 Balance Transfer from CIP 3,500.00 TotaIi~ $7,000.00" Roll was called and the motion carried AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NONE: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Item No. 10d. Appropriation: TIPS Program. The County is fiscal agent for a joint Federal grant with the City of Charlottesville (TIPS). The grant provides funds for training of school students in crime awareness. The grant was concluded in FY 86-87, however, additional revenues were received resulting from the sale of training materi- als developed by the staff, copyrighted and sold to other~jurisdictions. The current fund balance in the TIPS Fund is $1,669.27 and that amount needs to be appropriated for FY 88-89. This will close out all activities of the TIPS Program. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following two resolutions approving the requests. "Fiscal Year: 87/88 Fund: TIPS Purpose of Appropriation: Additional Funding for FY 87/88 August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) Expenditure Cost Center Category 1200463350100135 1200463350200100 1200463350200300 1200463350201500 1200463350700100 Description Amount Comp-Teachers FICA-Employer Share Life Insurance-Part Time Salary Reserve-Merit Machinery & Equipment Total $10,700.20 778.04 7.68 171.28 4,572.00 $16,229.20 Revenue Description Amount 517 2200451000510100 2200416000160502 Appropriation from Fund Balance City of Charlottesville Total $ 274.07 15,955.13 $16,229.20" "Fiscal Year: 88/89 Fund: TIPS Purpose of Appropriation: Funding of FY 88/89 Program Expenditure Cost Center Category 1200463350700100 Description Amount Machinery & Equipment Total $1,669.27 $1,669.27 Revenue Description Amount 2200451000510100 Appropriation from Fund Balance 'Total $1,669.27 $1,669.27" There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstr~m, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Item 10e. Reappropriations. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to make reappropiations for FY 88-89 as requested, to cover the following items which were budgeted and ordered prior to June 30, 1988: "Board of Supervisors PACC-Transit Study $20,000.00 This is a joint project with the City and University for a compre- hensive transit study. This project was authorized by the Board of Supervisors on June 8, 1988, to be funded from their Fiscal Year 87-88 Contingency Funds. Printing & Copy Services To reprint County Code $ 8,100.00 Information Services Furniture & Fixtures $ 7,200.00 Finance Department Data Processing Services The computer connection to the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles planned for FY 87-88 has just been completed. This amount included the initial installation and connections fees. $ 4,000.00 Office Supplies Tax forms on order but not received~as of 3une 30, 1988. $ 3,800.00 518 Furniture & Fixtures Data Processing Equipment Needed for DMV computer connection Police Department Vehicle Supplies Purchase of Tachographs Security Supplies Purchase of Handguns and Clips Communication Equipment Uniforms Animal Control Vehicle Supplies Purchase of Tachographs Engineering Professional Services Design Fees & Plans for Milton Drive Consultants Balance due on Route 678 Road Plans Furniture Staff Services Repair & Maintenance Landfills Keene Landfill Purchase of stone for uncompleted project VPA-Administration Data Processing Equipment Food Stamps Furniture & Fixtures Planning Data Processing - Consultants Funding for computerized traffic model Printing & Copy Services Printing for new ComprehenSive Plan Extension Service Data Processing Equipment Equipment to be used for Gypsy Moth Program Total August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meetingl (Page 181 $ 400.00 $ 8,ooo. oo $13,223.00 $ 1,504.20 $16,245.00 $ 1,700.00 $ 2,833.50 $10,000.00 $ 445.00 $ 289.00 $11,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 340.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 1,600.00 $128,679.70" There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. August 10, 1988 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 519 Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda From the Board and Public. Mr. Bain said he has read the minutes of March 28, 1988. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Lindstrom, Perkins and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bowie. Mr. Lindstrom asked the staff to prepare a report on the interim criteria made available through the State Water Control Board and the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act that could be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the staff could present a report to the Board on the interim criteria by the first week in September, 1988. Mr. Way said the Board had requested an appointment with Highway Commlis- sioner Ray D. Pethtel concerning the Millington Bridge. Mr. Pethtel has offered two possible dates for the appointment: 3:00 P.M. on August 30 or 3:30 P.M.on September 1, 1988. Mr. Way said he must be out of town that week and asked if either one of the dates suited either Mr. Perkins or Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Perkins decided to meet with Mr. Pethtel on September 1, 1988. Agenda Item No. 16. Adjourn. At 2:24 P.M., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.