Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-09-16September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) .22 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 16, 1987, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. J. T~ Henley, Jr., C~ Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T~ Way. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Home, Director of Planning and Community Development° Agenda Item Noo 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:31 P.M. by the Vice-Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 3a. Election of Chairman. Mr. Way said because of Mr. Fisher's resignation, the Board is without a chairman° According to the State law, the vice-chairman does not automatically ascend to the chairmanship and an election must be held~ Mr. Way then asked Mr. Agnor to serve as the chairman for the purpose of the election. Mr, Lindstrommade a motion to nominate Mro Peter T. Way as chairman of the Board of Supervisors for the remainder o~ 1987~ Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie made a motion to close the nominations and Mr. Way be elected chairman by acclamation. Mr. Henley seconded the motion° Mro Agnor stated that Mr~ Way has been nominated by both Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Bowie and asked if there was any discussion. ~%ere being none, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Way Mr. Agnor turned the chair over to Mr. Way. Mr. Way thanked the Board members for the honor bestowed on him, saying he appreciated the honor and he will do his best for the members of the Board, the employees and staff of the County, and the people of Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve Item Nos. 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda as information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1o Statements of Expenses (State Compensation Board) of the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, and Regional Jail, for the Month of August 1987, were approved as presented. Item 4.2. Virginia Electric Power Company Easement - Jefferson Country Firefighters Association Training Center Authorize Chairman to execute. Memorandum dated September 11, 1987, from Mra Guy B. Agnor, Jr., received as follows: September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) "Electrical service lines running from Avon Streen to the fire training structure behind the Joint Security Complex require a 15 foot easement to Virginia Power from the landowner, which is the County. The easement is for installation and maintenance of the electrical service line. A standard electric easement agreement signed by the Board Chairman, and authorized by the Board, has been presented by Virginia Power for execution. Approval by the Board for the signature of the Chairman is requested." By the vote shown above, the Chairman was authorized to execute an Easement, dated August 15, 1987, granting an easement of fifteen feet in wi. as shown on Plat No~ 818070206. re: Item 4.3. Letter dated September 2, 1987, from Senator John W. Warner, Community Development Block Grant Funding, received as follows: "September 2, 1987 Hon. Gerald E. Fisher County of Albemarle Office of Bd. of Supervisors 401McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4956 Dear Mr. Fisher: Thank you for your recent letter in support for further budgetary funding for the Community Development Block Grant program. The House Appropriations Committee on June 25, 1987,1approved a $57.9 billion fiscal spending package for housing including $3 billion to continue the Community Development Block Grant program. Housing is the bedrock of our economy. If Americans~icannot obtain access to decent, affordable housing, all attempts at improving our economic well-being will amount to nought. How can we expect to improve the productivity of America's workforce, as We must do to continue to prosper in the years ahead if that workf0rce cannot rely on decent housing for its physical and financial comfort and security? But neither must we mortgage off the well-being of succeeding genera- tions by compounding the federal deficit for today's.~needs better met by state and local governments. The federal government must balance the budget deficit and that means cutting back in every area of federal spending. You were most kind to share your views with me. I value your opin- ions, and I hope you will never hesitate to bring them to my atten- tion. With best wishes, Sincerely, (Signed) John W. Warner" Item 4.4. Copy of letter dated September 9, 1987, addressed to Mr. Wayne Gilimberg, Chief of Con~nunity Development, from Ms. Susan ~Anderson-Hodges, Virginia Water Project, Inc., re: VWP Rural Water and Wastewater Loan Fund, received as information, as follows: "Congratulations from all of us at Virginia Water Project, Inc. (VWP) on your successful Community Development Block Grant application for Albemarle County. I am taking advantage of this opportunity to wish you success on the Project to also tell you about the VWP Rural Water & Wastewater Loan Fund. The Loan Fund is designed to be a finance September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) gap-filler for water and wastewater projects in low-income rural communities. If you are already familiar with Virginia Water Project and the Loan Fund this letter will serve as a reminder. Should cost overruns occur or needs develop for water or wastewater facilities beyond the project's plans, please consider the VWP Rural Water & Wastewater Loan Fund. "Albemarle County Housing Rehabilita- tion'' may be eligible. The enclosed brochure provides the basic criteria for eligible loan projects. Most loan projects will also be eligible to receive a grant allo- cation from VWP. Loan grant packaging allows an effectively lower interest rate considering total YWP funding. In fact, two loans closed by VWP have received loan grant combinations which resulted in effective rates of 4o13% and 4.83%. If you would like more information on the Loan Fund, VWP, or would like brochures or application packets, do not hesitate to contact me. I am available to answer questions, help detei~nine Loan Fund eligi- bility, and can bring in assistance from other VWP components. All tfWP services are free of charge. Sincerely, (Signed) Susan Anderson-Hodges Loan Fund Manager" Item 4.5. A copy of the Planning Commission's Minutes for September 1, 1987, was received as information. Agenda Item Noo 5. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to amend Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of the Hollymead area as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1987.) Mr. Agnor said on August 19, 1987, the Board took emergency action to amend Section 4-19 of the County Code to add the Hollymead subdivision, Holly- mead Square, the property of Janice Snow, and the Albemarle County School ~erty in the Hollymead area to the section of the Code which refers to dogs at-large. Within 60 days of taking that action, it is required that this action be confirmed through the public hearing process. This meeting has been properly advertised. Mr. Agnor then briefly summarized the section of the Code~ The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Way asked anyone who wished to speak to come forward. Mrs~ Liz Nottingham, a nine year resident of Hollymead, said she became aware of Hollymead's lack of a leash law when her three-year old son was trapped in between trash cans by an at-large dog. She got her son safely into the house and called the Dog Warden, who informed her that Hollymead had no leash law. After the incident, Mrs. Nottingham began collecting signatures on a petition to enact stronger dog controls for dogs running at-large° She collected 190 signatures from 235 single-family residences in Hollymead, a majority of which have dogs. Because of this~:iMrs. Nottingham believes this is indicative of the need for stronger dog controls. She believes the Board acknowledged this when the petition was presented in August and emergency action was taken. Mrs. Nottingham thanked the Board for its actions and requested that it enact a perma~ent leash law for Hollymead and the adjoining Snow property° She said responsible law-abiding dog owners far exceed irre- sponsible dog owners and they will feel better~protected by such a law. However, a leash law is not the end. Recent attacks by vicious dogs indicate a problem which must be addressed in other areas of the County also. Mrs. Nottingham said Hollymead is not alone in alerting the Board of the need for a much stronger vicious dog law. Mrs. Mary Beth Wagner, a resident of Hollymead, expressed her gratitude to the Board for the passage of the emergency leash law. The emergency action September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) helped reduce the anxiety parents have been feeling. She said the large elementary school and the growth Hollymead has experienced, along with the growing dog population, should be enough reason to impose a leash law. The leash law gives residents a course of action to take, as well as encouraging dog owners to be responsible. Mrs. Nottingham said under some circumstances a leash law is not enough, nor are the "two sentences" on vicious dogs contained in the County Code comprehensive enough to protect innocent people from dangerous dogs. She said a statute contained in the Virginia State Code, along with assurances from the Assistant Attorney General's office to employ the statute, gives Albemarle County the authority to toughen, expand and make more specific its vicious dog ordinm~ce. Mrs. Nottingham then read part of the statute as follows: "The governing body of any county, city or town may adopt such ordinances, regulations or other measures as may be deemed reason- ably necessary to prevent the spread within 'its boundaries of the disease of rabies and to regulate and control the running at-large within its boundaries of a vicious or destructive dog. Penalties may be provided for the violation of any such ordinances. If the ordinance declares the existence of an emer- gency then the ordinance shall be in force upon passage."i Mrs. Nottingham concluded by saying a sophisticated expansion of the county code, along with the addition of an added animal control officer, will give citizens the protection they deserve, as well as deter felonious dog f~ghting and other illegal activities. Mrs. Nottingham asked that the Board~not wait until a serious accident occurs before imposing safeguards. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public,hearing was closed. Mr. Bowie thanked the speakers for their comments. He asked how many people were at the meeting in support of the petition for a leash law in Hollymead, (approximately 12 people raised their hands). .Mr. Bowie then asked fo~ a show of hands to indicate opposition; no hands were raised. He said the Board 'is concerned, about the problem and the staff is working on a solution. Mr. Bowie then offered motion that Section 4-19 of the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 4, Article II, be amended, as advertised, to include Hollymead as~-an area where dogs may not run at-large, by adopting the following ordi- nance. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Snow property is to be included. Mr. Bowie said the property included on the map along with the other properties listed are included as part/~ls motion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, CHAPTER 4, ANIMALS AND FOWL ARTICLE II, DIVISION 2, SECTION 4-19 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 4, Article II, Division 2, SectiOn 4-19-of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted by the addition of the following as one of those areas where dogs are prohibited from running at large: Division 2. Running at Large Sec. 4-19. In certain areas. (24) Hollymead as platted and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the following areas: Sections ! and 2 in Deed Book 531, Page 309-313; Section 3 in Deed Book 714, Page 444; Hollymead Square in Deed Book 633, Page 330; Tax Map 46, Parcel 28G in Deed Book 418, Page 440; Tax Map 46, Parcel 26B2 in Deed Book 741, Page 304; and Tax Map 46B1-01-1 in Deed Book 489, Page 381. September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) Agenda Item No. 6. SP-87-62. Gordon and Sherry Zimmerman. To locate a single-wide mobile home on Route 784 about one mile west of intersection of Route 600~ Tax Map 47, Parcel 33C, Rivanna District° (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8~ 1987.) This application was withdrawn before the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No~ 7. SP-87-70. Einstein School. To allow a school for children with learning disabilities to be located in an existing single-family dwelling. Property located on north side of Route 676 near its intersection with Route 660° Tax Map 44, Parcel 12Go Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1987.) Mro Way said he is in receipt of a letter from the applicant requesting withdrawal of the petition. He asked if anyone from Einstein School was at the meeting to speak° No one came forward. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to permit the petition to be withdrawn. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-87-69. Joyce C~ Breeding. To allow a gift/ antique shop in an existing single-family dwelling. Property located on southeast side of Route 660, approximately one-half mile west of intersection with Route 743° Tax Map 31, Parcel lgA~ Charlottesville District. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1987.) Mr. Horne gave the staff report as follows: "Petition: Joyce Breeding petitions thelBoard of Supervisors~to issue a special use permit for a GIFT/ANTIQUE SHOP (10.2~2~36) on 1.2 acres zoned dA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 31~ Parcel 18A, is located on the southeast side of Route 660 about 1/2 mile from Route 743 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District~ Character of the Area: A small dwelling~iis located on this property. A mobile home (issued to Ms. Breeding) iS located on adjoining property on the west. No other dwellings are visible in the immedi- ate area. Staff Comment: Virginia Department of Transportation has stated that 'this section of Rt. 660 is currently tolerable and this request will not make it non-tolerable. The Department recommends that the existing gravel private entrance be upgraded to a paved commercial entrance° There is adequate sight distance at the existing entrance location~' The Inspections Department has stated that the change in use group from residential to commercial ~can be very involved in terms of satisfying the (BOCA) Code.' Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions of approval this use would not be objectionable to the area. Staff recommends approval subject to the following: Staff approval of site plan after review by the Site Review Committee; 2. Building Official approval; 3. No outdoor storage or display; 4. No building expansion. Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 1, 1987, unanimously recommended approval with the four conditions recommended by September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) the staff, and adding Condition No. 5 to read: "Structure shall be used as an antique/gift shop only; no one shall be allowed to reside in the building;" and Condition No. 6 to read: "This permit issued to the applicant only and is non-transferable." The public hearing was opened and Mr. Way asked Mrs. Breeding to come forward to speak. Mr. L. C. Breeding, her son, came forward in her absence. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Breeding if the shop is strictly for antiques. Mr. Breeding replied yes. Mrs. Cooke asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. Breeding replied Thursday through Sunday, 9:00 A. M. to 5:00 P. M. Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Breeding if he is in agreement with all the conditions. Mr. Breeding replied yes. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. St. John said he believes Condition #6 is now being added to auto- matically to special use permits. Even though the applicant does not object to having this condition imposed, Mr. St. John does not see any relationship between this and land use considerations or public health, safety or general welfare. He said this practice began when the condition was added to special use permits for mobile homes, where there was a valid reason for it, and where the special use permit was issued for the sole benefit of the applicant. This is not true in this case because this is not for the sole benefit of the applicant. It can be granted because, under ordinary land use criteria, a gift shop is a proper use for the location and the use can "run" with the land. Mr. St. John said the Board should not get into the habit of saying special use permits are for the sole benefit of the applicant only and are non-transferable. Mrs. Cooke asked if by imposing Condition No. 5, Condition No. 6 is unnecessary. Mr. sro John said he does not see any connection between the two conditions. Mrs. Cooke said if the ownership of the land'changed and the new owner only wanted a gift shop, is Mr. St. John saying the Board does not .~?q have any control over the type of business to be located at the site. Mr. St. John said no; he does not see any valid reason for saying if the owner wants to sell the property, or if the owner dies and heirs inherit it, the permit expires. If it is a valid land use consideration to have a gift shop at the location, the fact that she owns it, as opposed to any other person, should not enter into the matter. The next owner is under the same restrictions as the present owner. Mrs. Cooke asked if the next owner would have to have antiques in the building. Mr. St. John said the next owner would have to have exactly what the special use permits specifies and nothing more. With Condi- tion 6 added, the special use permit automatically ceases.to exist when the present owner ceases to own the property. Mr. St. John said he is not trying to influence what the Board does, but this is questionable in his mind and question should be resolved by the Board. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-87-69 with conditions 1 through 5 recommended by the Planning Commission, adding a new Condition No. 6 as follows: "Hours of operation limited to 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M." Mrs. Cooke said she does not have any problem with this; Mr. St. John has always given the Board good advice and if he feels this is the proper thing to do, she will second the motion as stated. Mr. Bowie said he appreciates Mr. St. 3ohn~s comments, and he supports the motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom ahd Way. NAYS: None. Conditions for approval are as follows: 1. Staff approval of site plan after review by the Site Review Committee; 2. Building Official approval; o No outdoor storage or display; Structure shall be used as an antique/gift shop only; no one shall allowed to reside in the building; ;eptember 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) 5. No building expansion; 6. Hours of operation limited to 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 Agenda Item No. 9. SP-87-68. Lesco, Inc. To allow for drive-through type services to existing Lesco laundromat. Property located on northeast side of Hydraulic Road (Route 743) near intersection with Route 29. Tax Map 61W-03-23. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1987.) Mro Home gave the staff report as follows: "Petition: Lesco, Inc. petitions the Board of Supervisors to issue a special use permit for a DRIVE-IN WINDOW (22.2o2.10) on 0.85 acres zoned C-iD Commercial~ Property, described as Tax Map 61W, Parcel 3-23 is located on the north side of Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) west and adjacent to the former Safeway building in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Character of the Area: This property is developed with a laundro- mat/dry cleaners, self-service gasoline pumps, and two-bay car wash. Other p~operties in the area have commercial or industrial zonings. Staff Co~uent: The drive-in window would be used in conjunction with the dry cleaner° This use was approved in 1985, however, that special use permit has expired. At that time, staff concern was with internal circulation (see staff report for SP-85-58). The applicant has submitted a site plan which addresses those concerns. Staff recommends approval subject to: Compliance with site plan dated September 3, 1985, prepared by Roger C. Davis, Architect; No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for drive-in window addition until concrete bumpers aresecured in place and direc- tional arrows provided in accordance with site plan~ Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 1, 1987, unanimously recommended approval subject to the two conditions in the staff report. The public hearing was opened, and Mr. Way asked the applicant to come forward to speak. Mr. 3. David Ripley said he operates the business with his parents, and they trade under the name of Cleaners Plus. He said they are requesting ~e drive-in window to serve their customers more effectively. The permit was granted in 1985 and they did not know of the time limit on the permit. They are now reapplying for the permit to complete the project. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Cooke said this property lies in her district, and she offered motion for approval of SP-87-68 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The conditions for approval are as follows: 1. Compliance with site plan dated September 3, 1985, prepared by Roger C. Davis Architect; September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for drive-in window addition until concrete bumpers are secured in place and directional arrows provided in accordance with site plan. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-87-08. University Village. To amend proffer of ZMA-82-11 to increase building height to the maximum of 65 feet allowed under R-10 zoning. Property on Old Ivy Road (Route 754) adjacent to Huntington Village. Tax Map 60, Parcel 53. Jack Jouett District. "Petition: S. W. Heisc~nan (D/ba University Village) petitions the Board of Supervisors to amend the proffer of ZMA-82-11 to increase building height to the maximum of 65 feet allowed under R-10 zoning. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 53, is located on Old Ivy Road (Route 754) adjacent to Huntington Village in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Background: Under ZMA-82-11, Elite Consnruction/Harkins Associates rezoned 33.549 acres from R-1 to R-10 (Proffer) in order to establish a 260-unit continuing care retirement facility. Approval for an infirmary was gained under separate use permit. Among items proffered at that time was a building heijht description: The development concept envisions a variety of building types from one-story cluster type housing units to three and four-story apartment buildings containing a maximum of 260 residential apartments. The current applicant proposes a building height limit of 65 feet, the maximum height permitted in the R-10, Residential zone. Staff Con~nent: Under the existing proffer, a building height of about 45 feet could be achieved while the applicant proposes a maximum 65 foot building height. The existing four-story height limit appears to be based on original development concept and fire- fighting limitations that existed at that time (see Board of Supervisors minutes for September 15, 1982). Staff could find no other discussion of building height in the Board's minutes and does not recall building height being otherwise an issue. (The original zoning proffer appears unnecessarily lengthy and vague. Under this petition, staff recommended that the applicant substantially shorten the proffer including only relevant materials. The County Attorney's office has been requested to review the origi- nal and current proffers for substantive changes othe= than build- ing height.) Currently, the applicant proposes construction of a six-story, 65 foot building on the knoll behind Huntington Village. With a ground elevation of about 700 feet, this knoll would be visible from other areas of Charlottesville which ranges in elevation from 400 to 600 feet. The applicant's proffer states that the proposed change would permit ! a more orderly development of the property, to provide for better preservation of the landscape and lessen impact on surrounding properties.' The schematic plan (which is also proffered) reflects these comments. The plan shows 230 dwelling units in the large central structure, leaving 30 units to be constructed in areas shown for future development. The central structure is proposed with considerable underground parking, thus lessening the impervious coverage. This proposed configuration would probably allow for less of the total site to be graded, and for less of the site to be covered by impervious surfaces. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning and acceptance of 'the revised proffers." September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) "AMENDED PROFFER FOR UNIYERSI~Y MILLAGE RE TAX MAP 60, PARCEL 53 FORMER ZMA-82-22 228 Background: On October 20, 1982, the Board of Supervisors rezoned the above described property from R-1 to R-10 with a proffer made by the then owner. The current owner, University Village Limited Partnership, wishes to amend the proffer to allow a more orderly development of the property, to provide for better preservation of the landscape and lessen impact on the surrounding properties. The entire proffer adopted on October 20, 1982, is hereby deleted, and the followir~ substituted therefor. Applicant hereby proffers: The property will be developed for residential use as set out in paragraph 2 below, designed primarily for retired or older persons, with eligibility for residents to be limited to persons 62 years of age or older, except a spouse, other relative or not more than one unrelated person living with a qualified resident may be less than 62 years of age and may continue to be a resident even though such qualified person shall no longer be a resident~ The development of the property 'will be limited to a maximum of 260 residential units, plus .service facilities which may include dining and recreational facilities, administrative offices, banking and other services for the residents. The buildings will not exceed the height limits established in paragraph 17.8 of the residential R-10 zoning district. Building, road and parking areas will be confined and residential units and service facilities will be built essentially in accordance with the preliminary site plan (Exhibit A), and the balance will be left undisturbed or landscaped. The applicant is currently pursuing obtaining a Certificate of Need for a nursing care facility from the State Health Department, and if successful~ may construct a nursing care facility on the property, or whether successful or not may construct a personal care facility for the aged. In an effort to minimize traffic, a shuttle bus will be provided for the benefit of residents to give access to cultural and social events, required retail and personal services. Parking requirements for the residential living units will be determined based on those requirements for multi-family dwellings for the elderly, with a minimum of one parking place per dwelling unit to be in the basement area of the buildings, in covered parking enclosures or in individual garages, essentially as shown on the diagram (Exhibit B)." Mr. Horne said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 1, 1987, unanimously recommended denial of the petition. Mr. Horne pointed out the areas covered by the revised proffers on the map. He said the staff agrees with the general analysis of the applicant regarding the proposed configuration. Mr. Way asked if the main objection of the Planning Commission was the visual impact of the project. Mr. Horne replied that 90 percent of the objection was the visual impact of the large central structure on the surrounding properties. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any co=~ent has been received from the fire official. Mr. Home replied that some discussion has taken place. The change in circumstances between the original petition and now is that the Service Authority has plans to place an addi- tional water storage tank on the other side of Route 250; this will increase water pressures to this area and would provide adequate fire flows to the particular kind of structure. Mr. Lindstrom said presently 'two things are September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) being requested: 1) increase of building height; 2) substitution of new proffers for the old~ Mr. Horne said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the building will be sprinklered. Mr. Horne said for the height of the building and the clientele who will be living there, it would have to be; a fire official will have to approve the structure. How- ever, he does not know if the Building Code requires that the building be sprinklered. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the project will be visible from Route 250. Mr. Home replied that it would depend on the remaining vegetation after construction is completed. Mr. Lindstrom said the visual impact will be quite significant. He has received many letters, and the point most frequently made is that building coverage and impervious surfaces will be reduced. He said if the special permit is to be approved, there should be a clear benefit other than allusions to less building coverage, or underground parking. Mr. Lind- strom is concerned to the extent to which there is a guarantee of underground parking so the Board knows what it will be approving. Mr. Home said under- ground parking is in the new proffer; the Planning staff and the Planning Commission would ensure that the configuration proffered in the drawing would be adhered to. Mr. Horne believes the general configuration of roadways and the central area is firm in the proffer. Mr~ Horne said there is nothing in the plan or in the written proffer that directly states, for example, that. the areas which are not shown for future development will be extensively land- scaped. Mr. Lindstrom said the old proffer refers to provision of sewer and water and the new proffer does not. Mr. Horne said water was so specific in the old proffer because of uncertainty as to how water would be provided. The Planning staff is relying on current procedures that ensu~ there is adequate fire flow and adequate sewers. The Planning staff and the Planning Co~nission would not approve the site plan if it did not provide for iadequate water and sewer. Mr. Bowie said there is no difference in the number o~f units, just how they are built. Mr. Home replied yes. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Horne if any member of the Planning Commission had looked at the sitebefore the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Horne said he did not know. At this time the public hearing was opened, and Mr. Fred Landess came forward to speak. He introduced Ms. Kathy Phalen, Executive Director for University Village, and Mr. Tom Wyant, the architect on th~ project. Mr. Landess said at the original rezoning there was conce~ about the vagueness of the proffer. He said what they have tried to do is not change the type of development, they have tried to be more specific so everyone will know what is being proposed and what can be done. Mr. Tom Wyant, architect, addressed the Board and said most architects are environmentalists and most do not like to despoil landscape. He feels extremely fortunate to have been given hard, rigid guidelines in order to delineate the design that will ultimately be built. He then read the guide- lines he has been given. Mr. Wyant drew the Board members' attention to two drawings: (See booklet entitled ZMA-87-08 University Village, Amended Proffer of ZMA-82-11, County of Albemarle, dated September 16, 1987, which is marked "Received 9-16-87 ewc.") Scheme #1 is what the developer Would like to build under the amended proffer, shows undisturbed growth, the central building and the townhouse buildings. Scheme #2 is the site layout which least disturbs everything. Mr. Wyant then compared the statistics contained in both schemes which compare building coverage area, parking and roads, green spaces, existing growth to be removed and disturbed earth. He then pointed out on a map where the cuts would be on each scheme. Mr. Wyant's opinion is the developer has set down guidelines which protect the co~nunity from adverse visual impact~ and the. new scheme is a preferable solution. Mr. Wyant thinks the developer has provided the best scheme that anyone could propose~ Mr. Lindstrom stated that the boundary line behind the perimeter road appears to be on someone else's property. Mr. Wyant said the perimeter road is a right-of-way; the developer has access over it and it will be possible to incorporate it into the project. Mr. Lindstrom said what has been described is very appealing; however, the proffer does not 'incorporate many of the things that have been said. He asked Mr. Wyant if his lclient is willing to ~nend the proffer to incorporate in more specific detai~ the items Mr. Wyant alluded to in his description; it is important to him to see this in more detail than what it is now; these are items such as: recreational 23O September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) facilities, trails, buffers, etc. Mr. Wyant said he cannot speak for the applicant; however, if he was asked for a recommendation, he would recommend that the developer provide a drawing that shows these things, and he would recommend that the table set out in the materials submitted be included in the proffer, as long as it is understood that the figures are not exact~ Mr. Bowie asked why the Board members were given a 40 page book with all the specific information. He asked if this is what the developer plans to do. Mr. Wyant said the bulk of the information contained in the book is what has already occurred. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if this is a special permit procedure. Mr. St. John replied no, this is to amend the proffer that went with a previous rezoning. Mr~ Landess said the applicator would have no trouble putting back into the proffer the existing paragraph about substantial landscape buffers. He said his-feeling is that the proffer is not the proper place for a general narrative statement. Ms. Kathleen Phalen, Executive Director of University Village, gave a presentation about the type of people who will be living in University Village. She asked Board members to look at Scheme #1 in the book and said this scheme meets the requirements of medical emergency access, easy accessibility to services, automobile and pedestrian flow safety for the majority of the people who will be living there° She pointed out that Scheme #2 has many disadvan- tages over Scheme #it such as: depletion of green spaces because of parking; isolation of residents because of decentralized structures. She said Scheme #2 can actually cause a breakdown of the emotional and physical support that is possible by using Scheme #1. Mro Bowie said the information does not state that if the building is taller, there will be more than 4.0 acres of green space forever. Ms. Phalen said she personally knows what is being promoted and what is wanted for the residents. However, Mr. Heischman will have to answer Mr. Bowie's inquiry. Mrs. Cooke asked what the smaller, outlying buildings are in Scheme #i. Mr. Landess replied that they are additional living units° Ms. Phalen said they are one-story townhouses, approximately 30, scattered throughout the property. '~ Mr. Paul T~ David, a resident of Albemarle County for almost 30 years, said he attended the Planning Commission meeting where 'the petition was recommended for denial° At the time, he thought the decision was outrageous. Since he is an interested party with money down on an apartment in the pro- posed complex, he wondered if the decision was unreasonable and possibly illegal. He then quoted from a Supreme Courti~decision regarding the taking of property under any reasonable construction with no suggestion of possible compensation to the developer, citing the case of a Lutheran church versus the County of Los Angeles. Concluding, he said h& hopes the Board will give careful consideration to its decision and that there will be no reason for this case to go to the Supreme Court since he,would rather not wait for the time it takes to be decided to move into University Village. (A complete copy of Mr. David's presentation is on file in the Clerk's office.) Mro Way asked speakers to be as brief as possible in the interests of time. Mr. Ted Loud, son-in-law of Mrs. McGavock who is the owner of the property adjoining University Village, pointed out Mrs~ McGavock's property' on the map. He said the property is six acres, and they a~e primarily concerned about the specifics of the project. Two and one-half months ago, they were instructed by the Planning Commission to negotiate a pro,er right-of-way settlement regarding networking of the roads and their property (their ability to access Old Ivy Road). They have not been able to do;so because they have received a number of possible alternatives. The decision the Board reaches concerning the height of the building impacts on the McGavock property because each set of plans deals differently with the road and the McGavock's access to it. He said Mr. Max Evans, a design architect he hired, will discuss and evaluate each proposal. Concluding, he recommended that the Board defer a decision September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) concerning the height of the building until more information is available, and until he and Mr. Heischman have had a chance to negotiate a settlement regard- ing the roadway. Mro Bowie asked Mr. Loud if he objected to the proposal under discussion° Mro Loud said no; the new proposal is less objectionable° He said the success of the project impacts the value of the McGavock property, as well as the privacy they now enjoy. Mr. Max Evans, a landscape architect, said they are concerned with developing a plan for the property that takes into consideration how the qualities of the site might remain and still contain the desired development. He was hired by the McGavock estate to examine the impact of the proposed development on their property. The original plans used an existing right-of- way for the road. When concerns were raised about the development at the first phase of the site plan for the marketing center, they were instructed by' the Planning Commission to meet with University Village to work out concerns regarding road developraent, location of buildings, open spaces and their location, buffers, landscaping, etc. He said the proposal before the Board tonight follows the third plan developed to protect the McGavock estate, as well as accommodate the concerns of University Village. He pointed out the properties on a map, and said they are concerned whether or not more specifics can be delineated with respect to the revision. Mro St. John said he had a question about the procedure. He said legally speaking, what is being discussed now is not an issue for:the Board to discuss. The development has been approved and all that has been asked for is a change in the proffer. He said the road system and how it affects the adjoining property, if it is a problem, is not changed and cannot be changed one way or another by what is before the Board. Mr. Evans said they were told the pre- liminary road plan was a part of the proffer revision, and they are concerned about that plan. Mr. St° John said he agrees and his question is answered. The original proffer was not tied to any plan, but this one is tied to Scheme #1. Mr. St. John asked if the position of the McGavock estate is that Scheme #1~as drawn now cannot be legally accepted as a proffer because it involves activity on someone else's land, and the person has not agreed to ito Mr. Evans said no, they just have several points they want to bring up about the road and the placea~ent of buildings with respect to the road, and the moving of an existing easement and access to the relocated easement. Mr. Evans continued by showing photographs of various locations with respect to the McGavock property° He pointed out on a diagram the advantages of the third study concerning the road. He said the lower~ buildings shown as dotted outlines on Schem~ #1 do not have an indication of What the open spaces surrounding them will contain. He said they are concerned~ about traffic going to and from the development, particularly going up to the hi-rise, and how noise and headlights, etc., will impact. A grading study of the road was made to develop buffers and to protect and provide access to the estate, which showed how mounding and contouring can be incorporated int~ the roadwork to provide privacy and also provide a good setting for the approach to the development. Mr. Evans said they are at the hearing to request more infor- mation. They have made every attempt to arrive at some agreement with University Village about location of the road, elevations at which it would be graded, kinds of contouring, drainage, buffering, location of recreational facilities, footpaths, etc. The McGavock's feel that sinc~ the road is part of the proffer, it is only fair they know what that is andihow it will impact on the McGavock property, in order to be able to make an i~formed decision about being for or against the proposed development. Mr. ~vans said a major concern is the holding basin, and a suggestion has been made about its loca- tion, and that the runoff be directed in such a way as to ~ot flow onto the McGavock property. He said a completed road location stud~ shows the proposed location of the road will work, but no agreement has been %eached and there is no commitment as to whether or not the road will fit reasonably close to the property. ~ Ms. Betty Newell, Executive Director for Martha Jeffecson Hospital Home Care, a member of the Martha 3efferson Health Services Corporation, said their staff will be responsible for delivering on-site health care services for University Village. Ms. Newell asked that the changes to ~he property be approved from a health care perspective. She said home health care services are delivered to post-acute patients, mostly to elderly patients recently September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) ~ 3 2 (Page 13) discharged from a hospital for stroke, hip fracture, pneumonia, etc. On behalf of MJH Rome Care, Ms. Newell asked that the Board in considering the redesign of University Village, give attention to accessibility of the health care areas. MJH Home Care feels that having a more centralized facility will greatly enhance the delivery of health care. The central facility will contain an infirmary and therapy areas for physical/occupational therapy. In addition, response to emergency situations will be greatly enhanced by the proposed centralized facility and the 24 hour security. The new design will enhance the quality of life and will encourage older people to get out and remain active. From a health care perspective, Ms. Newell urged the Board to approve the revised proffers. (NOTE: At this time, 9:35 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:46 P.M.) Mr. Fred Landess stated that most of the things discussed by Mr. Loud and Mr. Evans are site plan details that cannot be. handled at this time. He said the most relevant statement made was that Scheme #1 is better. Mr. Landess said the applicant has no problem including i~ the proposed amended proffer the figures requested if it will help to assure everyone that the property will be developed in accordance with the proposal. However, because this is not a site plan, final details are not available. He said they can include a statement similar to the chart on Page 9 of the proposal, but not with the figures contained therein because those figures are estimates. Or, they can go back to a narrative form and include a statement such as, "The property will be developed with the least reasonable amount of disturbance to the site area, with a minimum of five acres of newly landscaped land, including walking paths and garden areas, and a minimum of 12 acres either left undisturbed or in a recreational area, such as a tennis cour~ or croquette lawn." Mr. Landess said the developer has no problem wit~ putting this type of provision in the proffer. Mr. Bowie asked for confirmation that with the two extra floors, there will be five acres more of open space proffer6d. Mr. Landess said yes. Mrs. Cooke asked if the discussion between the developer and the McGavock represent- atives is a personal matter~ has nothing td do with what the Board has been asked to decide. Mr. Loud/~e Roes not feel that is correct. Mrs. Cooke advised him that she is speaking to Mr. St. J~hn. Mr. Loud apologized. Mr. St. John said he does not think this is 100 percent true because Scheme #1 is part of the proffer° He said there are certain things shown on Scheme #1 which the McGavock estate claims adversely affects them~ as adjoining land- owners this is more than a personal issue, it is legitimate. Mrs. Cooke said again that what the Board has to decide has nothing to do with what has been discussed, other than the height of the building. Mr. Lindstrom said the proposed proffer incorporates a sketch, and any adjoining property owner or member of the public who is concerned about what the Board will approve, has a proper place at the hearing to voice their concerns. He said the Board is being asked to adopt a very ~general development scheme, which is different from the existing proffer. He said in lieu of the verbiage contained in the original proffer, there is a sketch that shows where things will be located. Mr Landess said regarding the concern expressed about the relative elevation of the proposed site and the buildings in relatzon t the elevation of Route 250, between the proposed project an~ the Bypass is 26 acres of land zoned R-15. At some point in the future, the~e will be development between this site and the Route 250 Bypass. Mr. Bowie asked for confirmation as to where the site is located and where the open space is by pointing out the a~eas on the map. Mro Landess confirmed this° Mr. Loud said the location of the road will have some impact on the amount of open space the Board has expressed concern about. He said it is important that the road issue be resolved° Mr. Evans asked for clarifica- tion that the diagram is a part of the proffer, although it remains unspecific with respect to the proffer. He said the grading studies and alignment studies that were completed were done in a matter of hours, not a matter of days. He feels the design of the road and its! location and the location and distribution of the open space is important. Mr. Evans also feels this kind of information is appropriate to be brought into the decision the Board makes. With no one else coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. 2:33 September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Lindstrom said the application relates to land in his district. The existing zoning proffer does not allow the structure to be 65 feet tall. He understands the primary concern of the applicant is to increase the height of the building and the reasons given are all good reasons. Mr. Lindstrom quoted from the existing proffer and said what the applicant now proposes is the deletion of all of the language in the existing proffer with new language to be included. The new language is more specific about some things, but with respect to the language about buffers it only incorporates the schematic site plan sketch presented tonight. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern about the proffer is that it is not specific enough about the things that are offered as the benefits of the proffer, such as: open space, amenities, buffers, etc., and does not give the Planning Commission more than the minimal abilities it has under the existing site plan ordinance to deal with and implement what has been talked about tonight. Mr. Lindstrom said he cannot support the proffer offered tonight except if it incorporates the language on Page 9 of the book, the sketch shows the general area of undisturbed territory, the area and type of recreational facilities, approximate dimension and location of the buffers, the disturbed areas, landscaped areas and natural areas. He said he would willingly support the proffer if it incorporates the suggested language and includes the schematic with the suggested delineations. Mr. Bowie asked which paragraph Mr. Lindstrom spoke about. Mr. Lindstrom replied the next to last paragraph on Page 2 of the old proffer. Mr. Bowie said he thinks the request to increase the height of the building is reason- able and better serves the nature of the con~nunity. Mr. Lindstrom stated that the old proffer specifically said the facility will offer campus style build- ings, and what is now proposed is a fairly massive single,structure with some other buildings. This makes the way in which the property is buffered more significant. He said the Board might want to defer this item to give the applicant an opportunity to consider an amendment to the proffer. Mr. Way said he has no problem with the additional height of the building and the general layout of the project. However, he feels the proffer should contain more specifics than it does now. Mr. Henley said he agrees. Mrs. Cooke said if it is the general consensus of the Board that a more definite statement is needed in the proffer she will go along with the Board. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the Board inquire if th~ applicant wants to respond to the comments made by reconsidering the proffer.~ Mr. Landess replied that the applicant is willing to make specific statements; however, the applicant wants specifics as to what should be included on the schematic. Mr. Landess said they do not have any problem with including the figures comparable to those listed on Page 9 of the book; the figures will be precise as possible at this point, dealing with this site only. Concerning the drawing, it will have to be a broad, general schematic. Mr. Lindstrom said it should be a schematic plan incorporating what he stated previously. Mr. Bowie said he feels uncomfortable; he does not want to tell the applicant what should be in the proffer. Mr. St. John said the applicant has volunteered some assurances based on what has been discussed; he does not believe this amounts to telling the applicant what to do. In other words, if the applicant gives the Board some assurances now, the Board wants something in writing that can be used later to enforce the assurances. Mrs. Cooke said she is willing to accept a verbal description in the proffer as to the co voiced tonight. She will not support anything other than that. Mr. St. John said it should be clear as to what is wanted° Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to defer ZMA-87-08 untiliOctober 7, 1987, which was seconded by Mr. Bowie. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. End-Of-Year Financial Report, and request for appropriations. Memorandum dated September 11, 1987, from~Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, was received as follows: September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) "Forwarded herewith is the Director of Finance's report of unaudited revenues, expenditures, and fund balances for FY 86-87. Revenue accounts were held open until August 15, per State regulations, and expenditures were accumulated similarly. The following summarizes the major parts of the report: Revenues The General Fund totaled $42.8 million which is $2°2 million or 5.3 percent over budget estimates. The School Fund totaled $34.2 million which is $11,000 or 0.03 percent under budget estimates. Expenditures The General Fund totaled $39.9 million which is $775,000 or 1.9 percent under budget appropriations. Of this amount, $204,000 was reappropriated (carried forward) to FY 87-88 leaving an unexpended expenditure balance of $571,000, or 1.4 percent. The School Fund totaled $33.6 million which is $615,000 under budget appropriations. Of this amount, $82,000 was reappropriated to FY 87-88, leaving an unexpended balance of $533,000, or 1.6 percent. Fund Balances The General Fund revenues and expenditure totals result in an in- crease of the fund balance of $2.975 million (rounded to $3.0 mil- lion) of which $204,114 was reappropriated to FY 87-88, and $369,255 was appropriated to balance the FY 87-881budget, leaving a net gain of $2.4 million unobligated. The adjusted fund balance today should be $10.73 million. The School Fund revenues and expenditures results in an increase of the fund balance of $604,000 of which $82,000 was reappropriated to FY 87-88, and $425,000 was appropriated to balance the FY 87-88 budget, leaving a net gain o£ $97,000 unobligated. The adjusted fund balance today should be $214,000. These numbers, as indicated, are unaudited. When the audit report is complete (anticipated in November) and the numbers are firm, recom- mendations on the use of the carry-over funds will be made. Major adjustments are not expected. As this report indicates, the finan- cial condition of the County remains sound. Official action required from this report is the approval of the supplemental appropriations and transfers to offset over-expenditures in the several funds involved." "Financial Report - Fiscal Year 1986/87,'dated September 10, 1987, from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, Director of Finance: The annual closing of the County's booksi£or fiscal year 1986/87 is completed and with a few minor exceptions shows the County to be in excellent financial condition. GENERAL FUI~D Revenues exceeded budget projections by approximately $2.2 million while expenditures were under budget by $0.8 million resulting in an increase of the fund balance from current year operations of $3 million. Due to the transfer of $6.5 million to the Capital Improve- ment Fund and additional appropriations during 1986/87, the fund balance shows a decrease from $15.5 million to $11.3 million. Revenues from~local property taxes and other local taxes exceeded budget projections in almost every line item. New construction in the County resulted in real estate taxes exceeding projections by 3.79 percent, while increased car sales resulted in personal property taxes exceeding projections by 3°25 perc~nto A major increase in sales taxes (14.82%) and business licenses (13.48%) show the results ; 35 September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) of a much improved economy and the growth of business in the County. Utility' taxes exceeded projections by 4.78 percent primarily from electrical use resulting from the growth in the number of customers and commercial usage. Interest on deposits is 14.41 percent below budget as a result of the transfer of $6.5 million to the Capital Improvement Fund which was not anticipated when budget projections were made. Six department/categories show over-expenditures at year end: General District Court $ 554~78 Telephone usage and alterations to building Clerk of the Circuit Court 2,116~75 Compensation for part-time help resulting from increased property transfers. Revenues from Clerk's fees and recordation fees exceeded budget projections by $160,000. ~ Commonwealth's Attorney Telephone system 150.84 Police Department 8,408..82 Primarily due to payment of overtime. Revenue from police service fees exceeded budget by $10,675. Contributions Human Development To: District Home Piedmont College 9,718.61 455.43 Refunds Due to refund of large overpayment on business license. Total 10,458.85 $31,864.~08 Expenditures in all other departments were within budgeted appropria- tions. Total expenditures were under budget by $775,000, of this amount, $204,000 was reappropriated in 1987/88 for uncompleted projects. Supplemental appropriations for the over-expenditures are requested. SCHOOL FUND Revenues will be below budget projections by $11,098.:' Expenditures will also be under budget by $615,125 resulting in an increase in the fund balance of $604,027 from current year operations. This will increase the total school fund balance to $721,703 which will more than adequately cover the $425,000 anticipated to be used in funding of the 1987./88 budget. Revenue generally exceeded projections with the exception of state reimbursements of compensation and fringes. This amount is below projection by $184,000 due to the offsetting over projection of expenditures for compensation. Expenditures are $615,000 under appropriation primarily in com- pensation resulting from savings realized from attrition. Over- expenditures were incurred in the following two categ0ries: Attendance & Health $ 17,615106 Compensation for school psychologists. Operation of School Plant 85,815~72 Attributable to electrical costs especially in the all electric schools. Total $103,430.78 An appropriation transfer for the over-expenditures is requested. September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) OTHER FUNDS Federal Revenue Sharing Revenues exceeded projections by $4,575. There is currently an undesignated fund balance of $89,603.30. This amount should be substituted for a like amount of local funds in the 1987/88 school budget and designated for utility costs. Action necessary to accomplish this must be advertised and will be submitted for action in October. Community Education Expenditures in this fund exceeded appropriations by $3,989.27, however, this is a self-sustaining fund and revenues also exceeded projection by $5,900.52 resulting in a net gain of $1,911.25. A supplemental appropriation offset by the excess revenue is requested. Cafeteria Cafeteria operation showed an operating deficit of $56,761.52 for the year. It had been anticipated that expenditures would exceed revenues by approximately $60,000 to be covered by the June 30, 1986, fund balance of $61,384.31. Action has been taken to increase 1987/88 lunch fees in order that cafeteria operations are on a self-sustaining basis. Capital Improvement The Capital Improvement Fund will complete the year with a balance of $7.5 million of which $793,200 is reserved for outstanding loans. An additional $2 million is receivable from the Literary Fund making total funds available of $8.8 million. 'Of this amount, $7.5 million is designated for uncompleted projects leaving a balance of $1o3 million. This balance has been used in funding of the 1987/88 Capital Improvement Budget. Revenue from interest on deposits totaled $483,282 resulting from the transfer of $6.5 million from the General Fund. The following over-expenditures were incurred in capital projects: 1. Police Department - Equipment $ 85.20 2. School Board - Ivy School Site Selection 458.75 Total $543.95 I am requesting transfers to cover these from the undesignated fund balance. Joint Security Revenues exceeded expenditures by $31,518.52, however, expenditures exceeded budgeted appropriations by $93,294.10. This excess revenue will be returned to the localities on completion of their 1986/87 audit. The majority of the over-expenditure ($63,548) results from the accrual of unpaid vacation and sick leave which is not a budgeted item. The remainder is primarily food supplies resulting from increased prisoner population. A supplemental appropriation is requested. Joint Dispatch Revenues exceeded expenditures by $13,823.66 which will be returned to the localities after completion of the 1986/87 audit. This summary is intended to highlight the major financial activities of County operations for fiscal year 1986/87. Although I do not anticipate any major adjustments, all amounts are unaudited and subject to minor changes resulting from the County's annual audit." g37 September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Attachment #1 CHANGES IN GENERAL FUND BALANCE Beginning Balance 7-1-87 Less: Plus: Funding of 86/87 Budget Duplicating Fund * Transfer to Capital Improvement Reappropriation from 85/86 Supplemental Appropriations 86/87 1986/87 Operations $ 224,492 9,680 6,530,000 338,424 60,187 Ending Balance 6-30-87 $15,531,285 7,162,783 2,938,666 $11,307,168 Combined with General Fund Balance in 1985/86 audit for reporting purposes only." Mr. Agnor very briefly summarized the report and the request for appro- priations. Mr. Bowie offered motion that the following appropriations and transfers as requested be approved, as outlined in the September 11, 1987, memorandum from Mr. Melvin A. Breeden, be approved. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $31,864.08 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded as follows to cover 1986-87 over- expenditures. 1100021020520300 1100021060100300 1100022010520300 1100031010100200 1100091032563000 General District Court-Telephone Circuit Court-parttime Compensation Commonwealth Attorney-Telephone Police Dept.-Overtime Compensation Contribution-District Home 1100091032562400 Contribution-Piedmont College 1100092010580305 Refunds-Business Licenses $ 554.78 $ '2,116.75 $ 150.84 $ 8,408.82 $ 9,718.61 $ 455.43 $10,458.85 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $103,403.78 be, and the same hereby is, transferred.within the School Fund from 1-2000-60000-100135, Compensation of Teachers to the following codes to offset fiscal year 1986-87 overexpenditures. 1200060140100124 Compensation-Psychologists $ 17,615.06 120006062551.0100 Greer-Electrical Services 1200060629510100 Red Hill-Electrical Services 1200060751510100 Stone Robinson-Electrical Services 1200060751510100 Al{S-Electrical Services 1200060761510100 WAHS-Electrical Services 1200060772510100 Henley-Electrical Services 1200060773510100 3ouett-Electricat Services 1200060774510100 Walton-Electrical Services 1200060000100135 Compensation-Teachers $ 8,679.20 $ 3,210,24 $ 4,002.97 $ 13,925.57 $ 25,407.32 $ 12,812.80 $ 11,047.18 $ 6,730.44 $(103,430.78) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,989.27 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Community Education Fund and coded to 1-2300-60000-100135 Compensation of Teachers to cover fiscal 1986-87 overexpenditures. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $93,294o10 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Joint Security Fund and coded as follows to cover fiscal year 1986-87 overexpenditures. 1400033020201910 Accrued Annual Leave 1400033020540200 Food Service Supplies $63,548.98 $29,745.12 September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, that $543.95 is transferred from the undesignated fund balance of the Capital Improvement Fund and coded as follows to cover fiscal year 1986-87 overexpenditures. 1900031010700101 Police Department-Equipment $ 85.20 1900060100300222 Ivy School Site Selection $ 458.75 1900099999999998 Undesignated Fund Balance $(543.95) Agenda Item Noo 12. Authorize County Attorney to file "Petition for Writ of Election" with the Court, and "Writ of Election" with the Secretary of the Electoral Board. Mr. St. John briefly summarized the procedure to 'De used for filing the Petition for Writ of Election and the Writ of Election. He said the Judge of the Circuit Court will read the Petition, which asks the judge to sign the Writ. When the judge signs the Writ, it must be delivered to the Electoral Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the County Attorney, on the Board's behalf, to petition the court with the Writ of Election, generally in the form provided to the Board. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. There was no discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. 'S: None. Mr. St. John handed to the Clerk copies of the documents with his signa- ture affixed thereto for the record. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appointment: Agricultural/Forestal District Advisory Committee. There was no nomination for this appointment. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: March 18, 1985; May 20, June 10, and July 15, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of June 10, 1987, Pages 16 (beginning with Item No. 13A to the end, and July 15, 1987, Pages 1 to 8, and except for some typographical errors, found them to be correct. Mrs° Cooke had read the minutes of May 20, 1987, Pages 1 through 8, ending with Item No. 6, and found them to be in acceptable order. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Board and the Public. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board members about the committee assignments of the former chairman. He suggested that the Board members might want to discuss this at an October meeting. Mr. Agnor said he received a report from the YPI-SU Extension Service giving their review of both the drought and the recent flood. In addition, Board members are in receipt of a memorandum from Mr. Charles Wo Goodman, Extension Agent/ Horticulturist, recommending that the Board request the Governor's office to declare Albemarle County an agricultural disaster area. 233 September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) The memorandum details dollar losses and orchard, vegetable and corn crop losses, a combination of the effects of the drought, rains and subsequent floods. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to request the Governor's office to declare Albemarle County an agricultural disaster area due to the severity of weather conditions during 1987 by adopting the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. WHEREAS, the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service has advised the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that due to the summer drought and recent flood, Albemarle County has lost approximately $4,662,400 in orchard, vegetable and corn crops, and WHEREAS, the drought and flood resulted in the loss of approxi- mately 1,035 acres of the apple crop, the loss of forty acres of pumpkins from the September 6, 7, and 8, 1987 flood, and the loss of twenty-eight acres of tomatoes, and WHEREAS, the drought caused a reduction in peach size, only 75 percent of normal volume was harvested this year and only one-half of the 5,500 acres of corn will produce grain this year, and WHEREAS these losses cause a substantial hardship on the agri- cultural operations of Albemarle County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby petition the Governor of Virginia to declare the County of Albemarle a disaster area due to the severity of the weather conditions. Mr. Agnor said he received notice that the Virginia State Department of Health has appointed Dr. Susan McLeod as the Thomas Jefferson Health Disl director, effective November 1, 1987. Mr. Agnor said the local Bar Association and judges have planned a celebration of the Bicentennial of the Constitution for October 3, 1987, from 10:00 A.M. to approximately 4:00 P.M., involving a number of activities with the schools and the courts. Mr. Agnor said if there is need for funds for awards to be given at the games and the trials, it has been requested by Jud Steve Helvin that the Board make the contingency fund available for the money needed, possibly no greater than $300.00, but most likely much less. Mr. Agnor said he will report the amount of funds needed to the Board. Mr. Agnor said he received notification from the Virginia Association of Counties of its annual meeting scheduled for November 8 to November 10, 1987. He said the reservations must be in by Friday, September 18, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom suggested a room be reserved for whoever will fill the vacant Miller District seat. Mr. Agnor said it is time 'to schedule a joint meeting with the School Board. He suggested that the meeting be scheduled for after the appointment of the Samuel Miller District representative. He suggested October 21, 1987. Mr. Way suggested 3:30 PoM. Mr. Agnor said the Board has been invited to view Virginia Power's lightning detection system at their new division headquarters on Fifth at the 1-64 Interchange. The Board has also been invited to take a tour of the facility. Mr. Agnor suggested the viewing take place after the day meeting on October 14, 1987, and the Board members agreed. September 16, 1987 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 21) Agenda Item No. 14a. Executive Session: Personnel. At 10:39 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss personnel. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way° NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 11:15 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn until September 30, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn to September 30, 1987, 7:30 P.M., at the Henley Middle School. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None.