Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-010i July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 1, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., and Peter T. Way. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P~ Horne, 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. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve 4.1 and accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item No. 4.1. Request for a resolution to take Shadow Oaks Place, Liberty Oaks Court and Wildmere Place in Phases I and II of Raintree Subdivi- sion into the State Secondary System. As requested in a letter from Mr. Robert M. Hauser, Republic Homes, Inc., dated March 29, 1985, the following resolution was adopted: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Phases I and II of Raintree Subdivision: Shadow Oaks Place Beginning at station 0+19, a point common with the center- line of Shadow Oaks Place and the edge of pavement of State Route 652, thence in a southwesterly direction 815.64 feet to station 8+34.64, the end of the cul-de-sac. Liberty Oaks Court Beginning at station 0+15, a point common with the center- line of Liberty Oaks Court and the edge ~f pavement of Shadow Oaks Place at station 4+31.01, thence in a westerly direction 250 feet to station 2+65, the end of the cul-de-sac. Wildmere Place Beginning at station 0+17, a point common with the center- line of Wildmere Place and the edge of pavement of State Route 652, thence in a Westerly direction 498 feet to station 5+15, the end of the cul-de-sac. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by the plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 7~9, page 32, and Deed Book 833, page 103. July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) - (?age 2) Item No. 4.la. Letter dated June 19, 1987, from Mr. S. John Davis, Superintendent of Public Instruction, re: School Year 1987-88 Public Law 89-313 Grant Awards to supplement eligible handicapped stUdent's required programs of study, received as information. Item No. 4.2. County of Albemarle General District Court Report on Audit for the year ended June 30, 1986, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Account~ received and on file in the Clerk's Office. Item No. 4.3. Notice dated June 17, 1987 filed with the State Corpora- tion Commission by Central Virginia Electric Cooperative to increase its rates. Item No. 4.4. Copy of Minutes of the Planning Commission for June 16, 1987, received as information. Agenda Item No. 5. To receive public comments on the future use of Greenwood School Property (advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1987). Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to give a brief background on the Greenwood School property. Mr. Agnor said in April, 1987, the School Board declared the Greenwood School property as excess to school needs. By State law, this action triggers a process in which the property transfers to the ownership of the County Board of Supervisors, who has the responsibility of determining the property's future use. The Board requested staff to examine the property as to its future use and a report was made to the Board recently on this request. The staff examined the need for the property from a governmental agency point of view, and there was no need found. From a public need standpoint focusing on the~eed for a housing facility, it was reported to the B~ard that the property could be considered for the current Moderate Rehabilitation Program that provides funds to rehabilitate properties privately owned, through a rental assistance plan providing rent subsidies to the occupants of the property. The Board concluded that public comments should be sought. The Land Use policy in the Comprehensive Plan indicates that the property is not in a growth area, but in a rural area. Normally multi-family housing is not encouraged to be built or developed in a rural area as it often alters the rural character of an area. Consideration of this property for such housing may require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and/or a rezoning to a higher density than is currently shown for this property on the zoning map. The second policy in question is the Community Development policy in the the Comprehensive Plan, with a requirement to provide safe, sanitary, and adequate housing for residents of all income groups. The area in which Greenwood School is located is a target area for rehabilitation programs of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), which focuses on owner- occupied houses, not rental properties. The property is not in a "strategy area" as defined in the Community Development section of the Comprehensive Plan, which encourages concentrations of dense housing. The problem is access to utilities (public water or public sewer) in that part of the County. The staff concluded that the Board would need to consider the Land Use Policy and the Community Development Policy as to their effects on this particular project. At this time, the hearing was opened to take comments on the potential use of the Greenwood School building. Mr. John Sanderson, Chairman of the'Greenwood Citizens Council, said the Council has been meeting regularly to come up with a recommendation that the Council considers viable for the Greenwood Community. The main purpose of the Greenwood Citizens Council is to maintain the integrity, well-being, and planned development of the Greenwood area and its contiguous properties. Mr. Sanderson showed slides of the geography, location and structure of the property, giving a brief description of each slide. After the slide present- 03 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) ation, Mr. Sanderson said the Board of Directors of the Greenwood Citizens Council recommended that the building be used for housing for the elderly if there are no plans to use the building as an elementary school in the future. The Council's research indicates that old schools used in this way appear to be a practical solution to several problems:, 1) if properly planned, financed, and supervised, this use maintainsthe integrity of the community; 2) it would provide attractive residences for senior citizens in the County; 3) it would allow a wise utilization for an Outdated County structure. Mr. Sanderson asked the Board members to consider this recon~nendation. Mr. Sanderson introduced Mr. Vincent Yeaton. Mr. Vincent Yeaton, President-Elect of the Greenwood Ruritan Club, said he was interested in the property as a member of the Ruritan Club, and as an owner of the property adjacent to the school. He emphasized the amount of deterioration that has taken place since the school building has been closed. He emphasized also that as a residence for senior citizens, the property would be maintained and occupied for 24 hours a day, and would be something that would blend in with the small, quiet neighborhood of Greenwood. Other alter- natives for use were offices, either privately-owned or County-owned. Mr. Yeaton said he spoke with Mr. Jeff McDaniels~and was told that a great deal of research would have to be done into water and septic requirements. Hypothet- ically speaking, however, for adequate sewage disposal, two acres of land would be required for 16 to 18 residents; the current sewage system might possibly be included in that. With the estimated five to six acres of land behind-the school, it is possible that there~is the opportunity for housing without much difficulty. In addition, a well has recently been installed that is situated properly, away from other drainfields. The Club hopes someone will develop the property for senior housing~ Mr. Yeaton then introduced Mr. Donald Nobles. Mr. Donald Nobles, Chairman of the Newt0wn Community Action Association, said the Association has found that more senior citizens housing is needed in the area, and all concerned would like to ha~e one similar to The Meadows. The Meadows is well run, the upkeep is nice, and someone is on hand 24 hours to see that everything is run correctly; the facility is run in part by the County and in part by the Jordan DevelopmentCorporation Board. Mr. Nobles said everyone would like to keep the area in a rural, country look. Mr. Robert Osborne, said he has spoken with organizations and citizens concerning senior citizen housing. It was concluded that there is a need and an interest for a home for the elderly. If the Greenwood school property is developed and managed in a responsible manner, there is great community support for this being done. Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), said JABA has been very involved in encouraging use of the Greenwood property for elderly housing. JABA supports this use of the school. JABA is prepared to offer technical assistance to any private or public group interested in providing the type of housing being discussed. Safe and sound housing for the elderly is desperately needed in the County, whether it is an age-specific or age-integrated setting. JAB~ has experienced the problems inadequate housing has created for providing necessary health care for older persons in order to keep them out of a nursing home. Albemarle is a county that can well-afford to open its arms and embrace the needs of anyone requiring decent and affordable housing. This effort should be advanced utilizing whatever resources the County has at its disposal. JABA encourages the County to actively pursue such a commitmeht, opportunities are currently available for financing at the State level, a~d JABA hopes the County will move expeditiously on this matter. At this time, Mr. Fisher made note of people at the meeting from the Greenwood area. He asked them to stand to show their interest, commenting there is a good turnout (approximately~15 people stood). At this time, someone from the audience asked what the Board feels should be done with the Greenwood property. Mr. Fisher replied the Board is listening first and will make decisions later~ The person asked if there are any preconceptions about what should be done. Mr. Fisher replied not to his knowledge. ~ ? July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) Mr. William Daggett, of Daggett and Grigg Architects, is representing Tom Bernier, President of the Third Age, Inc., a home health agency specializing in assisting senior citizens in finding housing and home care. Mr. Daggett and Mr. Bernier visited Greenwood school to determine the school's condition. At the request of Mr. Bernier, Mr. Daggett's firm is pursuing a feasibility study to determine if the site can be developed for senior citizen housing. Mr. Daggett said Mr. Bernier sent a letter to Mr. Bowie as a formal statement of Mr. Burnier's interest in the property. Mr. George Dunn, a resident of Greenwood, is interested in housing for the elderly. During his father's later years, Mm. Dunn encountered great difficulty in finding housing for his father where he could be involved in activities and still be close to his family. Mr. Dunn said the Greenwood area is a nice area to live in because of the rural and the community aspects. Mr. Dunn felt he should speak to the Board to support the idea of using the property as a home for the elderly. The neighbors he has spoken with also support the idea of senior housing. The proximity to the Greenwood Co~unity Center is also an asset. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher summarized that many people still feel the building should be used as a school. However, if the building is not used for that Purpose, elderly housing seems to be the best use as far as the con~nunity is concerned. Mr. Way commented that when a subject such as this comes up people are reluctant to welcome this kind of a facility into their midst. He wants to say that it is a "breath of fresh air" hearing people speak tonight and he appreciates the comments. Mr. Nobles said everyone in the neighborhood that he has talked to has supported the site as a senior citizens home or somethinglfor the elderly because it is so needed in the area. The Meadows has about 15 people on their waiting list, and some of those on the list live in the G~eenwood neighborhood Mr. Bowie said to see a whole community stand up and recognize the critical need for housing for a segment of the community is very gratifying and he appreciates the support. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if anyone has come forward with a proposal. Mr. Agnor replied no because a formal proposal has not been solicited. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Wa~, to refer this question to the Building Committee for its scrutiny and recommendation to the Board. Mr. Fisher said he supports the motion. However, the issues of whether or not the project is viable from a standpoint of finances, architecture and use, are separate from the question of zoning. The Building Committee will have to deal with the project first on its merits as a building and will also have to consider the project as a land use issue. Someone from the audience asked if he dould make a public comment unre- lated to the specific motion that was made. Mr. Fisher said he would have to rule it out of order. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 6. To receive public comments on the question of leaf burning in the urban area of the County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1987). Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to sum~narize the Staff's Report from May. Mr. Agnor said complaints were received recently after a land-clearing operation in the'urban area, as well as perennial calls from residential neighborhoods concerning the burning of leaves in the fall of the year. The staff examined July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) an ordinance, which was presented to the Board, banning the burning of leaves, brush and debris, and an ordinance concerning the disposal of debris. The complexities of hauling the debris or composting it on site, who would provide such a service, public or private, a disposal site, and the enforcement of the ordinance from a standpoint of County staff's capabilities, was also examined. The service district tax for the removal of leaves is not allowed by State law. There are laws that allow removal of solid waste, but that is more extensive than just leaves, and is usually done through a separate authority. The staff concluded that the cost associated with the removal of leaves from private property would likely be something that would have to be borne by the property owner. An ordinance was considered in terms of licensing refuse collectors, who apply for and receive business licenses, which would require them to provide a service upon request of property owners to pick up and remove leaves. Burial of leaves in a landfill is not encouraged because it shortens the landfill's life. However, it is believed some refuse collectors may own areas that would be available for disposal use. No County property was deemed useful for disposal a within reasonable distance from the hauling area. Enforcement is not a complex problem ~ince staff is already in place, such as the fire official, the Inspections Department, and County ordinances are enforced by the County Police Department~ Mr. Agnor said the Board concluded it would be interested in hearing from residents. An ordinance would prohibit the burning of leaves, brush, logs, grass or any field with dry grass or inflammable material within the urban area, and would impose upon property owners within the urban area a method of choosing how to dispose of this type of waste. Mr. Agnor pointed out on a map the urban area as defined in the ComprehensiVe Plan. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing, ye said the County does not actually have an ordinance drafted to amend the burning ordinance, but the Board wanted to find out if citizens feel th~ County should or should not consider such an ordinance. Mrs. Jean Reinhold said she has spoken to the Board previously on the subject of leaf burning. At that time, Mr. Fisher suggested Mrs. Reinhold attempt to organize a homeowners association~ however, it turned into a dead end. In 1986, after her husband's stroke, when she informed the doctor that they could not take a walk because of the burning of leaves, the doctor said the issue should be pursued because of an individual's right to breath clean air. When burning goes on in her neighborho6d it continues for hours; in fact, last fall burning in her area continued for four consecutive days. Mrs. Reinhold called the Fire Marshal saying it is not fair, the County Code is taking away her rights by allowing people to'burn leaves. She was told by the Fire Marshal that it is difficult to enforce!the burning ordinance because the ordinance states burning is allowed from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Even though burning is prohibited from March 1 to May 15!because of the danger, last year two fires were started a week after the no burning section became effective, one the Fire Department put out, and one the Fire Department ordered be put out. Mrs. Reinhold pointed out the brochures handed to Board members, from the State of Virginia, describing the pollution generated by leaf burning, that it is a health hazard for people with certain diseases. Mrs. Reinhold said it is up to the Board to make a decision or change will not come. Mr. Richard Arthur, lives in Carrsbrook and said he sympathizes with Mrs. Reinhold; however, he lives in an area where he feels burning is necessary because of the size of property involved. He puts the leaves in the woods because of the large amount of leaves, but debris and deadwood must be burned once or twice a year. Mr. Arthur does not think a uniform law across the entire area would serve the needs of all citizens. Mr. Arthur recommended that burning be like the leash law, where each subdivision has the right to petition the Board that the ordinance be enforced in a particular subdivision or area. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said the Charlottesville Magisterial District is affected the most by the problem. In most areas where leaf burning is a problem, neighbors do not speak to each other about it. Mrs. Cooke advised Mr. Arthur that she has received many complaints about leaf burning in Carrsbrook; that because he July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (?age 6) has not been approached about the problem, it does not mean the problem does not exist. Mrs. Cooke commented that she would like the Board to consider a leaf burning ordinance of some kind; a county-wide ordinance may not be necessary, but in some areas where it is more densely populated, an ordinance to control the problem is necessary. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Cooke if she thought a reasonable proposal would be to ban burning throughout the entire urban area. Mrs. Cooke suggested that staff come up with a leaf/trash burning ordinance applicable to the urban area; the urban area is growing and becoming more densely lpopulated, and the problem must be dealt with now in light of the building bOOm going on. Mr. Fisher pointed out that staff had prepared an ordinance to prohibit open burning in certain portions of the County, and if the Board wishes to proceed with the ordinance, a motion to set a public hearing on the adoption of the ordinance would be the procedure to follow. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Way, to advertise for a public hearing on August 5, 1987, on an ordinance to prohibit open burning of leaves, brush and similar materials in certain portions of the County. Mr. Way said he was not totally convinced the ordinance should be for the entire urban area; however, some kind of control should be made. Mr. Bowie said he supports the motion for a public hearing, but not the particular ordinance. His concerns relate to the expense to the County for disposal of leaves; the public hearing set for this night was advertised and no one is here, except Mrs. Reinhold. Mr. Bowie said he might support an ordinance on a subdivision by subdivision basis. The expense of disposal should not be paid for out of the County's General Fund and the ordinance must have the support of the people who live in the subdivision~ Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-87-06. Fees. The Albemarle County Planning has adopted a resolution of intent to adjust the fee schedule to provide fees for preliminary and final site plans, and for the processing of preliminary and final site plans and landscape waivers. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1987.) Mr. Home gave the staff's report as follows: "Origin: Planning Staff Public purpose to be served: To defray costs of processing develop- ment applications. Staff Comment: These amendments are occasioned by the new preliminary/ final site plan review process. At this time, proposed fees appear reasonable. The difference in proposed fees for administrative and commission review of final site plan is due to notification and report preparation effort for Planning Commission review. A fee is proposed for waiver of landscaping requirements due t6 notification requirements." At this time the public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie asked what kind of input was received from the community on the zoning text amendment~ Mr. Home replied very little; comments were not actively solicited on the change in the fee schedule. Mr. Bowie asked if it was advertised other than for the public hearing. Mr. Home replied no. 07 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) Mr. Henley said he has no problem with the ordinance. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 35.0 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE ENTITLED "FEES" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 35.0 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance entitled "Fees" be amended and reenacted to read as follows: 35.0 I~EES Except as herein otherwise provided, every application made to the zoning administrator, the con~nission, or the board of supervisors shall be accompanied by a fee as set forth hereinafter, to defray the cost of processing such application. a. For a special use permit: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Mobile home and home occupation - $20.00. Rural area divisions - $125.00. Commercial use - $125.00. Industrial use - $125.00. Private club/recreational facility - $125.00. Mobile home park or lsubdivision $125.00. Public utilities $100.00. All other uses $75.00. b. For amendment to text of zoning ordinance - $50.00. c. For amendment to zoning map - $125.00 plus Si/acre. de For requests for a variance to the board of zoning appeals - $50.00. For other appeals to the board of zoning appeals - $20.00. For preliminary site development plan - $20o.oo. For final site development plan (administrative) $1oo.oo. For final site development plan (commission review) $200.00. For site development plan waiver - $100.00. For site development plan amendment: a) Minor - alterations to parking, circulation, building size, location - $25.00. b) Major - commission review - $50.00. For relief from a condition of approval from commission or landscape waiver by agent $50.00. In addition to the foregoing, the actual costs of any notice required under Chapter 11, Title 15.1 of the Code shall be taxed to the applicant, to the extent that the same shall exceed the applicable fee set forth in this section. Failure to pay all applicable fees shall constitute grounds for the denial of any application. Mr. Bowie said he supports the motion; however, he feels items of this nature should have some comments solicited since it affects a number of people. Mr. Bowie suggested that when the Board is considering an ordinance that changes things for those who build who must get permits, there should be July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) some way of letting those people know that a change is being considered other than an ad in the newspaper. Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Ordinance to increase Board of Supervisors salary. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 16 and June 23, 1987). Mr. Agnor summarized the text of the ordinance. At this time the public hearing was opened. No one came forward to speak and the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the ordinance to increase the Board of Supervisors' salary. Mr. Way commented that the stipend for the vice-chairman is considerable. When Mrs. Cooke was vice-chairman, among other things, she attended meetings of the Planning Commission which justified the amount of the stipend. Mr. Way said it seems to him the stipend amount is inappropriate for the vice-chairman. He suggested that when the chairman is away and the vice-chairman must take over, it would be appropriate to pay the vice-chairman more for those meetings, but to give an outright amount of money is not sensible. Mrs. Cooke concurred with what Mr. Way said. She said that when she served as vice-chairman she was also liaison to the Planning Commission, who meets every week. Mrs. Cooke felt the stipend was earned by anyone who held the two positions concurrently. Mrs. Cooke agrees that the only time a vice- chairman is called upon to do anything is only in the absence of the chairman. Mr. Way suggested that the vice-chairman of the Boardbe paid an addi- tional stipend of twenty-five dollars per meeting when he or she chairs a meeting. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if there is any problem with amending the motion if the Board agrees. Mr. St. John said no. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to adopt the following ordinance incorporating the change discussed: AN ORDINANCE to amend and reenact ~Section 2-2.1 of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Compensation of Board of Supervisors" As allowed by Virginia Code Section 14.1-46.01:1(2) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2-2.1 of the Code of Albemarle entitled "Compensation of Board of Supervisors" is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows: Seven thousand six hundred twelve dollars and eighty cents for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of twenty-five dollars for each and every meeting chaired;provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars. FURTHER, this shall be effective on and after July 1, 1987. 09 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) Roll was called on the foregoing motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. Approval of Minutes: June 12, 1985; March 5 (Night), March 10, December 3 (Afternoon) and December 10, 1986; March 4 (Afternoon), March 9, and March 17, 1987. Mr. Way had read the minutes of March 4, 1987 (afternoon) and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowie had read the minutes of March 10, 1986. On Page 4 in the first line, the time the Board reconvened should be 3:26 P.M. On Page 5, under "Staff Services" delete the words "Total Requested." Mr. Henley had read March 5, 1986 (night) and March 9, 1987. Both were in order. Mrs. Cooke had read December 10, 1986, Page 14 to the end, and found them in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, to approve the minutes which had been read, with the corrections n6ted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. (NOTE: The meeting was recessed at 8:43 P.M. and the Board reconvened at 8:50 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Fisher con~nented he had been contacted by a number of people about an issue that is before the County, which broke in the news media last week, and people have asked to have a chance to be heard on the matter. Staff was asked to put together some background of what happened to illustrate the process involved in putting the 240 Moderate Rehabilitation Housing project together. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor to give a chronology of events leading to the decision by the Board to move forward with a'~housing project and the signing of contracts. Mr. Agnor said there is a fair amount of misinformation, misunderstanding and lack of awareness about the County's housing programs. He explained that the Mod Rehab Program is two years old, begun in 1985. Since 1977, the County has had housing programs available to residents: the Regional Housing Oppor- tunity Plan, developed through the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commis- sion; a County Housing Assistance Plan, developed along with the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), for rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses. The Board has also been requested many times to approve tax exempt bond issues for the financing of construction of multi-family housing, a portion of which had to be dedicated for lower income occupants; the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program, involving 180 units allocated to the County by the Virginia Housing Development Authority; a commUnity Development Block Grant of $500,000 from the State for use in rehabilitation of owner-occupied houses. In 1985 the Federal Housing and Urban Development Authority indicated that Albemarle County could be considered for the~allocation of 240 units for rehabilitation of existing housing, which would then provide funds for rental assistance of the units. During the 1980 census there were more than 900 families identified as being eligible for housing assistance who had a need for that assistance. Because of the need, the Board approved application for the HUD program. Up to that time, rehabilitation had been focused entirely on owner-occupied houses; now this program focused on rehabilitation of rental July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) property. This program is not for what is normally considered public housing. The program involves private property and private ownership of the property. The County government does not own any public housing. The Mod Rehab Program was assigned to target areas identified in the 1980 census, with the largest number of people needing assistance living in the urban area of the County. The program includes three objectives: 1) benefits to occupants, where income from the Federal government provides a subsidy for rent to lower income families, to the elderly on fixed incomes, to the handi- capped and disabled; 2) benefits to the con~nunity for rehabilitation of property considered substandard or in need of major repair; 3) benefits to property owners once the property is rehabilitated, including stabilized income from their investment, a means to obtain market rents, a reduced vacancy rate, and a way to pay loans made for rehabilitation. The Mod Rehab Program is not a grant program since the owners must make their own financial arrangements. The Program provides a subsidy to occupants of the property after rehabilitation. Mr. Agnor said the Program was outlined in a news release in July 1985; workshops were conducted; contact with landlords was made~ a full-time employee was assigned the task of seeking applicants. After a year, it was obvious the Program was not working well and this was reported to the Board. The primary reasons included the complexities of Federal regulations, the data needed for property owners to submit applications involved owner's income, expenses, assets, liabilities, cash flow, etc.; individual landlords who were contacted were discouraged from the Program primarily because of the regula- tions involved and the inspections that were required by County staff of properties under consideration. In December 1986, the Board was advised there were six months left in the Program, which was to end in June 1987, and staff was of the opinion that all of the units would not be used~ On February 10, 1987, staff received an inquiry from an apartment owner o~approximately 100 units in the urban area (target area)~ At that time, only 40 of the 240 units were allocated. It was determined that most of the 100 units could qualify for rehabilitation; the units were in need of struc- tural improvements and many of the existing residents would be eligible for the rent subsidy. The staff asked if they should proceed with discussions with the property owner involved, or whether they should try to keep the units scattered throughout the County. The Board discussed this~'policy question at a meeting in February. Some Board members wanted specific details about the apartment complex; other members felt the Board could respond to the question on the basis of need and did not need to be concerned with the location. Discussion centered on the private property aspect, the financial data being examined, on the substandard housing program, and the issue of need. The Board decided to adjourn into an Executive Session during lunch to discuss the specific details. The Board was to discuss the matter further in open session later in the day. Mr. St. John advised the Board he felt the matter could be considered in Executive Session, but during the day, he gave the matter further thought, and advised the Board the matter could not be discussed in a closed session. The Board did not discuss this question dUring that Executive Session. After discussion in the afternoon session, the Board asked staff to provide more information regarding the project such as public transportation, crime rates, number of units already receiving subsidy through the Section 8 program. The following week, February 18, 1987, staff informed the Board that transit service is available within walking distance of th~ units under consideration; the number of residents already in program ~pproach 60; the crime rate is not considered intensive; it is a matter of the management of the apartment projects and population density more than the income of residents. The Board then approved ahead with discussions with the project owner as to his interest in being an applicant for the program. The Board's decision was based on the need to enroll units in the program since the program had not been successful to that point; there were Only a few months left in the program and the 'allocations would be lost; a housing need still exists. The motion to approve this change in the Board's previous policy of scattered site housing passed five to one with Mrs. Cooke not supporting the motion. This was all covered in a headline article in the next day's news- paper. Discussion with owners proceeded. In May, 1987, owners executed an agreement to enter into the program. At this point in tim~, owners are 11 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) pursuing paperwork that must be accomplished to proceed to be eligible to receive the rent subsidies. Concluding the history of the program, Mr. Agnor suggested that Mr. St. John comment on the legal matter of his opinion that the Board that cou2d not discussed this matter in closed session. Mr. Agnor also suggested that Mr. Home briefly describe improvements planned and what the application process is for the residents to receive rent subsidies. Mr. St. John commented that what Mr. Agnor said is accurate. Mr. St. John reviewed code provisions allowing for executive session and thought about it and changed his mind. He advised that the matter could not be discussed in closed session, and as far as he can remember no discussion took place at lunch that day. Mr. Home summarizing physical improvements, said a great majority of the improvements will be exterior to the project: replacement of most of the roofs, siding, and windows. Some interior improvements will be made to some units, but many of the units do not need interior renovation. The process under which tenants are selected: Housing Office of Albemarle County, main- tains a waiting list of applicants who have been interviewed and determined to qualify for the program. Qualification relates to income of family, family structure, employment, and residency location of family. The current waiting list has approximately 291 applicants for a slot to come open in the existing program, or in identified moderate rehabilitation units. The Housing Office will refer qualifying tenants to the landlord. Typically, several qualifying tenants are referred to the landlord before the landlord chooses a tenant suitable for entering into lease with. Mr. Horne emphasized that the landlord chooses the tenant. The Housing Office only insures that the landlord meets certain general non-discrimination guidelines set by the Federal government. Once the tenant occupies the unit, virtually all terms of the standard Landlord-Tenant Act would continue to be in effect. At this point, the County's involvement is largely in terms of providing a subsidy, conducting certain inspections either due to change in occupancy or circumstances at the unit. In this particular case, the criteria used by a private landlord consists of credit references, resident history, income history of prospective resi- dent, family composition, existing financial obligations, prior criminal activity, visitation to existing home of tenant to try to insure that existing home is maintained in conditions that are appropriate and acceptable to landlords. In addition, other terms and conditions in the selection criteria are: ongoing inspections by the landlord, recommendations that residents enroll in a household management course conducted at the Housing Office which is an attempt to train tenants to be more proficient in managing households, and additional terms and conditions placed by, landlord on any person inter- viewed from the pool of eligible persons. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Home how people on.the waiting list are character- ized. Are these working people, working families, retired families, are they on welfare? Mr. Home replied it is very diverse; that certainly a great number of the people are working~ family structure is extremely varied, some are single parent households, some full husband/wife households. Main criteria dealt with is income as it relates to family structure to make sure tenants generally comply with necessary conditions for enrollment under HUD guidelines. Mr. Horne said it is very hard to characterize tenants. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Horne if many of the families currently residing in the Whitewood Apartments (the apartment complex where these units are located) would qualify to stay in that complex when the rehabilitation is completed. Mr. Horne replied that according to the owners there are only two or three of the current residentswho qualify that have chosen to stay through the rehabilitation period. At previous times, there was a much larger number of residents enrolled in the existing Section 8 program. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Pete Bradshaw, County staffperson working on this project, if he had a statement to make. Mr. Bradshaw said the figure Mr. Home quoted does not include tenants occupying the units now under the Section 8 p~ogram. He believes there are 12 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) families in the Section 8 program plus the additional three in the Mod Rehab Program. The three families are not presently enrolled in the Section 8 program, but it appears these families will qualify for inclusion under the same guidelines. Mr. Fisher said he now feels that a different procedure should have been used when this matter was being discussed in February. The Board made the policy decision in February honestly and openly, even thoughpeople disagree. He also commented that Mrs. Cooke has gone to some difficulty to find a copy of the newspaper containing the article, so it was not entirely.unknown the Board was talking about that program; the only thing is that he did not know the location of the site until he read it in the newspaper-. At this time, Mr. Fisher said the Board would take comments from the public. Mr. George Gilliam addressed the Board saying he was asked to represent the residents of Oak Forest, who will be neighbors of the residents in the Whitewood Village project. He recalled that in the late 1950's Senator Ed McCue, of the Virginia Senate, was responsible for passing the McCue amendment to the Charter of the City of Charlottesville, which stipulated that no public housing could be built in the City of Charlottesville until it had been put to a referendum of the people once the site was announced. The only housing project built during that time was the densely concentrated and relatively isolated West Haven project. In the early 1970's, members the Charlottesville City Council were very interested in expanding the stock of public housing available to Charlottesville. This was not a popular position; even though people recognized the need for public housing, they did not want it in their neighborhood. The City Council asked the General Assembly~to change the Charter to do away with the referendum requirement because the City Council knew they could never get an adequate supply of public housing. The City Council was successful by about 1973. The City Council then adopted a policy that scattered site housing was preferable to concentrated public housing, and proceeded to identify six public housing sites around the City. Public hearings were held in the Armory building because it was expected that a great number of people would attend the hearing. There may have been one to four people in favor of one or more of the six sites, but an overwhelming number of people who attended the public hearing came to speak against the sites; some because of the many children who would attend the first grade at the school serving the area; some because of the additional people walking along streets which were not protected by sidewalks. Because of concerns voiced a couple of sites were changed, but most of the sites were voted for. Mr. Gilliam continued by saying the residents of Oak Forest were not asked whether or not additional, affordable housing is necessary and desirable in Albemarle County; they were not asked whether or not concentrated single site housing is preferable to scattered site housing because that is a Board policy decision. Mr. Gilliam was asked by Oak Forest residents to examine the procedure which the Board followed; that is whether or not under HUD regula- tions or State law, the Board was required to hold public hearings to make the sites known and vote on them. Mr. Gilliam said his staff does not have an answer yet. Mr. Gilliam then commended Mr. Home and Mr. Agnor for the time spent with them and some residents from Oak Forest in answering questions, making minutes of the meeting available, and a willingness to discuss ques- tions. If everything was accomplished in a proper manner, Mr. Gilliam hopes his staff will be able to come to that conclusion. If not, and proper procedures were not followed, Mr. Gilliam hopes to be able to advise the Board of that. If it is necessary to go back and go through some of the procedures again or do additional procedures, Mr. Gilliam believes it is in everyone's best interests that this be done before the project gets too far down the line. Mr. Gilliam said he hopes to be able to come up with an opinion in a few days. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Gilliam is requesting that this matter be placed on the agenda at a future meeting so Mr. Gilliam can make a report to the Board, or will the response be just to the firm's clients. Mr. Gilliam replied either way the Board should know what the response is; he may be able to give a report at the next regular meeting on July 8. Mr. Fisher advised Mr. Gilliam that the agenda would be made up the next day. Mr. Gilliam said he would communicate with Mr. Agnor the next day. July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) Mr. Bob Crytzer, 125 Oak Forest Circle, President of Oak Forest Neighbor- hood Association, said many concerns have been expressed to the Association about the project. Mr. Crytzer said he had asked the people who have come tonight to let him be the spokesperson out of courtesy to the Board and as to the factor of time. He suggested that if this item is placed on the July 8 agenda for discussion, that it be a public hearing. At this point, Mr. Gilliam asked everyone in opposition to the conversion of White Village apartments to subsidized housing to express opposition by standing, approximately §0 people stood. Mr, Gilliam then presented Mr. Fisher with a petition signed by residents of Oak Forest opposing the conver- sion of Whitewood Village apartments to low-income, HUD subsidized housing, which is on file in the Clerk's office. Mr. Crytzer continued by saying the issues go beyond what is going on in one neighborhood. The main issue, as explained in petitions, letters, and telephone calls, is a change the past policy of scattered site housing to the current policy of consolidated housing. Everyone concerned knows Mr. Horne and his staff tried to find other areas for the housing, and that the Board also has. People recognize that Albemarle County has problems trying to find enough adequate, affordable housing for residents. People feel the communi- cation that existed between the Board and residents of the County no longer exists. Mr. Crytzer suggested that in its haste to avoid losing Federal funds, there were not sufficient studies conducted. He feels to change the policy of scattered site housing to consolidated housing is a mistake and is not in the best interest of all concerned. The issue deserves a lot more debate and public input. Mr. Crytzer said the second issue is the secrecy of the location of the site for the project. He knows that some members of the Board tried to find out where the site was located, because the Board's minutes show this. Mr. Crytzer said reporters from the Daily Progress have tried since the February meeting to ascertain the location. No one can understand why the location was not made available to the public that night, and to citizens and the press the day after the meeting. He does not know why three working days before the program expired, a reporter was finally told about the site. The last issue concerns problems with the haste of making a decision and of getting the units completed.~ He knows a year and half was spent trying to find units. The apartments in the project are one and two- bedroom units, suitable for families with one or more young children. There is a concern about the impact on schools, a ~layground area within walking distance of the project, and the blacktop pa~king lot which will be used by the children for recreation, the public transit available to the residents. These problems have not been studied, and th~se are the reasons people are so upset, not that the project is subsidized housing. Mr. Crytzer said the residents have employed Mr. Gilliam to look over the facts of the application. Because of the manner in which the program has been handled, construction is about to get underway, and families are getting ready to move, concerned residents are asking that the project be put on hold as of July 2 so that Mr. St. John and Mr. Gilliam can meet and discuss the issues. At next week's meeting, the propriety of having Mr. Agnor sign on behalf of the Board should be examined to make sure Mr. Agnor has legal authorization from the Board to sign the agreement with HUI~. In closing, Mr. Crytzer asked that a public hearing be held on July 8, should have been in February. Mr. Warren Van Dell, 737C Country Green Apartments, addressed the Board about his concern that the program discriminates against people with criminal records. He believes if a person has served time, the debt to society has been paid. Mr. Van Dell is concerned about the condition of the houses the people are moving from to live in this project, that if they are waterless and without electrical wiring, as is said, how this was allowed to occur. Mr. Van Dell commented that the bus service in the area of the project is pretty good. He spoke with Mrs. Poore of Charlottesville Transit and was told that funds are short; that if additional buses are requi~ed to handle people at the project, the City and County will have to cooPerate with each other. .In addressing the "not-in-my-backyard" argumentslof lowering property values, a project is dangerous, and the selection process is unfair, Mr. Van Dell said this is the way it is when it is your backyard. If the Board can ignore these arguments in the case of a necessary and useful project that is not desirable, then the Board also take these arguments intoconsideration when the western bypass project comes up. Mr. Van Dell mentioned the rentals to be paid by July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) this program. He said Squire Hill apartments listed in the Daily Progress are very comparable in rent to the kinds of apartments that have been constructed in the County with Federal funds. With luxuries Squire Hill apartments are only renting for $465 a month with the water bill paid, but not the electric bill. He called Squire Hill and was told the complex still had empty units on the market in February 1987. Mr. Van Dell continued by commenting the $512 rent for the Whitewood Apartments is really excessive. If the constraints of HUD require the spending of money in a frivolous manner, Mr. Van Dell thinks each member of the Board should write to their legislators and ask for a dollar sum rather than a number of units to fill, with vouchers for indi- viduals to pay. In this way residents in the rural areas may be encouraged to participate in the program. Mr. Van Dell asked the Board to take these items into consideration when making a decision. Mr. Jerome Stokes, who has lived in Oak Forest for seven years, is speaking on behalf of approximately a dozen property owners in the subdivision who would like to express a position somewhat different from those already expressed. First, the property owners are disappointed with the way the issue has been handled, that the seeming indifference regarding the psychological impact of the announcement on Oak Forest residents is unfortunate. Property owners are concerned that low-income housing needs for the County should ever have reached this crisis; there is a lack of education about past experience and the impact of such housing. It is deplorable that so important an issue should be communicated by the media only 72 hours before the plan is to take effect when the final agreements were signed in May. The Board of Supervisors must bear responsibility for the visceral reaction this action has triggered. The property owners group has harbored no illusions about the nature and condition of the Whitewood apartments to this date and for several years previously. Whitewood apartments are situated at the entrance to Oak Forest, anunattractive introduction to an otherwise well-cared for neighborhood. There is no doubt the property owners in Oak Forest would have preferred other, better neighbors. In this context, the news that HUD funds are to be used to upgrade the dilapidation is welcomed. The property owners recognize this as a neighborhood gain, but they also recognize that all people who need help with housing are not criminals; that antisocial behavior cuts across social caste and income levels. Families with limited res6urces have special problems and solving poor people's housing needs is only p~rt of a complex of issues. Mr. Stokes, on behalf of some property owners, requests reassurances from the Board that the new Whitewood residents will be prOvided with social services, and that they are not simply brought in from the country and left to fend for themselves. In particular, the group especially ~equests that Whitewood have a resident manager who will address the socialization process of the transition, and who would also serve as a contact p~rson for those living at Oak Forest. The group also requests a guarantee of twice weekly trash removal. Since exterior upgrading is to be done, the property owners urge the County to request that the landlord provide a physical screen, such as a natural hedge along the fence to help absorb sound. The group endorses the management controls outlined by Paula Ehrlich in the newspaper. Mr. Stokes and his neighbors feel subsidized housing may be an improvement in the neighborhood. He emphasized that Oak Forest residents have had a history of mediation and cooperation in settling differences, defeating proposals, and handling security issues affecting all residents. The group believes a positive response to the request for expanded County services in support of housing conversion will help them to work with the administration of Whitewood for a mutually satisfactory accommodation of all County residents in the neighborhood. They believe that properly operated low-income housing need not necessarily damage values of adjacent property. Mr. Francis Fife, who has been interested in housing for low-income people in Charlottesville and Albemarle County for many years, is at the meeting speaking in agreement with everyone who has already spoken. Mr. Fife said there are a number of programs going on in different places in the County, and that no solution will satisfy everyone. Mr. Fife believes the Board took the action it thought best. He hopes at the end of the meeting and at the subsequent meeting, people will commend the Board fdr what they have done. Mr. Fife commented that when Mr. Gilliam spoke of housing, Mr. Gilliam was talking about public housing, and Mr. Fife understands the Board is talking about private housing. Mr. Fife asked if any new units are being built or is the project entirely a rehabilitation program. (Someone answered it is a rehabilitation program.) The buildings to be rehabilitated will look July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) better, and will help the appearance of the entire neighborhood. This is quite a difference from building entirely new units. If the complex is not a problem because of the subsidy, what is it; as it seems to him that the subsidy is the problem. Mr. Fife said if people in this com~nunity do not recognize that there is a need for housing assistance, and the government has to give that assistance, then everyone must think what the minimum wage is, an income of $7,000 a year. If people must provide decent housing for themselves, then everyone must think about doubling minimum wage; however, people do not want to do this because they believe costs would go up and everyone would have to pay, or some people would be put out of jobs. Mr. Fife summed up by saying that over the years, he has become acquainted with some of the housing solutions in the area and he has,worked with a number of them. He commented that he and Mr. Fisher started the first housing foundation in 1969-1970 to try and do something about the housing issue. Mr. Fife concluded by asking the Board to do what it can to help, and he hopes that all the people at the meeting and in the rest of the~County and City will support the Board in its efforts. Mr. Robert Collins, Vice President of FSE Management, the firm that presently manages Whitewood Village Apartments, and will manage the project, said FSE was not aware of a lot of the issues brought up at this meeting, and he would like to take the opportunity to comment. First, the project is not public housing, but private housing, with a goal to improve the property and make a return on the investment. FSE has diligently worked at deciding what to do with this property; they were not plea~ed at the appearance of the property or the way the property was declining. Mr. Collins and his staff had been reviewing several alternatives, and it Was decided to go with the subsidy program. Mr. Collins has been in property management 12 years and during that time has had experience with subsidized housing. FSE is very interested in making this property a successful venture; FSE has a long-term interest in the property; there will be funds in excess of $230,000 available to improve the property. Once the money is spent, FSE'S goal is to maintain the property so the money was wisely spent. The best way to!accomplish this is with the foundation the Board has laid down; FSE has Hired experienced personnel to evaluate applications to find the best possible residents for the community. A great deal of work was put into the criteria, modeled after the ~ program, which is used to evaluate applicants. In addition, the criteria contain certain standards for the number of individuals that can occupy certain sized units. The property will be operated very similar to conventional housing~ there will be annual inspections of each unit, and an annual evaluation of an individual's paperwork. The majority of money spent will be on improvements to the exterior of the property because the interiors are in satisfactory, habitable condition now, except for a number of units requiring new appli- ances, carpeting, painting, or heating and a~r-conditioning work. Addressing the issue of tenants electing to go the subsidy route, Mr. Collins said notice was mailed in February to existing residents informing them of the desire to have the subsidy program at the property, and~there were certain criteria that would have to be met income-wise; FSE did not force anyone to move if they did not qualify under the income criteria; tenants were advised the rent would be adjusted. The rental comparison is done so HUD can determine what fair market contract rents are for the property. This is determined so expenses can be paid and owners can earn a return on their investment. Owners cannot just reap exorbitant profits from the property; profits are established and have a set maximum; on the property in question, the profit is roughly a six percent return on the investment if the property is managed e~!fectively and profit- ably; the property cannot be managed properly by havil~g poor residents occupy the property. Mr. Collins continued by saying FSE did not keep anything secret from the residents of Whitewood Village; residents were notifi,~d in February on the same day the decision was made by the owners. He willL look into the budget and see if some type of playground equipment can be p~ovided in addition to the pool already at Whitewood. Mr. Collins believes there were a number of families who desired to move because since they did not qualify for the program their rent would have to be adjusted. He said he will look into the matter of the hedge around the property. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Collins when FSE plans to begin work and if contracts have been let. Mr. Collins replied that FSE has begun reviewing contracts; they do not have the financial resources to begin the work, that July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) each of the buildings is a separate entity; construction will not begin until financing is secured. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Collins for a target date. Mr. Collins replied FSE is trying to close on loans within the~next couple of weeks. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Collins if FSE will sign contracts for work when the funding is available. Mr. Collins replied affirmatively. Mr. Hugh McGiver, is not a resident of Oak Forest, but is a resident of Albemarle County, and he lives in the school district that the children living in the Whitewood apartment complex will use. Mr. McGiver said he does not know that he supports cluster housing, but it appears that is what is necessary to provide housing in Albemarle County. His concerns relate to the school system. Specifically, he questions if the rehabilitated housing will result in a higher concentration of school-age children than were previously in the schools. Will the children in the subsidized housing have special needs because of their socioeconomic background that children of previous residents did not? Mr. McGiver asked if money has been added into the school budget to provide a means to educate any additional children or any children with special needs? Mr. McGiver commented that Albemarle ~igh School is already overcrowded, and Greet Elementary School will be operating with five kindergarten classes in an area that is set up for four classes. If these issues have not been addressed and the County cannot adequately handle them, the Board should do whatever is possible to delay this until the issues have been addressed and means are put into place to provide services. Mr. Fisher replied to Mr. McGiver that the units are already in exist- ence; the same number of people are in them now that will be there after the units are rehabilitated. Wherever children with special needs live, the County must accept them into the schools. Tenants have been selected, yet no one can say anything about the kind of children the schools will have; no one will know until people are living in the project. Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Director of Thomas Jefferson Planming District Commission, said in the Fall of 1986, the TJPDC conducted A study of homeless people for the entire District, and found there are about 500 homeless people in the District. These include people crowded into substandard units; living in mobile homes in the counties; living in tar paper shacks; and people crowded into units in the City because there is no adequate low-income housing available. Approximately 28 percent of the people determined to be homeless are~residents of Albemarle County. Tax records show there are between 1,000 and 2,000 units of substandard housing in Albemarle County~ Over the past six weeks TJPDC has conducted a series of housing meetings, attended by citizens, persons involved in the low-income housing project as well,as other projects, realtors, builders, local government officials, and staff. Overwhelmingly, the Commission is hearing there is not enough low-income housing available to the people in the entire Planning District, including Albemarle County. Mrs. O'Brien said this is one of the reasons people are not moved out of substan- dard housing by Social Service people throughout the district; there is simply no place for them to go. The TJPDC wants the Board to know they are finding a great need in the County and throughout the entire Planning District for low-income housing; the numbers are from 500 up; some people have waiting lists of 500, some 250, some 300, and Albemarle County records show a signifi- cant number of units that need rehabilitation. Ms. Paula Ehrlich, hired by FSE to screen applicants currently under consideration for housing at Whitewood Village, said she h~s gone through almost 100 names on the waiting list for the project. At ~his time 17, two- bedroom families and five, one-bedroom families have been approved for apart- ments in the project. She believes she has selected the best of them without being discriminatory and by using the criteria set out. Ms. Ehrlich thinks there will be a nice group of families in W~nitewood Village. According to Ms. Ehrlich's estimates, there will be approximately 2.3 people in a two-bedroom apartment, and 1.6 people per one-bedroom apartment, and it does not seem to her the population will be any greater than before. In addition, there are families living at the project under the Section 8 subsidy who will remain there, who do have children. Of the families that will be moving into the apartments, some have children and some do not; others who iwill be living there will be elderly couples who did not take into account their retirement costs; many of the new residents are working couples who make minimum wage, and even with both members of the family working they simply cannot afford rents in the area. Over 50 percent of the families Ms. Ehrlich spoke with July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) have incurred medical expenses that exceeded their insurance coverage, or disability has occurred, and they have not been able to meet those bills. Most of the applicants see this project as a way to get back on their feet again. Publicity about the project has been a problem; the 290 families on the list to be considered and those already accepted are greatly dismayed by ' the publicity surrounding the project. Ms. Ehrlich conducts home visits of prospective tenants and she has spoken with families living in deplorable conditions. Ms. Ehrlich continued by saying: that when a large number of these people became financially disadvantaged, they return to live with their families. Most of the families are working very hard to get out on their own and, unfortunately, right now they need this help. There is a feeling this whole project will become a ghetto, and the predominant number of families she spoke to are not interested in living in a ghetto. Addressing the racial issue, Ms. Ehrlich said her experience is that over 60 percent of the appli- cants she has spoken with are white; the poverty in the County Ms. Ehrlich has seen and is dealing with now is mostly in white families; an urban black ghetto will not be created at Whitewood Village. Ms. Ehrlich believes the applicants realize their responsibility and the great opportunity they have which offers them a chance to pursue new job~. Ms. Ehrlich sees this as a great effort by all concerned to make this a!model low-income project for the County. Mr. Roy Patterson, lives in Crozet, supports the remarks made by Mr. Francis Fife. He drew the Board's attention'to the group of people from Greenwood who had filled the room earlier, saying those people are acquainted with a subsidized rental housing project, have been neighbors to one for 10 years, and came to the meeting to ask the Board to support an additional housing project in Western Albemarle County. Ms. Kathleen Irvine, 89 Oak Forest Circle, agrees with the remarks Mr. Crytzer made earlier. She said she wants to speak on three points: 1) she is astounded there is no consideration by the landlord for playgrounds; 2) she does not understand why the fair market value of a comparable apartment is $360 per month, and as taxpayers,people are expected to subsidize a private landlord $485 a month for the same type of apartment; it seems like an exor- bitant amount of money considering apartment interiors are not being renovated. Ms. Irvine asked if $485 is a valid price. The third point addresses a remark Ms. Ehrlich made about the racial issue. Ms. Irvine said Oak Forest is a well-integrated neighborhood and race has never been an issue there. Mr. Charlie Kabash, of 1325 Oak Tree Lane, said he agrees with remarks made by Mr. Crytzer, but is now speaking for himself. He does not have a great deal of confidence in FSE because the property has been allowed to deteriorate to its present condition. FSE says with the additionml funds available, they will be able to beautify the property but they are the reason it is in this deplorable condition. Mr. Kabash thinks the Board's staff has done what it is supposed to do; however, it seems to Mr. Kabash there is more of a profit to a landowner by being included as a HUD project of subsidized housing. Mr. Kabash said he takes offense at the racial remark made because Oak Forest is an integrated neighborhood. He believes the issue is one of lack of notification, not secrecy. He is reluctant to use the word secrecy concerning the fact that at the last minute a contract must be signed and funds must be allocated or the funds will be lost. Mr. Kabash asked if the item would be on the agenda for July 8. Mr. Fisher replied affirmatively. Mr. Kabash then requested the meeting be held in a bigger room. Mr. Kabash asked if the poor are helped to be upwardly mobile by putting them all together or interspersing them with other middle class families. Mr. Kabash concluded by saying he deplores any condition where he lives in affluence and his neighbors do not; no one should be allowed to live in substandard housing in this country. Mr. Fisher called an end to the public comments and asked Mr. St. John if he has any suggestions or comments for the Board. Mr. St. John said he believes "i's" have been dotted and "t's" have been crossed, but if they have not, the Board has a binding contract with the owner of the property and with HUD. If everything is put on hold, and if on'July 8 the Board reverses everything that has been done, the Board would be in breach of contract, in violation of the Federal Fair Housing Laws, and would be looking at a Federal suit based on those two grants. Mr. St. John said the contract is an accom- 18 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) plished fact and to schedule a hearing when the only choice, in his judgment, is to ratify what has already been done is illusionary. If Mr. Agnor did not have the authority to sign the contract, the only choice is to ratify his signature, which will cure that defect. If the Board does~ not do that, the Board is looking at a Federal suit for violation of the Federal Fair Housing Law. The contract is an accomplished fact and nothing can be done about it. Mr. Fisher said he believes there may be value in having another session where people can express their opinions, and legal opinions can be given. If Mr. St. John is proved wrong, or something else comes up, the hearing would at least open up the possibility. Mr. Fisher said he does not think it will hurt anything to spend another week looking at the issue and talking about it. Mr. St. John said he agrees, but does not think it advisable to order the owner to hold up in the private financing arrangements because he is dealing with banks, etc. Mr. St. John said he does not think the Board has the power to order the owner to do that; however, the Board can suggest it to the owner. Mrs. Cooke said she feels as Mr. Fisher does; although the Board does have Mr. St. John's opinion, she sees no harm in going forWard with the investigation of the agreement by the complainant's attorney with the Board's legal counsel. It is best to know for sure what is before the Board as opposed to not knowing for sure. Mrs. Cooke is not questioning Mr. St. John's opinion, but thinks it is only fair that dialogue take place between the two attorneys. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Gilliam to keep Mr. St. John apprised so as to give him a chance to review any findings that Mr. Gilliamhas so it does not unduly delay things on July 8. Mr. Way said ~ the school system has any input that would be helpful, and it is available for the meeting July 8, it would be good to have that input. Mr. Agnor said he received a telephone call from Mr. Overstreet this afternoon indicating that Mr. Overstreet's staff has been asked to examine the issue. Mr. Overstreet's staff has concluded in examining statistics that the project would not impact significantly on the school system; the nUmbers of children involved in the project under HUD guidelines of occupancy is allowed in the units, versus no guidelines at all, would very likely restrict the numbers of people living in the units, and, in turn, it would also restrict the numbers of children living there; school officials would not know that until enroll- ment is completed. However, Mr. Overstreet said that in terms of time the involved, his staff has taken a very quick look at the issue, will continue to look at it, and if they come up with a different answer they will advise. Mr. Henley said he received a letter from an attorney~requesting the Board's help in obtaining a deeded easement across the C & 0 Railroad tracks. Mr. St. John advised Mr. Henley if the Board cannot do what is requested, he would be glad to write to the attorney and give the attorney his opinion on the matter. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to authorize Mr. St. John to reply to a letter requesting the County's help in obtaining a deeded easement across the C&O Railroad tracks in Crozet. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 10a. Resolution: Joint with City Council, re: Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to give a brief summary. Mr. Agnor said the City/County/University Transportation Committee has met and reviewed the reports made by Mr. Pethtel and his staff of the analysis of the Route 29 North expressway concept. The results of the Committee's deliberations were that Mr. Fisher, Mr. Buck, and Mr. Haas, should write a 19 July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) joint letter to Mr. Pethtel indicating several concerns, expressed in the resolution before the Board. The concerns relate to the next step wherein the Highway Department's findings would be assigned to a consultant to examine and confirm the expressway concept. If the findings are confirmed as being correct, the expressway concept would not be-compared in an alternative analysis with other bypass routes. The Committee understood that if the study indicated it was feasible from a geometric, air quality and noise perspective, the concept would be examined as an alternative with other routes. The Committee's opinion is that the concept is feasible determined by the results of the study. The Committee asks two things~ 1) Mr. Pethtel proceed with the alternative analysis through the consultant to be employed for that purpose; 2) the improvements on Route 29 North to eight lanes, be placed on hold until the comparative analysis is completed, and decisions as to improvements on Route 29 North come from the comparison, and~not from the analysis. Mr. Fisher said the purpose of the resolution is to make sure all alter- natives are still available at the time all the routes are being considered, so each can be judged on its own merits in relation to the other alternatives. If any alternatives are thrown out, they are lost. Mr. Agnor pointed out that the resolution is being proposed as a joint resolution, and the City Council will consider the resolution next Monday night. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle and the University of Virginia formed a'Joint Transportation Committee to work cooperatively with the Virginia Department of Transportation to find solutions to the community's transportation concerns; and WHEREAS, one of the primary transportation concerns has been how to move traffic efficiently and safely through the 29 North Corridor; and WHEREAS, one possible solution which has been proposed is an expressway concept that would serve both local and through traffic in a single corridor and, if determined to 'be feasible, to compare a single corridor facility with dual corridor facilities; and WHEREAS, the City, County and University have endorsed the study of this expressway concept but not its construction and received assurances from the Virginia Department of Transportation that it would study the concept; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation has now studied the expressway concept and found it to be feasible; and WHEREAS, no comparative analysis has been made among the various facility alternatives available to move traffic in the north-south corridor through Charlottesville-Albemarle, including the expressway concept; and WHEREAS, such a comparative analysis of all alternatives seems appropriate and essential to the decision process for the Route 29 North corridor improvements; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Transportation proposes to employ a consultant to make the required alternative facility comparison, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Joint Transportation Committee convey to Commissioner Pethtel of the Virginia Department of Transportation the concerns of this community regarding the need for a comparative analysis of the expressway concept in the consultants' report, and July 1, 1987 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the co~mmittee request Commissioner Pethtel to postpone any proposed improvements to Route 29 North in the Charlottesville-Albemarle area until the results of the comparative analysis are available from the Department's consultant. Mr. Fisher stated he spent two days in Richmond last week in interviews with consultants and the Department of Transportation. There were eight or ten professionals for each consultant team, computer-generated displays, video tapes of community maps with many bypass routes shown. A recommendation was made to the Department of Transportation, but the Department of Transportation has not decided which consultant firm will be chosen. Roll was called and the foregoing motion to adopt the resolution carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session: .Discussion of Legal Matters. At 10:40 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss a legal matter re: the case of Fike against Virginia Farm Bureau and Sheriff George W. Bailey. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:35 P.M. Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 11:37 P.M.