Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-06113 1 i h .~eetin A regular meeting oi' the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March, 6, ±985, in the Auditorium of the Aloemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Hoad, Charlottesville, Virginia, at 7:30 p.m. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, 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. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. 7:40 p.m. Call to Order. Mr. Fisher, Chairman, called the meeting to order at Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-84-91. Thomas D. Lanahan (Spring Hills Final Plat). Request to resubdivide five lots (19.73 acres) into seven lots with an average of 2.72 acres on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located at the intersection of Route 678 and ROute 676 near Meriwether Lewis School. County Tax Map 58, Parcels 70F, 70G, 70H, 70I and 65B2. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 19 and February 26, 1985.) Mr. Donnelly presented the following staff report: SP-84-91: Acre.age: Location: Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge) 19.734 acres North Side of Route 676 west, about 0.3 mile west of the intersection with Route 678. Applicant's Proposal: To redivide five lots into seven lots ranging from two to four acres, with an average of 2.8 acres, to be served by proposed state road Hawkwood Court. Individual wells and septic systems proposed. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Character of the Area: The existing lots are all vacant with the exception of lot 10C on which is presently being built a single-family dwelling. Route 676 is developed residentially with comparably sized lots to the east, and larger lots to the west and south. Ivy Oaks, a subdivision of 41 lots with an average 2.5 acres, is to the east at the Routes 676 and 678 intersection. Comprehensive Plan: The Plan shows this area for Rural Area III. The recommended density for property within the South Fork Rivanna watershed is one dwelling unit per ten acres. Special Use Permit Criteria: Since this petition does not propose an increase over the number of lots allowed 'by right', the criteria for the review of special use permits (Section 10.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance) has not been applied. The five existing lots have sufficient development rights to result in a total of eight lots; whereas the applicant proposes a total of seven lots. No resulting lots are of adequate size to be further divided, unless zoning or other requirements change. This redivision requires a special use permit because of the manner in which the lot lines are to change. Based on the Board of Supervisors determination on the Hopewell Subdivision, each new (re-divided lot must contain at least two acres from an existing lot. The criteria for review of this special use permit is: does this redivision serve the public interest to an equivalent or greater extent than subdivision 'by right'? Staff Comment: The applicant proposes seven lots ranging from 2.007 to 3.974 acres on a new public road. Current subdivision regulations require a state road for lots under five acres. The proposal creates lots with more practical building sites. An existing inadequate entrance to the 60 foot right-of-way serving several lots will be closed, and a portion of the easement relocated to provide access over the new public road. Staff opinion is that the proposed subdivision better reflects the public interest than 'by right' development for the following reasons: The lots create more logical building sites; access to these lots as well as those along the right-of- way is improved; this entrance to Route 676 is safer for the public. Staff recommends approval of this petition subject to the following conditions: 1. The subdivision shall be limited to seven parcels and shall be in general accordance with the plat by William Morris Foster, dated December 1, 1984; March 6, 1985 (Regular Niff~t Wa~a~mg) 2. Construct a new private road in the relocated easement to private road standards." Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission, at its meet±ng on February 12, 1985, y recommended approval of SP-84-91 with the two conditions recommended by the staff md with the following third condition: "3. Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement, satisfactory to County Attorney, providing for relocation of existing road rights-of-way by all parties having rights to such rights-of-way, such relocation to be substantially as shown on proposed plat, and, specifically, providing for the closing of the existing entrance of State Route 676." In addition, Mr. Donnelly noted that the Planning Commission waived Section 18-34 of the division Ordinance to allow Lot 8 to have double road frontage. The Board had received the following letter from Mr. Lanahan just before the meeting began ~oncerning the Planning Commission's condition: "March 6, 1985 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: SP-84-91 Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge) Dear Members of the Board: I am writing to you concerning the above noted petition which was recommended for approval by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on February 12, 1985. Enclosed please find a copy of the letter from Amelia McCulley that outlines this recommendation and the proposed conditions. My concern is about conr :- ditions number 2 and 3 that deal with the abandonment of a portion of an 8~isting right-of-way and relocation of another portion of this same right-of-way. Condition number 3 calls for agreements on this abandonment and relocation between all parties having rights to the right-of-way. As one owner who has use of this right-of-way has been in Europe since January and will not return until late spring, I have been unable to reach agreements with him. I have contacted all other persons affected and believe I will be able to reach the necessary agreements. Even if agreements cannot be reached, and the right-of- way is left as it is, the new state road would provide safer and better access for those people who choose to use it. I have enclosed a copy of a letter from my attorney, Lindsay R. Barnes, Jr., which addresses any potential legal questions arising from leaving the right-of-way as is, intersecting with the proposed state road at its present location. The condition also calls for the closing of the entrance of the existing right-of-way onto State Route 676. The existing right-of-way shares this entrance with a driveway to an adjoining property owner's home. If the entrance is closed, this homeowner's only access to his house will be blocked. After discussing this matter with Fred Payne, the Virginia Department of Highways and members of the county planning staff, I would like to join with the staff's request that condition number 3 be amended to read: Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement, satisfactory to County Attorney, providing for relocation of existing road rights-of-way by all parties having rights to such rights-of- way, such relocation to be substantially as shown on proposed plat and, specifically, providing for the abandonment of the existing easement between State Route 676 and proposed Hawkwood Court. would also like to join in with the staff's request to add condition number to read as follows: 4. No building permit will be issued on lot 6 until such time as as conditions number 2 and 3 are satisfied. As you can see, these changes would not materially alter my proposed plan and would be in the best interest of'Albemarle County residents in regards to safety and good overall planning, at the same time enhancing the value of adjoining property and providing incentive for me to reach the necessary agreements with the affected property owners. I would appreciate your favor- able consideration of this matter and will be available at our meeting tonight to answer any questions you might have. Respectfully yours, (S~NE~) Tom Lanahan" Mr. Barnes' letter, enclosed for the Board's information, reached the County Attorney's office on March 4: "March 4, 1985 Frederick W. Payne, Esq. Deputy County Attorney 416 Park Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 March 6, 1785 (Regulars'Night Meeting) RE: Tom Lanahan, SP-84-91 Spring Hills (Laurel Ridge) Dear Mr. Payne: At the Planning Commission meeting of February 12, 1985, I understand an opinion was requested regarding the legal implications of Mr. Lanahan's proposed development upon an existing right-of-way traversing his property and extending into other tracts situated north and west of the proposed development. The title history of this right-of-way indicates that it first appeared in a 1968 conveyance of 83.185 acres extending north of State Route 676 and located in the Samuel Miller District on Tax Maps 58 and 42. The pertinent part of the 1968 description is as follows: '. . . together with a non- exclusive right of way and easement, sixty feet in Width, running from the gate on the above described property out to the public road.' This descrip- tion appears in Deed Book 444, page 407 and is supplemented by a plat, dated May 22, 1968, from R. O. Snow and Associates, C.L.S. The Virginia law applicable to this case can be found in Cushman Virginia Corporation, et al. vs. Donald C. Barnes, 204 Va. 245 (1963'). This case, originating in Albemarle County and involving land west of Farmington, con- cerned the partitioning of a large farm into three tracts. Essentially, the owner of Tract 3 sought to develop his property and, in so doing, to make use of a road traversing Tracts 1 and 2 and described as 'the present road' in the partition deeds. The owner of Tracts 1 and 2 sought to block the proposed development of Tract 3. In resolving the right-of-way question in favor of the developer, the court stated: 'When a right of way is granted over land, the servient estate, for the benefit of other land, the dominant estate, and the instru- ment creating the easement does not limit the use to be made thereof, it may be used for any purpose to which the dominant estate may then, or in the futhre, reasonably be devoted. This rule is subject to the qualification that no use may be made of the right of way different from that established at the time of its creation, which imposes an additional burden on the servient estate.' 204 Va. 545, 551. Further, the Court stated that 'when a portion of the dominant estate is conveyed away, without excepting the right of way, the owner of such portion has the right, in connection with the reasonable use of his land, to make use of the easement if his land is accessible thereto.' 204 Va. 545, 551. I am of the belief that Mr. Lanahan's proposed development would appear to conform to Cushman by violating neither the rights of the present owner nor the rights of the owners of servient estates conveyed off since 1968. Any and all owners who previously utilized the right-of-way would con- tinue to be able to do so. The proposed partial relocation would materi- ally affect neither the reasonable use of the right-of-way nor accessibility to the other owners' tracts. In fact, with the acceptance of proposed Hawkwood Court into the state highway system, accessibility to such tracts would be substantially enhanced and would be gained in a manner much safer than that gained by using the present and dangerous Route 676/right- of-way intersection. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact either me or Mr. Lanahan. With best regards, I am Sincerely yours (SZaNEO) Lindsay R. Barnes, Jr." Mr. Fisher asked if the subdivision that exists now was a by-right subdivision or if it wa ~lso the result of a special use permit.~ Mr. Donnelly said he does not know. Mr. Fisher said if the staff review is based upon a subdivision by right and there were, in fact conditions on the subdivision because it was made under a special use permit, then those conditions should have been taken into account. In addition, this application, because of the new material received by the Board tonight, is not the exact application the Planning commission approved and he thinks it should go back to that body for review. Mr~ Donnelly said the staff met with the applicant yesterday and~has had a chance to review the new material. Mr. Fisher said he thinks the Board should hold a public hearing and then send the application back to the Planning Commission because of the proposed changes. Mr. Lindstrom said he is a little nervous about looking at plans for a residential area based on what somebody "thinks" has been a "by right" use. He feels the Board should have been provided with a copy of the existing plat, as well as the proposed plat. At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Lindsay Barnes was present to represent Mr. Lanahan. He said Mr. Lanahan tried to contact the property owners who share the easement with him, when he realized that there were some questions being raised about the right- Of-waY; The proposed easement Will not have a negative impact on'any'Of these property owners; it is safer than the present entrance; it will be left as it is until the final prOperty owner (in Europe) can be reached. The proposed condition.is a compromise that will allow development and be only a minor deviation from what has been recommended for approval. The new condition will restrict development only on lot six, preserve the right-of-way and allow building on the other lots. March 6, 1985 (Regular Night~ Meeting Mr. Lanahan told the Board that he started the process of trying to get this subdivision approved in mid-December. Sending the application back to the Planning Commission now would cause him a great hardship. His only request is that he be allowed to begin work on.the other lots and construction of a new road while still trying to get in touch with the property owner who is unavailable. The one lot most affected will remain vacant. He said Mr. Donnelly and thc Highway Department have agreed that the new entrance will be a much more desirable one on this property. Mr. Fisher told Mr. Lanahan that the Board's agenda with related materials was mailed last Friday, and this information came in today. The Board has not had time to review it and is thus at a serious disadvantage. Mr. Lanahan apologized. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Lanahan when this property was originally divided. said he thinks in 1973, when five parcels were consolidated from two owners. Mr. Lanahan Mrs. Cooke asked what would happen if the right-of-way negotiations fell through. Mr. Lanahan said lot six would have to remain vacant and the owners of the other properties in the area would either continue to use the right-of-way as it is, or would have the Virginia -~.- Department of Highways condemn land for a new right-of-way. Mr. Lawrence Foster said the road has been designed in such a way as to mitigate problems, but it is sometimes impossible to get all property owners to agree to a condition or to a right of way. This new road grade is designed to meet the existing road at grade and thus alleviate any problems the neighbors might fear in terms of making the road unusable or obstructed. Mr. Fisher asked when the original subdivision plat was filed. Mr. Foster said in 1973. Dr. Charles Hurt had six lots, with five of them built along the state road. The other_parcel runs through on the right-of-way to another state road. The applicant has decided to use an internal road rather than fronting four more houses on the state road. Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing, there being no one else present to speak. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not impressed with this presentation, and his complaint is directc toward the staff, rather than the applicant. He said he cannot evaluate the old subdivision as it relates to the new one, but he understands what Mr. Lanahan is trying to do and has no objections to that. He is willing to take the staff's word that this proposal is better than what could be done on the property otherwise. He sees no reason to defer this matter, even though it is regrettable that the information was presented in a somewhat haphazard fashion. He can support the conditions in the March 6 letter. Mr. Bowie said he came prepared to support this petition based on what was in the agenda packet, but he sees no problem with the conditions proposed by the applicant and the proposal probably meets what the Planning Commission had in mind, since lot six would have to be di~' abandoned if the right,of-way problem cannot be solved. Mr. Lindstrom said he would recommend to the staff that it present plats of both the existing subdivision and the proposed subdivision in cases of this nature. Mr. Fisher said he is frustrated because the Board did not have a plat of either the old or the new subdivision in its information, and then at the meeting the Board is confronted with six pages of new material and is expected to make an immediate decision. He said he feels that any material not mailed to the Board in the agenda packets should not be considered at the hearing. He feels the applicant has had plenty of time to get his material in order, and instead has done this at the last minute, putting the Board members at a disadvantage. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to approve SP-84-91 with the conditions recommended by the staff and the addition of conditions three and four as proposed in Mr. Lanahan's letter dated March 6, 1985 (set out in full below). Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Mr. Way asked Mr. Donnelly if this seems to be the correct approach. Mr. Donnelly said yes. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindst. rom and Way. Mr. Fisher. The subdivision shall be limited to seven (7) parcels and shall be in general accordance with the plat by William Morris Foster, dated December 1, 1984. Construct a new private road in the relocated easement to private road standards. Subdivider to provide evidence of agreement, satisfactory to County Attorney, providing for relocation-of existing road rights- of-way by all parties having rights to such rights-of-way, such relocation to be substantially as shown on proposed plat and, specifically, providing for the abandonment of the existing easement between State Route 676 and proposed Hawkwood Court. No building permit will be issued on lot six until such time as conditions number two and three are satisfied. Mr. Fisher said he wants the staff to develop a policy procedure for handling of petitions when supplemental material is received by the Board members at the last minute. He would like to have this by March 13. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-89. Monticello Memory Gardens. Request to locate a mausoleum or 26 acres which has an existing cemetery and offic'e building and zoned RA, Rural Areas. Located on the northern side of Route 53 across from Michie Tavern. Tax Map 77, Parcel 33. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 19 and February 26, 1985.) , 117 March 6 1~, NJ,', ht Meetin-~[~, Mr. Donne$1y presented the following staff report. "Request: Mausoleum Acreage: 26 acres Zoning.: RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 33, is located on Route 53 across from Michie Tavern. History: In April, 1980, the Board of Supervisors denied SP-80-14 which was a request for an 1,800 crypt mausoleum and a crematorium. In March, 1982, the Board denied SP-81-61, a request for a 1,500 crypt mausoleum. In subsequent litigation, the Circuit Court agreed with the Board. On appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court, no reversible judgement in error was found and the decision of the Circuit Court stands. Staff Comment: The current request is for a 495 crypt mausoleum. The building has been substantially reduced in size and relocated to an area where the mausoleum would not be visible from adjoining residential properties and if the existing cedars are maintained, would not be visible from Route 53 or Michie Tavern. Staff has provided conditions of approval similar to those recommended to the Board by the Planning Commission for SP-81-61 (changes in conditions are appropriately noted). Comment is offered on two conditions: 1) In regard to Condition 2, please compare attached Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation letters of January 22, 1985, January 26, 1982, and December 9, 1981. In the first reviews, the Highway Department recommended either: a) provision of adequate sight distance at the entrance; or b) traffic controls, particularly at time of funerals. In the second review (January~ 26, 1982), after review of traffic information submitted by the applicant, the Highway Department recommended traffic controls until such time as adequate sight distance could be obtained. Currently, the Highway Depart- ment is recommending entrance relocation. 2) In regard to Condition 5, as currently located, the mausoleum would cause grading and drainage diversion across existing/vacant gravesites. While relocation of gravesites within a cemetery may not be uncommon, shifting the mausoleum in a westerly fashion would appear to avoid such situation. Also, large cedars which provide important screening from Michie Tavern and Route 53 would be less susceptible to removal/loss if the building were shifted. (This would negate need for control of facade treatment.) From field review, it appears that adequate area along 'Terrace G' exists to expand paving to provide parallel parking to serve the mausoleum. Recommended Conditions of Approval Mausoleum shall be limited to 495 crypts; Traffic controls shall be provided for all funeral processions to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Police; or Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance in accordance with letter of January 22, 1985; Removal and appropriate disposal of existing debris on site prior to any construction; Location of mausoleum building to be shifted in a westerly fashion as to avoid grading/drainage across gravesites and encroachment/ removal of cedar trees to the south. Parking to be provided along 'Terrace G'. Site plan approval by Planning Commission reflective of this condition. Any future stockpile of overburden to be maintained in such manner as to prevent soil erosion." "Department of Highways and Transportation January 22, 1985 SP-84-89 Monticello Memory Gardens, Route 53: The Department has addressed comments for this site in letters dated January 26, 1982, and March 27, 1980. The existing entrance to this site does not have adequate sight distance. A minimum of 300 feet of sight distance is required for an entrance to serve this site. Shifting the entrance approximately 170 feet to the west would have the entrance at a location where the minimum sight distance can be obtained. There would still be some work involved in obtaining the sight distance at this new location. Yours truly D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer By: J. A. Echols, Assistant." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission at~ its meeting on February 19, 1985, recommended .pproval of SP-84-89 by a vote of 4-3 with the conditions recommended by the staff. There being no questions for Mr. Donnelly, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Chuck s was present to represent Monticello Memory Gardens. He said the newest mausoleum plan eliminated visibility and traffic problems. A burial, he said, is the same, whether it is a mausoleum or in the ground. March 6~ 1986 (R__~lar ~i~ht Meetin~ Asked to describe the mausoleum, Mr. Rhoades said all the crypts are outside crypts made o~ brick and marble. There is no chapel attached. Mr. Way and Mr. Fisher asked how big the structure is to be. Mr. J. R. Copper, a land surveyor who prepared some of the plans for the building, said it would be 48 feet long, 28 feet wide, 20 feet high in the front and but only ten feet above ground in the rear. It would be similar to a house with a walk-out basement. Mr. Fisher asked how many potential sites for the mausoleum exist within the boundaries of Monticello Memory Gardens. Mr. Rhoades said this is about the only site on the property. Other sites are limited by terrain and drainage, or by already platted gravesites and above-ground crypts. Mr. Fisher asked if any graves will have to be moved. Mr. Rhoades said none of the gravesites where the building will be located have been sold. Ail those sites would just be abandoned. - Mr. Rhoades said Monticello Memory Gardens, Znc., does not feel ~it needs the extra parking required along "Terrace G" in Condition 4. The internal roads are made one-way during funerals to allow for parking, and the roads are wide enough for two cars abreast. Parking at the ~ c~metery has never been a problem. ' A former owner of the cemetery, Mr. Don Huntington, said he always had plans to build a mausoleum on the Monticello Memory Gardens property. Mausoleums have always been a part of cemeteries; Riverview has one. The Monticello Memory Gardens proposal is a good-looking building, well hidden from houses and highways. Mr. Rhoades asked the people in the audience who supported the proposal to please stand. Six people stood. Mr. Greg McDonald from Michie Tavern said he is concerned about the legal precedent set by locating a mausoleum on Monticello Mountain. Michie Tavern would like to preserve the historic character of the area. He feels that the cemetery's owners are just trying to get a foot in thc door, and this will not be the' end Of the applications for mausoleums. While the owners of Michie Tavern are not opposed to mausoleums, they do not want to see one, or two, or three, on Monticello Mountain. The' mausoleum might be more appropriate on cemetery property the aa:~ applicants owns on Route '29 North. ' .... '~ Mr. Ron Tweel, attorney for Monticello Memory Gardens, told the Board that the problems with the mausoleum that resulted in the denial of past applications, have been solved. The question of being seen from the road has been solved by locating the building in the bushes and making it smaller. The erosion problem has been solved by moving the mausoleum from the steep site originally proposed. TraFfic will not increase because the mausoleum will not generate more traffic. The' traffic will not cause problems with maintenance or dangers proposed by traffic crossing the' road to turn into the cemetery. The building's design, which originally caused an uproar because it had been proposed as a model of Monticello, Thomas Jefferson's home has been changed to an attractive, standard mausoleum construction. The building is small., situated in a site that seems to naturally suit it, and a mausoleum is a natural part of a cemetery. Mr. Tweel said he feels all of the Board's past concerns have been satisfied. Cemeteries serve the nearby communities and this one will generate less traffic than Michie Tavern does already. Indeed, most of the building activity on the Mountain has been by Michie Tavern, which has added buildings, museums and other things. Mr. Fisher asked why a mausoleum has not been considered For the U. S. 29 North cemetery. Mr. Tweel said this cemetery is not so well located and would he Further From the people who would visit it. Monticello Mountain is a more desirable place and more people want to be there For this reason it makes' bet'ter sense to expand the cemetery in an area where there is a demand In addition, the Holly Memorial Gardens cemetery has room to expand without having to add a mausoleum. Holly Memorial and Monticello Memory ~ardens' engineer, Joe Smith, told the Board that the mausoleum is being sited on Montmcello M~h~tain because~that cemetery has less land available for gravesltes than Holly Memorial Gar. dens. Monticello Memory Gardens ha5 requested this mausoleum because a large 'number' of people want:.to, be buried on the mountain b.ecause of its heritage or because other family members are there. Mr. Fisher ~aid it ~eems that the mausoleu would put 495 crypts on the amount of ground that would provide 40-50 conventional gravesites. That would be almost a ten to one increase in area. Mr. Smith said that is close to the actual figure. This building would be located in a section of .the cemetery that has not been popular as a site for conventional burial. Mr. Ben Dick came before the Board, representing both some nearby landowner5 and the owners of Michie Tavern. He said his clients are not oppo.~.ed to. t~adit.~on~ on the ~ountaln or in the cemetery with the famill'es i~f people.who' ara'.hur.ied the~e.- Ha.does~.think, h~cever, that the should look-at this application's histor, y. ~t.'has been before the Board three times. The application wan~e'd to put 1,.800 dead people in a large--struc, ture that looked like Monticel scared everybody. The' se'cand ap. plic.ati~n .would .hOuse 2,.5~0~ equally dead people and looked like a house. He said the o'e~at'er¥ .st~a~F and o~ners seem to .think people are concerned about .c and erosion con'tr'o'l'.. Th~s is-mis~ing'.t.he .po~nt. PeoPle are concerned about the special permit. The Boar'd can deny or approve this permit ~at .its. discretion. Itcan consider the nt, the applicatlon.'s history and other factors. The Board should remember that the ~licant sued the county_when the first, two applications ~e.re denle.d. The .Board t.o~k the position that once the mausoleum ~as in place, it would change the characte~ .~f the area and note mausoleums could be' placed on the mountain. The Court'upheld the Count.~. A la~suit is still pending challenging the denial of the 1,500-.crypt mausoleum. He doe~not see how the ~pplicant can ask for approval .of a mausoleum while a suit is still pending. -It seems the suit should be dropped before any new application is made. Mr. Dick cautioned the Board that the move to put a mausoleum in the cemetery has economic incentives rather than aesthetic ones. On an average, burial in a.mausoleum .co. sts .about .$70.0. mo~e..than ~nte~ent ~n the g~ou~d.. Mr. Dick reminded the Board that the same company has a site on Route 29 North, and allowing this sort of building here will set an unfortunate, p.r. ecedant. At the very-least, the~ Board should condition'the speCial, use permit...to.allo~ .on.l~ one ~au~o.'l. eu~l ".O. therwi, se, ~onticello Mountain might' have s.ev.eral mauso.le~$, - y.des'igned and Situated. una.t'tract~¥et .O. March 6~ular Night M~ Mr. Huntington said most of the people who use the cemetery already have family members ~uried there a~nd want to be buried there themselves. Mr. Mike Kennedy, representing Mr~ and Mrs. W. T. Dettor, Jr., said the mausoleum is not harmony with the surrounding area, and will not be toward the general welfare of the community. Rather, it will~ serve only to benefit the cemetery owners. His clients think it will devalue their property. He asked the Board to deny this request. Mr. Tweel pointed out that the Dettors cannot even see the mausoleum from their property. No one has presented any evidence_at all of health, safety or welfare problems. A mausoleum cannot change the character of Monticello Memory Gardens because that property is already a cemetery, and the mausoleum is just a natural extension of that use. It is not as if the cemetery owners wanted to put a hot-dog stand on the property. Michie Tavern has done a lot of expanding, and no limits have been put on that use. Ail the past concerns about the mausoleum on this property have been satisfied. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation if he had any further comments on the special use permit. Mr. Roosevelt had none. With no one else rising to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. He then asked Mr. St. John if the lawsuit is indeed still pending. Mr. St. John said the first suit was dismissed and the second was never brought to trial by the owners of the cemetery. If this petition were granted, it might be possible to deem the old one, with its attendant application abandoned and the lawsuit dismissed. Mr. Lindstrom said the pre¥ious mausoleum application was for a building on a different site. The Court could approve the othe~ mausoleum and the County could be stuck, with two of them. Mr. St. John said approving this one would definitely set a precedent. This application seems to be the camel's nose. In fact, Mr. St. John said the Court could remove conditions on the previou~ application and then the Board would have no control over what the applicant did on the property. This application is no different from the prev'ious ones with respect to the issue of changing the character of the area. Once the mausoleum is in place, buildings of this type will become part of the character of this land and the Board will have forfeited the option of denying future requests on this basis. Mr. Lindstrom said he has heard the previous applications as well as this one, and a major problem has not changed -- there is .not adequate sight distance on this property at the exit. While the mausoleum will extend the useful life of the cemetery, it will keep this traffic hazard perpetuated and by granting this petition, the Board will have depriYed itself of a basi~ on which to deny other requests. Mr. Henley asked if approval of this mausoleum would, in fact, take away the right of the Board to deny another application. Mr. St. John said certain standards haYe to be applied to the approval or denial of a special use permit. Similar situations must be treated the same - otherwise the case coUld go~ to Caurt and the Board would lose because ~ts actions could be deemed arbitrary. A mauso~leum would change the character of the area and the Board would be without a defense against more mausoleums. Its' position in court would be weakened. Mr. Henley asked if the Board had apProved the additions made on the Michie Tavern >~- property. He said the 'onl~ problem he has ~ith thi~ petition (Monticello Memory Gardens~)! is lawsuit. Mrs. COoke said the' cemeter~ ~as on tha mountain long before Michie Tavern was~ moved there, and several additions ha~e ~been approved for Michie Tavern, including a proliferation of shacks on the mountainside.· She said Michie Tavern changed the character of the area when it was put on the property across from the .cemetery, and it has changed its use several times, museum to restaurant and now to gift shop. The Board is talking about burying people, and that seems to be in keeping with what is already going on in the cemetery. '~ ~. Mr. Way asked if the Board Could not use locationai requirements to deny another ~-~ application for a mausoleum on this site, since this one has, according to its proponents been sited on the only aYailable place for a mausoleum. Mr. Henley said Mr. St. John has just outlined one reason for denying applications for mausoleums on this.site. There will be other ~easons to deny them, as Mr. Way is pointing out. The location would be a reason to deny the aext one. Mr. Henley does not think another one one will have to be automatically approved. Mr. Lindstrom said the cemetery owners are just trying to expand this use to get more money ~rom the site, and while this is understandable from a business point of view, he cannot support ~t. The Board is not in the habit of approving non-conforming uses when the character of the aeighborhood seems to be at stake, and ~that seems to be the case here. He does not understand ~ow Monticello Memory Gardens has addressed the point. He cannot support this application. Mr. Fisher' said he has had the unfortunate distinction of having ~oted for all of these ?equests, including the Michie Tavern expansions. He feels that Monticello is a historical ~reasure of such magnitude that uses on the Mountain should be restricted to prevent anything ~hat could be done' somewhere else. About 500,000 people yearly come to Monticello and he feels ~is responsibility is to protect Mr. Jefferson's mountain from intensified uses and traffic. He intends to be consistent in ~oting against uses whether they are perpetrated by Michie Taver~n, ~onticello Memory Gardens, or anyone else. · .Mrs. Cooke said she has only one problem: the lawsuit. If that is dismissed, she will be ~nclined to favor this application. Mr. Fisher reopened the Public hearing to allow Mr. Tweel to speak. Mr. Tweel said if the ~oard grants this special permit, the motion to dismiss the pending lawsuit w~ll be .in court tomorrow morning. ~ Mr. Dick said the Board will have to approve other mausoleums if it approves this one.- A ~esident of Monticello mountain said he did not want the traffic on this road that the mausoleum ~ould cause. Mr. Henley remarked that most people who go to the cemetery are making a one-way trip. Mr Lindstrom reminded Mr. Henley that those people are not driving. Mr. Henley then made motion to approve SP-84-89 with the five conditions recommended by thc Planning Commission and the additional condition that the lawsuit against the County he dropped before this approval becomes effective. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. St.~ John said, in answer to a question, that this would be an appropriate condition. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that Mr. St. John is very subtle and reticent in the things he says, and the Board should listen closely and realize that his.expertise has taught him that if the character of the area is changed, that defense will not he available for the Board in the future should other applictions of this sort be made. Mr. Henley said he is basing his approval on the fact that this building will not be seen from the road; in addition, it will be smaller than other proposed buildings. Mrs. Cooke said she agrees with Mr. Henley, the size and placement of the building is acceptable, and the traffic should not be a problem, because funeral traffic is very controlled. Tourist traffic, on the other hand, is sometimes careless. Roll was called at this time andthe motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom. (Note: The conditions as approved are set out below.) Mausoleum shall be limited to 495 crypts; Traffic controls shall be provided for all funeral processions to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Police; or Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance in accordance with letter of January 22,. 1985; Removal and appropriate disposal of existing debris on site prior to any construction; Location of mausoleum building to be shifted in a westerly fashion as to avoid grading/drainage across gravesites and encroachment,/ removal of cedar trees to the south. Parking to be provided along "Terrace G." Site plan approval by Planning Commission reflective of this condition; Any future stockpile of overburden to be maintained in such a manner as to prevent soil erosion; The lawsuit filed by Monticello Memory Gardens against Albemarle County be dismissed before the approval of the special use permit becomes effective. The Board took a brief recess at 9:25 p.m. and reconvened at 9:30 p.m., minus Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 6. Executive. Presentation of the 1985-86 Albemarle County Budget by the County Mr. Agnor presented his budget message dated March 6, 1985: "In accordance with the requirements of the Code of Virginia, forwarded herewith for your consideration is a recommended budget for FY 1985-86 totalling $51,285,888, which is an increase of $5,761,057--over FY 84-85, or 12.65 percent. Adding in self-sustaining funds of.the school system, the total budget becomes $53,355,855, an increase of $5,457,509, or 11.39 percenv over FY 84-85. The recommendations do not include any adjustments in tax rates, and rely on the use of $425,000 from carry-over balance funds to provide revenues sufficient to match recommended expenditures. As currently balanced, it leaves $18,272 for further adjustments or for retention in a contingency reserve. Major categories of expenditures are summarized as Follows: Budgeted Requested Recommemded FY 84-85 FY 85-86 FY 85-86 Recommended Change Over FY 84-85 General Government Education/Operations Education/Debt Service Capital Program Revenue Sharing $13,644,815 .27,260,921 2,039,342 1,000,000 1~579,753 $45,524,831 /Self-Sustaining 2,373~515 $15,423,451 31,678,959 2,063,258 1,000,000 1,875~179 352,040,847 2,069~967 $14,884,492 31,462,959 2,063,258 1,000,000 1,875~179 $51,285,888 2~069,967 +$1,239,677 +9.08% + 4,202,038 +15.41% + 23,916 +1.17% 0 0.00 + 295,426 +18.70% +$5,761,057 +12.65% - 303,548 -12.78% GRAND TOTAL $47~898~346 $54,110,814 $53~355~855 +$5~457~509 +11.39% The recommended total leaves $754,959 in unfunded requests of which $538,959 is in General Government and $216,000 is in the School Division. As you can see, General Government is recommended for a $1.2 million increase (9.08%), the School Division for a $4.2 million increase (15.41%), Debt Service for a $23.916 million increase (1.17%), the Capital Program for no increase, and the Revenue Sharing Agreement with Charlottesville, an increase of $295,426 (18.7%). March 6 1 8 Re ular i t Mee i Within General Government, the largest increase in dollars and percentages is in. Public Safety, as illustrated below: Budgeted Requested Recommended FY 84-85 FY 85-86 FY 85-86 Recommended Change Over FY 84-85 General Management Human Development Public Safety $4,272,582 $4,706,106 $4,563,676 3,310,780 3,772,038 3,571,564 3,705,501 4,408,837 4,212,782 +$291,094 +6.81% + 260,784 +7.88% + 507,281 +13.69% Of the $5.76 million total increase, the School Division will receive $2.4 million new funds from State, Federal and miscellaneous sources; the General Government will receive $0.27 million new funds from the State, and the remainder, $3.09 million, will be derived from local sources. $1.8 million from local sources is proposed to go to the School Division, $0.3 million to City Revenue Sharing, $0.27 million to the Land Use program and $0.72 million to General Government. Major sources of revenues are summarized, as follows: Budgeted Estimated Change FY 84-85 FY 85-86 $ % GENERAL FUND Property Taxes $20,929,200 Other Local Revenues 9,732,034 State Funds 2,621,543 Federal 887,240 Carry Over Balance 307~672 $23,379,400 +$2,450,200 11,141,125 + 1,409,091 2,890,915 + 269,372 175,611 - 711,629 425,000 + 117,328 +11.71 +14.47 +10.28 -80.20 +38.13 Sub Total SCHOOL FUND: State Funds Federal Funds Self Sustaining Miscellaneous $34,477,689 $10,200,313 298,102 2,373,515 364~919 $38~012~051 +$3,534~362 $12,103,400 +$1,903,087 325,400 + 27,298 2,069,967 - 303,548 845,037 + 480~118 +10.25 +18.65 +9.20 -12.78 +131.56 Sub Total $13,236,849 $15,343,804 $2,106,955 +15.91 TOTAL~ all funds $47,714,538 $53~355~855 $5~641~317 +11.82 Local funds needed to finance the school division are as follows: Budseted Requested Recommended Operations Debt Service Self Sustainin$ Total Less School Fund $27,260,921 2,039,342 2~373,515 $31,673,778 -13~236,849 $31,678,959 2,063,258 2,069,967 $35,812,184 -15~343~804 $31,462,959 2~063,258 2,069~967 $35,596,184 -15~343,804 Local Revenues $18~436~929 $20~468,380 $20~252~380 The estimated revenues anticipate that the Federal Revenue Sharing Act will not be renewed by Congress on September 30, 1985. This will reduce revenues used for school energy expenses from $875,740 in FY 84-85 to $175,611 in FY 85-86, a loss of $700,129. This loss has been made up from local funds being reduced in the Capital Improvements Program and being made available for school operation needs, in order that the school division will not have to absorb these losses in Federal funds. The local funds which must absorb this loss, as well as provide the reve- nues to finance budget increases,, will be derived principally from the biennial reassessment of real estate. The increase in market values over the two year period since the last reassessment (1983) totals $235 million which calculates to be a 12.8 percent increase. This is, as you realize, an average increase with some properties exceeding that average, and others not increasing that much. New construction added to the reassessment pro- vides a total of $1.98 million in new revenues from real estate taxes. Personal property taxes and machinery/tools taxes provide $470,000 in new revenues. Sales taxes and business license taxes add another $1.04 million. These estimates assume the economy will remain strong, and will grow approx- imately four percent in the next fiscal period. For the current budget, projections indicate the School Fund will end the fiscal year with expenditures equalling revenues. The General Fund is pro- jected to end the year with a carry-over balance of approximately one-half million dollars. These projections will be re-examined in April upon completion of the third quarter of the fiscal year. Attached to this memorandum (on file) are summaries of major changes in operations and revenues. SpeciFic details will be provided in your work sessions, or may be found in the budget book. As you realize, this recommended budget represents many hours of prepar- ation and analysis on the part of citizens, boards and staff. Their dedi- cation and assistance is gratefully acknowledged in presenting this docu- ment for your review." ~'March 4, 1985 MAJOR CHANGES IN FY 84-86 BUDGET I. Revenues A. General Fund The economic recovery which began in 1983 continues robe steady, and reflects some growth in the 85-86 revenue estimates. Generally, the growth approximates four percent, except where data or trends indicate otherwise, as follows: Budgeted Estimate Difference FY 84-85 FY-85-86 $ % 1. Real Estate (Increase primarily from biennial reassessment) 2. Personal property (Increased values of older vehicles, and numbers of vehicles) 3. Machinery/Tools (Investments in ~quipment by local industries) 4. Sales Tax (Improvement of retail sales volume) 5. Utility Taxes (Expansions of utility system plus rate changes) 6. Business/Prof. Licenses (Expanding economy and adjust- ments from revised tax rates) Recordation and Sellers Tax (Active real estate market) Permits, Fees (Reflects adjusted permit fees) Interest on Bank Deposits (Increase in amount of funds earning interest) 10. State Revenues (Reflects increase in State budget) 11. Federal Revenues (Termination of Federal Revenue Sharing program) $14,835,000 $16,751,500 +1,916,000 +12.9 4,585,000 4,860,000 + 275,000 + 6.0 +82. 2,850,000 3,225,000 + 375,000 +13.2 2,502,000 2,745,000 + 243,000 + 9.71 000~o~ + 275, '~ 00~ 205,000 310,000 + 105,000 +51.2 474,927 540,000 + 65,473 +13.8 830,000 1,000,000 + 170,000 +20.5 2,621,543 2,890,915 + 269,372 +10.3 887,240 175,611 - 711,629 -80.2 The increase in State funds added to the decrease in Federal funds provides a total reduction of $442,250 from these two sources. It is obvious that local funds are the total source to finance the increases in FY 85-86. For your information, an adjustment of one cent on the property tax rates affects net real estate revenues by $19.3,140, and personal property by $12,090. B. School Fund The School Fund reflects an increase of $2.4 million or 22.2 percent with $1.9 million from the State, an increase of 23. percent, and $0.5 million from a joint program with the City of Charlottesville entitled Piedmont Regional Educational Programs (P.R.E.P.). These PREP revenues are offset by expenditures. The State funds are calculated on the basis of final action by the General Assembly when approving the State budget. The General Fund recommended amount for transfer to the School Fund of $18,189,122 provides an increase of $1,981,173 or 12.2 percent over FY 84-85. II. EXPENDITURES A. General Government There are no new programs or services recommended in General Government. are, however, expansions of existing ones. There One emphasis in operations is in automating the offices of the Board's Clerk, the County Executive, the County Attorney, and the Clerk of the Circuit Court through the purchase Of word processing equipment. Continued automation of the financial management system in the Finance Department through the addition of computerized cash registers at the intake windows is recommended. A second emphasis in General Government is in the Public Safety and Courts divisions which, second to Education, are recommended for. the largest increase in funding, totalling $507,281, a 13.69 percent increase. This increase reflects the first full year's funding of the 911 Disptach Center, the addition of two positions in the Police Department patrol, which will require nine new officers on around-the-clock~assign~ents, the addition of one police officer for investigative duties, increase usage of the Community Attention Homes and Juvenile Detention Home, and a new allocation of $10,000 to cover hazardous waste disposal by the Fire Departments. Increases of ten percent in the contributions made to volunteer fire and rescue agencies has been requested, and included in the recommendations, emphasizing the improved fundng for public safety services. March 6 i 8 Re utr Ni ht Meetin~ Nine other additional employees were requested by department heads. 'Six are being recommended for funding as follows: real estate appraiser, data processing programmer, assistant registrar, secretary - Commonwealth Attorney!s office, and deputy director of staff services. The three employees that were not recommended for funding were in the Finance Department, Commonwealth Attorney's office and the V?ISU Extension Service. The General Government staff requested a five percent scale adjustment effective July 1, which would provide all employees on that date a five percent increase in pay. The recommended budget includes funds for a. four .~ ~ percent increase which the Executive staff believes will keep the County's scale competitive in the employment market, and equate to current cost of living indices. Additionally, $34,000 is recommended to fund revisions to some positions in the Pay and Classification Plan whihc are calculated to be below market data. These revisions will be presented for your consideration in March. No changes are proposed in the employees' fringe benefit, program. The performance evaluation merit plan is recommended to continue with revisions. being considered by the Board between now and July 1. B. EducatiOn There are no new programs proposed in the school system for next year. Significant increases in costs are primarily attributable to the following: 1. Teacher salary scale increase of five percent, which added to an auto- matic step increase for current employees will provide a compounded salary increase of 10.34 percent, except for those employees in the top step. 2. Administrative salary increase of four percent, plus 7.5 percent merit. 3. Classified employee increase of 6.7 percent, no merit. 4. Seventeen elementary teacher positions. 5. Retirement plan for bus drivers. 6. Purchase of 15 buses, seven more than purchased in FY 84-85. It is recommended that funding for bus driver retirement be provided, but that the Director of Personnel examine the impact on all County departments that have employees working less than a full work week, reporting the findings to the School Board and Board of Supervisors prior to implementation of a retirement plan for the drivers. My recommended funding for the School Division removes $216,000 from the amount requested by the School Board. As you know, an administrator's merit plan that provides either 5.5 or a 7.5 percent increase has been ~ requested for funding by the School Board. For every eligible employee at the top step, 7.5 percent has been calculated to cost $141,000. It is recommended that funds be provided totalling $100,000 as a more reasonable budgeting procedure, which will provide 85 percent of the eligible employees with a merit increase. The second area of adjustment in requested funds is recommended in the level of staffing at the middle schools which are estimated to experience a reduction in enrollment of 81 pupils in the four schools, and in the high schools, where a reduction in enrollment is estimated at 49 pupils in th~ t~ ~e~s~he~&~.L~Th~9~lesaes o~tl~t~upi~sLare2es~imated to be offset by a gain of 163 students in the 14 elementary schools, leaving a net gain of 33 pupils in the system. Of the 17 new instructional posi- tions requested in the elementary schools, it is recommended that seven of them be offset by staff reductions in the middle and high schools by attrition. These seven positions would reduce the requested funds by $175,000. Both of these adjustments have been discussed with the staff of the school system, and are supported by the school staff with the condition that budget relief may be requested if any extraordinary shift in enrollment occurs. C. CaPit'al Fund It is recommended that $1.0 million from current revenues be continued for use in the Five Year Capital Improvements Program. The total impact of the School Facilities Plan (presently being worked on by consultants) will not be known until late 1985, and it is estimated that it will not be sufficient to continue to fund the CIP at the current $1.0 million, but for FY 85-86 that is all the funds that are available. When it is known what the total needs are, other~alternatives to funding the program will be presented. D. County/City Revenue Sharing The transfer of funds to the City in FY 85-86 calculates to be $1,909,389 based on population, real estate tax base, and the true real estate tax- rate factors in the formula. The cap on the formula of 10 cents per $100 of the real estate tax base limits the transfer to $1,875,179, an increase over FY 84-85 of $295,426, or 18.7 percent. This increase is primarily attributable to the real estate tax base factor which increased due to reassessment." Mrs. Cooke ...... returned to the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Agenda Item No. 7. Receipt of Public Comments on Items to be Addressed in the 1985-86 Albemarle County Budget. . . Mr. Fisher opened the floor to.the public. Ms. Susan Bramley, president of Woodbrook Parent-Teacher Organization, spoke first. She presented the following letter from area parents "January 17, 1985 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 229.01 Re: School Budget Dear Supervisors: We are concerned Alb.emarle County parents who happen to live in the Woodbrook/ Buriey/Albemarle High School school districts. What we are concemned about is the low priority our public schools a-ppear to have in the over-all county budget. We, who are property owners, have received in the mail this month a notice of increased assessment of the values of our homes and businesses. We read in the Daily Progress of surplus revenue in the County, yet schools are only to receive a very small percentage of that extra money. The School Board has worked very had to keep its expenditures within budget in the last few years, but many programs and teachers have been cut in this effort. Without new revenue even the modest, proposals, of decreasing class sizes in the primary grades will not be feasible. At the same time, a sizeable sum of money is being held in escrow to fund potential merit pay increases for school administrators - a pay plan not wanted by the School Board or the administrators, but by you. At a public hearing held in September, the sentiment of the citizens attending was to decrease the class size, make schools' programs uniform throughout the County and increase the fine arts program. Charlottesville schools are ranked higher in the state than Albemarle's according to the statistics printed in the Daily Progress. We feel this discrepancy is not warranted, and we certainly do not want the gap to widen farther! The money spent on education of our children is an investment in the contin- ued excellence of our country. Please give it increased priority in your budgeting decisions. Very truly yours, (106 signatures from WoodbrookDistrict)" Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to ask Ms. Bramley a question. He said he is not certain ;hat she had the benefit of all the information presented this evening when she wrote this letter, since the graphs show well over half of the County's money going to the school system. Ms. Bramley said she is pleased with the consideration given to the schools in this budget-. The intention of the letter is to let the Board know that these parents believe the funding ne~ds to be there to support these kinds of programs. Mr. Gary Williams, a parent in the Red Hill.School district, thanked Mr. Agnor for kn0ckin some of the wind out of his sails with the budget presentation tonight. He said he is pleased with the proposal for funding the school budget. He complimented the school staff and School Board on their work. He said the County does not need to move-backwards. Next year the carry- over balance will not be available to help fund the budget and taxes may have to be increased. He thinks the tax increase will be better than cutting the school budget back. The Board of Supervisors should pledge its ongoing support to the schools. Mr. Williams said he is somewhat disappointed at the elimination of teaching positions in the middle schools, but'overall is ~leased with the recommended budget. Mr. Brian A. 0rrock, president of'the Stone-Robinson School PTO, said he supports the ~udget as presented by the School Board. He is pleased, too, with the quality of teachers and education at Stone Robinson School. He supports the ratio of 20:1 in the grades kindergarten through two. He said this year's funding problems are just the beginning. The schools are all ~ded, and several communities, A~hcroft, Keswick, are-growing and adding still mor~ n. Growing schools are frustrating for teachers and Mrs-Orrock has seen that frustr feels the problems of the future should be addressed and taken care of now. He presented a to this effect signed by 300 parents in the Rivanna and Sc'ottsville Districts. Ms. Katherine Bergman',' representing Albemarle. County school bus drivers, told the Board she ~trongly supports the'funding of a retirement program for school bus drivers. 'The drivers s this item Very much and they ask that the Board give it full consideration. On a non-school topic, Mr. Mark Smucker came before the Board to request space for the y Mediation Center, a group whose Board of Directors he heads. The donation of spa~e to organization would, he said, benefit the County and not- really cost anything. The i~:~ n Center solves disputes by mediation before they blow uP into more complicated 'legal domestic problems. Mr. smucker said several areas in the country have these centers sonburg has one that is several years old -- and the group has had some support shown in Charlottesville-Albemarle area. The City.of Charlottasville has made the mediation center a' part of the five year plan for the city and may grant $t6~000. in seed money. The Mediation 'Center does not ask Albemarle County for funds.' Rather, it needs space for an office, phone and M~~Re. ular N~ ht M~etin_g~__~ mediation room with about 150 square feet in each room. The Center would like to have a centraZ location, near public transportation. The County Office Building seems to be the perfect place This could be considered a non-financial contribution. Mr. Fisher asked that the staff look at the space requirements. He noted, however, that the County has just sold McIntire School and space may be at a premium now. Mr. Nathaniel Brown told the Board he would like to speak in behalf of the Jefferson Area United Transportation (JAUNT) service. He feels that this group deserves funding consideration because it may become a victim of federal budget cuts and because it serves 57 different ~ agencies and institutions in the area. The group may lose $250,000. This will damage those wh~ are trying to be independent -- the poor and disabled who use JAUNT to provide transportation t~ work, doctors, shopping, meals and day care. If federal cuts go into effect, the cost of ridership will double, and the poor and disabled of the area will be disenfranchised. Mr. Agno~ ;ed out that the County is not expecting future cuts to the JAUNT budget by the federal government. Ms. Carol Hollenshead told the Board she represents the JAUNT board as its president and would like to reiterate the things Mr. Brown said. In addition, she said she would like to support the requests in the school budget. It is larger than she had been led to believe would be recommended. She objects, however, to removing positions from the middle schools because that seems to be a short-term solution to the problem. She said the fine arts program should b~ augmented to meet the new Standards of Quality mandated by the state. This area cannot be neglected, because to do so would place the County even further behind in its efforts to provid~ a quality education for its children. This budget represents the bare minimum of funding that the County needs. Another JAUNT supporter, Ms. Gail Pearl, said she would like to see the County provide extra support for JAUNT if the federal funding is cut, since that agency provides a variety of services. Ms. Pearl also supported funding for the school system, saying she-has a child in thc first grade at Murray School. She said the issue of class size is being determined at the expense of students. She has done some research on the issue and has found that the class size ms not an isolated issue; merely reducing the number of teachers in a given school does not produce achievement. Nevertheless, classes width between ten and 20 students seem to do better, with better attitudes, interactions and participation. In addition to class size, however, teachers have to be encouraged to perform, to develop professionally and to bring excellence to their profession. Teacher time is often used ineffectively. T~he schools should be provided more money to motivate teachers to excellence in education. She would be willing to support a tax increase for the school system in order to obtain excellence in education. Dr. Jerry Donowitz, president of the Murray School PTO, said he is pleased with the way thc School Board listened to public needs. The parents are pleased with the integrity, discipline and responsibility displayed by the School Board. They are also pleased that the Board of Supervisors has been presented with a budget that addresses the parents' concerns. He said he hopes the momentum is not stopped in the next year. He would like to see the Board look to the future, keep teachers in the middle and high schools, and preserve the overall integrity of the school system. He presented letters from parents of children at Murray School. Ms. May Kepler presented a number of letters to Mr. Henley from the Crozet PTO concerning the school budget. She urged the supervisors to approve the budget as presented. Mr. Cliff Haury, from the Meriwether Lewis PTO, presented his letters to Mr. Fisher. He commended the budget, but urged the Board not to cut middle school positions, because the elementary school students will soon be in the middle and high schools. He asked the Board to look to the future when considering these requests. Ms. Katie Hurd said she is concerned about the fine arts programs, the overcrowding in som~ of the schools, the understaffing in guidance departments, need for continued programs for gifted and talented students, and a lower teacher/pupil ratio in the high schools. Ms. Roberta Flaxmill told the Board that she has children in the elementary, middle and high schools in the County. She urged the Board not to take positions from the middle or high schools to put teachers in the elementary schools. She is willing to pay more in taxes to support the school system. Mr. Bill Stone told the Board that he thinks the children should be placed foremost in the Board's consideration. The County should provide the best quality education that can be had. Mr. Don Brown told the Board that the graphs Mr. Agnor presented this evening show not a trend to improvement in education, but a trend to more spending in general government. The percentages show that the School system has gotten a smaller percentage of the total budget ove~ the years. The percentage of money put into the school system has not'risen with the growth of the County and the population. Ms. Susan Dixon of the Hollymead PT0 said the parents in her group support the School Board's budget as prepared. It is not a wish-list, but contains necessities like new teachers and school buses. Ms. Mary Daniel asked when the Board intends to hold a work session on the School budget and was told it will be on March 18 at 1 p.m. Ms. Pauline Carter said she supports the budget intact; she believes the student teacher ratio should be lower, that the County should make a committment to the future and should consider a tax rate increase. She said she is not pleaSed that the total percentage of s~hool expenditures in the budget has gone down. Ms. Beth Seltzer said the children in Albemarle County deserve the best education possible Ms. Cathy Kennedy said that while it is a difficult decision, the County must place new teachers in the school system without removing the old ones; to do so would be to punish the children. March 6 1 .8 a ula N' ht eet'n . . Ms. Audrey Wellborne said she has been £rustrated by the limitations of the school system and has spent money of her own on Supplementary materials. She feels the children have been pu~ at a disadvantage because they do not know how to use cQmputers before fourth grade and because many programs have been limited. The school system needs to provide better advantages in elementary schools staffed with qualified teachers and up-to-date equipment. Mr. Way thanked Mr. Lindstrom for the idea of holding a public hearing at this stage of the budgeting process. The hearing has been long, he said, but worthwhile. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Agnor and his staff for their work in preparing the budget. Agenda Item No. 8. Receive and Order Filed Certain Correspondance. On motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Way, the following items were received and ordered filed. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 8.1. Letter from Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated February 19, 1985; as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated December 5, 1984, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective February 19, 1985. Brookwood Road - from Route 1221 to Route 1220 - 0.27 mile Jamestown Court - from Route 1222 to East cul-de-sac - 0.12. mile." Item No. 8.2. Piedmont Corridor Mail. (Copies of all .letters received from citizens during the period (since February 22, 1985) relative to this subject were distributed. Item No. 8.3. Letter from J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, concerning the Crozet Sewer Collection System. "February 27, 1985 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mrs. Cooke and Gentlemen: I wish to inform you that the Albemarle County Service Authority has con- tracted with the Roanoke-based engineering firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to design the Crozet sewer collector system. The local firm of B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates will be working with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern in this project. This work should commence within several days and the design completed in approximately 300 days. We hope to keep the community informed and receive the residents' input through a series of public meetings to be held throughout the design period. The first meetings will likely be held within the next several weeks. These meetings will be to introdUce the engineers and surveyors to the community before any field work begins. The design procedure will be explained and concerns of the community will be heard. I will keep you advised of the meeting dates and locations. If you have any questions concerning this project, please let me know. Very truly yours, (SIGNED) J. W. Brent Executive Director" Item No. 8.4 Letter from Senator Thomas J. Michie, Jr., dated February 21, 1985, ~oncerning H. B. 1676 on manufactured housing: "Miss Lettie E. Neher County of Albemarle Office of the Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss Neher: Thank you for your letter of January 14, 1985, forwarding the resolution of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors opposing'House B211 167.6. House Bili 1676 which would have required that zoning regulations treat manufactured housing the same as site built homes was killed by the Senate Finance Com- mittee and so will not come before the full Senate for a vote. March 6~, ~985 ~(Regular Night Meeting) I appreciate your sending me a copy of the.study on mobile homes done by the County's Planning Department. While I was pleased to see that the Reso- lution stated that the Board of Supervisors has not restricted mobile homes to mobile home parks, I noticed that most of the recommendations of the study do refer to mobile home parks or subdivisions. I am a staunch supporter of keeping government close to the people and having every locality enact its own zoning laws. Nevertheless, the study which resul- ted in House Bill 1676 raised some serious questions about the availability of low to moderate housing under some local zoning ordinances. Real estate zoning is a proper function of local government but I feel that planning commissions should allow manufactured housing in reasonable locations in the county. As I have not made up my mind on House Bill 1676 and will obviously have until next year to do so, I appreciate getting your view on the matter. Sincerely yours, Thomas J. Michie, Jr. Item No. 8.5. Copy of Superintendent's Memo No. 3 (State Department of Education), dated Eebruary 25, 1985, entitled "1984-86 Appropriatmon Act Changes" (copy on file). / Item No. 8.6. Notice from State CorporatiSn Commission dated February 19, 1985, concernin the closing of the Waynesboro Station by Chesapsake and Ohio Railway Company: allows until March 15, 1985 for written comments to be submitted. Item No. 8.7. Memorandum entitled "Summar~ dated March 5, 1985, from Chief of Community De~ "CURRENT PROGRAMS * Albemarle Housing Improvement Program need for adequate low and moderate income repair and improvement for homes that wouI housing stock. AHIP rehabilitates approxi~ Since 1976, approximately 240 dwelling unil County has provided the core level of fund: tion of $720,825 (FY 1977-85). * Local and Regional Community Developm~ applied for and received a total of $700,01 through AHIP approximately 73 dwelling unit rehabilitation funding is provided through * Section 8 Rent Subsidy - The Departme] lopment administers 180 rent subsidy units i of Housing Activity within Albemarle County," elopment Katherine Imhoff, to wit: (AHIP) - This program addresses the ~wner-occupied housing by providing otherwise deteriorate into unusable ~ately 30-35 dwelling units per year. have been rehabilitated. The .ng for AHIP with a total contribu- ~nt Block Grant Programs (CDBG) - The County 0 in CDBG funds to rehabilitate s over the next 24 months. This a local and a regional grant. ~t of Planning and Community Deve- through the Virginia Housing Deve- lopment Authority (VHDA) and HUD. The unips are located throughout the County and the leasing rate exceeds 95 percent. This program~has existed since 1977. In 1984 a total of $468,961 was paid.to Countyb landlords by the Virginia Hous- ing Authority and Albemarle County receive8 approximately $43,400 to administer the program. * Local Agency Programs - In addition t~ AHIP, the County funds a number of local agencies which provide specialized information as well as services relating to housing. CURRENT PLANNING EFFORTS which are geared toward housing rehabilital subsidy and provision of new units. 0f pa~ strategy areas for community development wi hensive housing quality index survey and a~ Albemarle County in its Comprehensive Plan has defined several strategies ;ion, preventative maintenance, rent 'ticular note are the six housing ~ich were identified through a compre- [opted in the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the objective of rehabilitati~ housing stock annually in the County was a~ ~g two percent of the substandard [opted. * The County of Albemarle promoted low-:.ncome housing efforts by providing in its 1980 adopted Zoning Ordinance a density bonus provision of up to 33 percent for low to moderate income housing developments. The County also is presently examining streamlining its review process gor subdivision plats and site plans which may also aid housing efforts in the County. * A mobile home study to address matter~ of immediate need and whether or not County ordinances contain reasonable p~'ovision for establishment/expansion of mobile home parks by the private sector is expected to be finalized this spring. Mobile homes have been recognized tional housing for low/moderate income fam~ * The Division of Community Development~ position of housing coordinator. The Divii as viable alternatives to conven- .lies. created in 1983, inco'rporated the .ion is responsible for working toward meeting housing needs through administrati~,n of the Section 8 rent subsidy pro- gram, (CDBG) applications, coordination of housing efforts and staff participation in a variety of housing related coalitions and boards. March 6 1 8 Re ul~r Ni ht The Board of Supervisors has also specifically appointed staff to work with the following housing groups' Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation, Thomas Jefferson Areawide. Housing Opportunity Planning Association, Jordan Develop- ment Corporation, and the Community Housing Resources Board. * The County's Department of Planning and Community Development provides information on and/or coordinates service delivery with a number of federal and state agencies including the U.S. Department.of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Farmers Home Administration (FHA), and Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA), In addition the Department prepares data, reports, surveys, census information updates, etc. as requested. * The Division of Community Development is presently working toward obtain- ing a moderate rehabilitation subsidy from HUD for 240 units. The Division continues to monitor all possible grant sources. PAST EFFORTS * The Meadows (housing for elderly and elderly deaf persons) - Twenty-seven' one-bedroom rental units and a community center were completed in 1978 in the Crozet community. The project involved the combined efforts from the County of Albemarle, Jefferson Area Board for Aging (JABA), and the Jordan Development Corporation in consolidating resources from HHD, FHA, and HEW. Funding of the project was primarily through a CommunitY Development Block Grant. * Self-Help Housing Program - In 1978, AHIP administered through the Farmers Home Administration a self,help housing program for seven single-family dwelling units. Technical construction assistance was provided by AHIP with a commitment by each property owner of 30 hours/week toward the construction of his new home. * Vi.rginia HouSing Development Authority - The Board of Supervisors has, from time to time, endorsed and approved housing projects in the County which utilize VHDA mortgage financing and provide for Section 8 rent subsidy housing. The most~recent projects include Hollymead Square and Heritage Acres. Hollymead Square is currently constructing'a second.phase. * In addition to the aforementioned efforts, the enclosed attachment, "Community Objectives, Needs and Projects" outlines a variety of steps Albemarle County has taken, ranging from adopting specific development objectives, performing needs assessments, applying to a variety of funding sources, initia- ting programs and actively coordinating and working with area community agencies on housing issues. The attachment is taken from this year's CDBG application (Copy on file)." Item No. 8.8. Planning Commission minutes of February 19 and February 26, 1985. Agenda Item No. 9. Appropriation, Data Processing Study. Mr. Agnor said the Board had, at its February 20, 1985 meeting, approved the hiring of McGladrey, Hendrickson and Pullen, Certif±ed Public Accountants of Richmond, to do a study of the County's Data Processing system. He would like for the Board now to approve the amount, of $23.,800 for the study. The funds would be taken from the contingency account in the Board of Supervisors' budget where there is currently a balance of $66,980. Mr. Bowie offered motion, which was sec0nded by MrS. Cooke, to adopt the following resolution: The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $23,800 be, and the same hereby is, transferred from the Board of Supervisors' Contingency Fund, coded 1-1000-11010-309907, to the Data Processing Study account coded 1-1000-11010-300217; AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes, December 5, 1984. · Mr. Henley said he had read these minutes and found no errors save for one typographical error he had pointed out to the Clerk. He made motion to approve the minutes. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Executive Session. The Board, on motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by · Way, adjourned into e.xe~utive session for legal and personnel matters at 11:06 p.m. Mr. Bowie, MrS. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. March 6, 1985 (Regular Night Meeting) The Board reconYened into open session at 12:28 a.m. Agenda Item No. 12. Other matters not on the Agenda from the Board and Public. No other matters were presented. Agenda Item No. 13. Adjournment. At 12:30 a.m., on motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the Board adjourned until March 7, 1985 at 2:00 p.m. for a housing tour. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, M~s. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None.