Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-18July 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on Yuly 18, 1984, at 7:30 p.m2~, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 MoIntire Road, Char- ~ottesville, Virginia. ~ ~esent: Mr. F.R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, and Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. ~enley ~Jr., C. Timothy Linstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Robert W.'YTucksr, Jr., )eputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. James R. Donne'lty, )irector of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. ~hairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p. m. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. tenley, to approve the consent agenda. ~ecorded vote: Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following lYES: ~AYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 4.1. Copy of Hearing Examiner's Ruling dated July 11, 1984, con~e~ning VEPCO equest for approval of electrical facilities, a 230 kv line near Hollymead. Public Hearing on ;he proposed line was changed from July 23,1984 to July 20, 1984 because several of the protes- ;ants would be unable to attend the later hearing. Item No. 4.2. Copy of letter addressed to James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Albemarle ~ounty Industrial Development Authority, from Paxson, Smith, Boyd and Gilliam as attorneys for ~iverbend Limited Partnership, notifying the Industrial Development Authority as provided by ;he Tax Reform Act of 1984, of its decision to claim priority against the "cap" for Albemarle ]ounty for the full amount of the inducement resolution, $8~700,000. Item No. 4.3. Copy of letter from Gerald Fisher to Board Members concerning Federal ~hanges in Industrial Development bonding, and suggesting that the Board and the Authority hold joint meeting in August to discuss these changes. Item No. 4.4. ~as received. Copy of Albemarle County Service Authority Budget for fiscal year 1984-85, Item No. 4.5. Report of Department of Social Services for May and June 1984, with letter 'rom the Director dated July 16, 1984: "Although the level of expenditures remains approximately the same, reimbursements for the month of May will show a significant decline. This is because it has taken the State eight months to begin reducing the County's reimbursement by the amount of local dollars (match requirement) expended since September 1983 in programs now on the Virginia Client Information Center (VACIS) - the State computer system we have been piloting for over two years. Now that they have gotten "caught up", there should be monthly withholding for all checks written. The months of April, May and June were particularly hectic for our service staff. A large number of Child Protective Service complaints were made -- sometimes as many as seven or eight a week -- that stretched the capability of our staff to the maximum. That demand has decreased considerably in the past three to four weeks, but will likely pick up again in the fall -- if past trends repeat themselves. The special "Jobs Bill" money we received in FY 83-84 has been of tremendous help to a fairly large number of unemployed persons who had exhausted their unemployment benefits. These funds were used primarily to prevent evictions or foreclosures and utility cut-offs. Several of those assisted have since become employed and commented that, without our help, they would not have been able to get through a very difficult period. The next report will highlight some of the budgetary and programmatic changes effectiv, July 1, 1984." Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-84-11. Woodbriar Associates. (Defferred from June 20, 1984). Mr. !ucker reported to the Board that the applicant had requested a deferral to August 15, 1984 due ;o his inability to attend the July 18 meeting. Mrs. Cooke made motion to grant the deferral. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and ,assed by the following vote: .YES: ~YS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-84-3.5. James M. and Betty C. H~ggs. To locate a single-wide mobile home on 1.57 acres zoned Rural Areas. Located on the east side of Route 795, 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 620. County Tax Map 103, Parcel 2H, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1~84.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Mobile home Acreage:. 1.57 acres Zoning:. Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 103, Parcel 2H (Lot 4), is located on the east side of Route 795, about 1 1/2 miles south of its intersection with Route 620. Character of the Area: Route 795 in this area is developed with many single-family resi- dences (about 32 residences visible from the road in approximately 1/2 mile radius from the site). There are few mobile homes in this area, staff counted two or three between Route 620 and Route 795 at Blenheim. The adjacent properties to the north and south each have a single-family dwellin The property directly across Route 795 is_woo~ed near.She road. A mobile hQme is located across Route 795 to the south. The subject property is wooded. Route 795 between Route 620 and Route 727 carries 332 vehicle trips per day and is listed as tolerable. STAFF COMMENT: Owners of the two single family homes which are directly adjacent to the site to the north and south have submitted written objections. The applicant proposes to locate the home about 250 to 300 feet from the state road, about 150 feet from the rear property line and 45 feet minimum from the side property lines. The lot is about 150 feet wide. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Mobile home to be located as described on sketch submitted with the special use permit; Clearing of trees to be limited to driveway and house site." At the conclusion of the staff report Mr. Tucker told the Board that one adjacent property owner did not receive prior written notification of the public hearing because the owners had just moved into the area. He added that the property owners were aware of the hearing because they submitted a written protest to the placement of the mobile home· Mr. Tucker said no one was present at the Planning Commission hearing on July 17 to object in person. Mr. Tucker said .the Planning Commission has recommended approval with the conditions in the staff report. Mrs Cooke ~ ~ ~r /-~r~ · · the Board that the Planning Commission was very concerned that the propert~ owners mentioned by Mr. Tucker had not been contacted because all communication with the said property owners has been through a third party., The Planning Commission wanted to be certain that the property owners were notified when the Board of Supervisors heard the petition· Mrs. Cooke asked Mr. Tucker if phone calls made to the property owners on the afternoon of July 18, 1984, constituted sufficient notification of the meeting. Mrs. Cooke said she was concerned that the Board would be unable to act on the petition. Mr. Tucker told her that his staff had left messages for the property owners, even though they did not contact them directly by phone. Mr. St. John said that if the Department of Planning and Community Development can show in its records that the property owners had adequate notice, then the'legal requirements for the hearing have been satisfied. ..; Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if the records show that the property owners had adequate notice. Mrs. Cooke said her understanding was that the property owners were aware only that a mobile home permit was being sought. She said her impression had been that they had not been notified by the County about the hearing, but had only heard of it through .the notice that was sent to the previous owner of the property, who, when he received it, notified the present owners that a mobile home permit was being sought. Mr. Fisher examined the letter of protest from the present owners and told the Board that it refers to the County's notification. Mr. St. John said this would satisfy the legal require. ments. The public hearing was opened at this.time. M~. Ralph Kozler, representing Mr. and Mrs. H!ggs,; told 'the Board he had no comments but would answer questions. The Board offered none, and there being no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was clo.s.ed.. Mr. Way asked if the mobile home would be visible from the road and Mr. Tucker said it would be located between 125 and 150 feet away from Route 795 in a wooded area, and he did not think it would be visible. If, however, it proved to be too visible, Mr. Tucker said Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires the applicants to provide screening to' the reasonable~' satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Kozler if the applicants intended to.make the trailer their only residence and was told that they do. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to approve SP-84-35 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion which passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. July 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 7. SP-84-36. Susan G. Smith. Request for temporary operation of the Free Un~on Country School in the existing Ivy Creek Methodist Church. Property consists of 1.6 acres and zoned Rural Areas. Located on north side of Route 676 approximately 1/2 mile east of Route 660. County Tax Map 44, Parcel 14. Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1984). Mr.'~'Tu~ker~3tOid~he'~Boa~d a letter had been received from Ms. Smith on July 17, 1984, requesting withdrawal of the request. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to allow withdrawal of the petition without prejudice. motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and passed with the following recorded vote: The AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-84-40. Maple Grove Christian Church. To locate a church on 4.1 acres zoned R-1 Residential. Located on south side of Route 649, 3/10 mile east of~Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 29G. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1984). Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Reques~.~>~hurch~(13.2.2.10) Acreage: 4Jl~a~res Zoning: R-1 R~sidential Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 29G, is located on the south side of Route 649 (Proffit Road) about 3/10 mile east of Route 29 North. Character of the Area: This property is currently developed with a single family dwelling and detached garage. Property to the east is wooded while properties to the south and west are in residential usage. Across Route 649 is the Full Gospel Chapel. An eight inch public waterine is located along the south side of Route 649. The Fire Official has recommended installation of a hydrant at the site. Public sewer is remote from the site. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has recommended improvement to sight distance and installation of a commercial entrance and turn lane at Route 649. The Comprehensive Plan recommends low-density residential and commercial uses in this area. STAFF COMMENT: The applicant proposes a church bUilding to seat about 250 people in the sanctuary. The church would receive other usage about five days per week (i.e. choir, business meetings, etc. attended by about 30-40 people). No day school or nursery school uses are proposed. The existing dwelling would be maintained as a parsonage while other buildings would likely be removed. Staff recom- mends approval subject to the following conditions: 1) a) Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations prior to Commission review of site plan; Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance location prior to Commission review of site plan." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 10, 1984, voted unanimously to recommend approval of the petition with the two conditions listed in the staff report. Mr. Fisher remarked that the church location is within the Hollymead growth area and within the public water and sewer service areas. He then opened the public hearing. Mr. Ed Leake represented the church and told the Board that most of the necessary inform- ation had been covered in the staff report. He offered to answer questions. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any indication that access to the road will be a problem. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department will have to approve the entrance driveway site plan review. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Leake if the church is ready to present a site plan if the petition is approved. Mr. Leake replied that the church is taking the building process one step at a time and that the Special Use Permit is the first step. He said the church hopes to start a building program within the nex~ two years. Mr. Oliver McCauley told the Board during the hearing that he also supports the church's petition. There being no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to approve SP-84-40 with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. CPA-84-5. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan with respect to'drain- age improvements in the Bennington Woods and Four Seasons areas. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1984.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: 2-..96 July 18~ 1984..(Regular Night. Meeting) "The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 29, 2984, adopted a Resolution of Intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan with respect to drainage improvements in the Four Seasons area and the. Bennington Woods area. On April 3, 1984, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the Board bf S~pervisors adoption of CPA-84-3 (Drainage Improvements Plan), reserving, however, recom- mendations on two projects -, 4,21 Four'Seasons and 4.26 Bennington Woods, .pending further study by the County Engineer.. The Board of Supervisors concurred with this action on May 2, 1984. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan for 4.21 and 4.26 have been prepared for your review. These amendments are to be inserted under Priority I projects in the Urban Drainage Improvements section in Chapter 14 Community Facilities and Utilities Plans. Priority I prqjects include: Project Number Title and Description 4.21 Four Seasons Detention Basin - Construction of a 1.9 acre basin 9.5 feet deep surrounding the existing. Four Seasons Lake with a one and one-half foot berm, lowering of the normal pool by three feet, and restriction of the discharge pipe. In addition, designation of existing swale on the south side of Four Seasons Drive adjacent to the channel as a stormwater detention area. 4.26 Bennington Woods Channel - Specific improvements in the Bennington Woods area to be developed at a later date by the County Engineer." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 21, 1984, voted unanimously to recommend adoption of CPA843, however, at a work session on the Capital Improvements Program this afternoon, those present had discussed deleting funding of the Bennington Woods project until the County Engineer has completed the determination of specific improvements, after further consultation with the affected property owners. Mr. Tucker skid the Four Seasons property owners are supportive of the Four Seasons plan. Mr. Fisher 2aid~he~:was,~$~t~.present when the Four Seasons ~oject waS presented to the Board on May 2, 1984, however, he has heard that this project is tied in some way with the development of adjacent property -- that property for the drainage basin would be donated to the CoUnty if the property were zoned to a higher density. He asked Mr. Tucker if a rezoning request is any part of this project. Mr. Tucker replied that it is not, that the higher densit zoning request has been withdrawn and no longer presents a problem. Mr. Fisher ~skad. Mr.[~Mayn~r~lrod,~County Engineer, who owns the property where the detention basin would be constructed. Mr. Elrod said there is a Lynchburg bank involved in the development of the Four Seasons PUD. The bank has been negotiating with the Homeowners Assoc- iations and the YMCA to dispose of the lake property. The County is not a party to those negotiations. During the negotiations, it was decided that if the homeowners bought the propert: from the developers, the County might negotiate to take over the existing lake for use in flood management in the area. Mr. Fisher asked if acquisition of the lake property is connected in any way with a pending zoning application and was told that it is not. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. Mr. Greg Johnson of 70 Woodlake Drive and President of the Four Seasons Townhouse Associa- tion told the Board that the Townhouse Association and the Patio House Association are discus- sing the possibility of purchasing the common area outright, including the lake, swimming pool and.some other tracts. Mr. Johnson said he cannot predict whether the negotiations will be successful, the main question is whether the majority of the Four Seasons residents will agree to the purchase. If such a purchase is made, Mr. Johnson said the homeowners would be glad to donate the lake to the County, as long as it is maintained in its existing condition. Mr. Johnson said he would like to add for the record that Mr. Elrod and Mr. Tom Muncaster have tried to develop a drainage basin that satisfies the desire of the Four Seasons residents that the lake be preserved. Both men spent a lot of time with residents of the area explaining hydraulic models. The proposal to modify the lake is a compromise, Mr. Johnson said. Mr. Elrod would rather be able to go with his original proposal, which was simply to eliminate the lake, not because it would be cheaper, but because it would require less effort on his part as far as planning goes. The residents, Mr. Johnson said, would prefer that the detention basin be moved to the parking lot at Pizza Inn, so this is a compromise by the residents. Mr. Johnson said the majority of the residents with whom he has discussed the plan agree that this is the best possible solution. He said it satisfies both the'County's need to provide flood protection and also recognizes the desire of the residents to preserve the lake. Mr. Jim Near of Bennington Woods then came before the Board to explain the position of the homeowners. He said two petitions were submitted to the Board at an earlier hearing on this project. He then basically restated the feelings of the homeowners as set out in the minutes of May 2, 1984. Mr. Near said since there has been no particular change in the scope of this project since the time it was brought before the Board of Supervisors in'May, he is present to ask that the ~oard not add this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan at this time. There being no one else present to speak for or against these amendments, the public nearing was closed. July 18~ 1984 (Resular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker reminded the Board members that during a work.session on the Capital Improyemen' budget this afternoon, it was decided to delete funding of the Bennington Woods Channel in order to allow the County Engineer time to de¥ise a design that is suitable to the property owners. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan adding Priority I projects to the Urban Drainage Improvements section in Chapter 14 Community Facilities and Utilities Plan, Projects 4.21 (Four Seasons Detention Basin), and 4.26 (Benning- ton Woods Channel) to read: Four Seasons Detention Basin - Construction of a 1.9 acre basin 9.5 feet deep surrounding the existing Four Seasons Lake with a one and one-half (1 1/2) foot berm; lowering of the normal pOOl lake by three (3) feet, and restriction of a discharge pipe. In addition, designation of existing swale on the south side of Four Seasons Drive adjacent to the channel as a stormwater detention area. Bennington WOods Channel - Specific improvements in the Bennington Woods area are to be develop~ at a later date by the County Engineer. ~?~:i. :i~::.:~ ~i~,~,:?~ Mrs. Cooke seconded the foregoing motion which passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. ~ooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. CPA-84-7. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to delete the property connector road from Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) to Route $31 (Fifth Street). (Advertise~ in the Daily Progress on July 3 and July 10, 1984). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has deferred this amendment indefinitely. This connector road is already shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and is the road from Route 20 South through Hillcrest to Avon Street, but there have been problems in getting the State Highway ~epartment to agree that the road can be taken into the state system. When the problem was ~entioned to the Planning Commission, the Commission discussed the addition o~ another i~ter- change on Interstate Route ~4 where Avon Street Extended passes over it. Such an exchange ~ould reduce the need for a connecting route between Route 20 and A~on Street (Route 742). The Planning Commission, therefore, has decided to explore the possibility of an interchange with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation before it looks at other options, and so ~as deferred this amendment. Mrs. Cooke made motion to defer C?A-84-7 indefinitely. Mr. Way seconded the motion, which ~assed by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Mr. Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Draft resolution on the Piedmont Corridor. Mr. Tucker said the staff had drafted a letter to Mr. Harold King, Highway Commissioner, ~irginia Department of Highways and Transportation, protesting the location of the proposed Piedmont Corridor through western Albemarle County. At the Board's meeting on July ll, it was [ecided that a resolution would be a stronger statement, so the staff has prepared such a ,esolution. Mr. Lindstrom remarked that a paragraph might be added stating clearly the adverse con- ditions created by any highway in the area. He suggested that a paragraph be placed near the end of the resolution reading: "WHEREAS studies have shown that road construction such as that likely to be neces- sitated by the proposed Piedmont Corridor highway creates a significant potential for soil erosion and further that the use of the completed roadway could substantially increase the amount of pollutants, including an increased potential for hazardous substance spills in the watershed, all of which would contribute to the deterioration of the quality of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir water supply;" Mr. Lindstrom said his intention was to make the resolution stronger. He then made motion adopt the resolution with the stronger paragraph attached. Mr. Bowie agreed that the lan~ ~uage should be stronger. ~ -~~=~.~ ~.: '~ -_. ~~.,-~Ac~/~rJ~:~x~_y Mr. St. John then suggested that the wording be made more specific in the second-to-last paragraph that the phrase "prepared by a group of University of North Carolina researchers" be ~hanged to read "prepared by the Institute for Urban Studies, University of North Carolina, ~hapel Hill". Mr. St. John also suggested that in the final line of the resolution it read "through the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir" because failure to clarify the existence of the Reservoir might weaken the resolution~ Mr. Lindstrom indicated that he ~ould accept those amendments to the resolution. The Board decided to address the original letter to Commissioner King and to send copies ~f the resolution to Senator John Warner, Senator Paul Tribble, Congressman J. Kenneth Robinson State Senator Thomas Michie, Jr., Delegates George F. Allen and Mitchell Van Yahres, Mrs. onstance R. Kincheloe, State Highway Commission Member for this district; Mr. Richard C. ockwood, Highway Transportation Planner; and Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer The motion to adopt the resolution as amended passed~y:~he~lt~wi~g~ecorded~ vote, Ilseconded by Mm~s-r-~~V6c~o\~ ~YES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 298 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting~ (Note: The resolution as adopted follows.) WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors recently learned that the proposed Piedmont Corridor highway currently being studied by the ¥irginia Department of Highways and Transportation, is proposed to be located through the South Fork Rivanna River water- shed in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, this watershed, which encompasses approximately one-third of the land area of Albemarle County, is the primary source of drinking water for the City of Charlottes- ville and the urban area of Albemarle County, which at the present time serves approxi- mately 66,000 persons and is projected to serve 80,000~ persons by the year 2000; and WHEREAS, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir is considered to be eutrophic and has been since reservoir monitoring was initiated in 1975; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has taken several important steps since 1975 to reverse the reservoir's eutrophic condition and protect this single source of drinking water - examples of some of the major efforts the County has undertaMen to protect this watershed from further impact on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir follow: --.'~i~i~aitia~yw~ta~iqua~i~y~m~n~ge~en~s~d22~,~v~nna~Re~r~Dir and Watershed (1975-1977); - Development and implementation of Runoff Control Ordinance (1977); - Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Restoration Demonstration Project to evaluate agricultural and residential Best Management Practices (BMP's) and reservoir aeration (1977-1979); - EPA-State Water Control Board (SWCB) 208 Program to develop more detailed watershed management plan (1978-1979); - EPA-SWCB 208 Program to reevaluate annual nutrient budget, revise Runoff Control Ordinance methodology and evaluate institutional approaches to BMP's implementation (1979-1982); - Creation of County position of Watershed Management Official (1980); - County's Comprehensive Plan amended to delete from the urban growth area thos~kareaa~y~ng within the impoundment's watershed (1980); - Comprehensive rezoning of the County which included replacing intensive l&~dd, use~zoning with rural area zoning in the watershed area (1980); - EPA-SWCB Phase 2 Reservoir Restoration Project to implement agricultural and roadway BMP's in Mechum River Sub-basin (1981-1986); - County's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance amended to delete those areas lyingi~i~hi~!~22er supply watersheds from the community and village growth areas (1983); - Deletion of the Western Bypass of the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study MPO-19[B80. ~ WHEREAS, because of these efforts, Albemarle County was selected as one of eight watershed management programs in the United States to be illustrated in Protecting Drink- ing Water' S~p'p'ii'e's''t'~o'ug~ Watershed Ma'nagement, a case book prepared by the Institute for Urban Studies, University of North~Carolina, Chapel Hill; WHEREAS, studies have shown that road construction such as that likely to be neces- sitated by the proposed Piedmont Corridor highway creates a significant potential for soil erosion, and further that use of the completed roadway could substantially increase the amount of pollutants, including an increased potential for hazardous substance spills in the watershed, all of which would contribute to the deterioration of the quality of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir water supply; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, find the proposed location of the Piedmont Corridor highway to be completely contrary to local efforts to protect the area's largest drinking water impoundment; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors do hereby oppose the location of this proposed highway corridor' through the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir. Agenda Item No. 11. 1984. Approval of Minutes: March 14, March 21 (Afternoon), and March 22, Mr. Lindstrom had not read pages 14-27 of the March 14 minutes, nor had Mr. Henley read the March 21 (Afternoon) minutes, so these were not subject to approval. Mrs. Cooke made motion, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the March 22 minutes as presented. The roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. July 18, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12a. Appointmenvs. On motion by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Calvin Moyer was appointed to the transportation Safety Commission, term to expire December 31 1984 by the following recorded vote: ' ' AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Way,-Mr. E. N. Garnett, Jr. was appointed to the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors for a term to expire on June 30 1988 by the following recorded vote: ' AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. On motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, the Director of Planning and Community Development was appointed to the Resource Recovery Commission to succeed Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. The Chief of Community Development was appointed to fill the following vacancies created by the resignation of Mr. R. Keith Mabe: Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation and Thomas Jefferson Area Housing Opportunity Plan Committee. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie, to appoint Mr. William J. Kehoe as the Rivanna District representative on the Industrial Development Authority to fill out the term of Mr. Earnley ~hapman who has resigned; term expires on January 19, 1986. The motion was seconded by Mr. ~indstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. On motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. William L. Howard was appointed to the Equalization Board for the calendar year 1984 by the following .recorded vo5e: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Items not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher told the Board that Mr. St. John had suggested holding a joint meeting with the ~ndustrial Development Authority to review the recent changes in Federal law concerning IDA )ond issues and how those changes will affect the processing of applications and the fact that lollar limits are being imposed on the State and localities. Mr. St. John offered to undertake the responsibility of finding someone to make a presen- ;ation at such a joint meeting. He added that he would like to give some thought to the questic and would probably select some member of the staff to make such a presentation. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Jim Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, aas already scheduled a meeting of the IDA for August 16 to have someone explain the changes, and he would suggest that the briefing of both bodies be done simultaneously. Mr. Fisher said he would be willing to meet on August 16 if that can be arranged. The )ther Board members concurred. Mr. Fisher then noted that Mr. Jim Ketchum-Colwill, will soon be leaving his post with the )ally Progress. Mr. Fisher said he appreciates the time Mr. Ketchum-Colwill has put into :overing, writing and researching the community's activities. Not all the people who have ~ritten the County news for the paper have been so thorough, or have been diligent enough to et background information to explain in a lucid manner the many fairly complex issues of county government. Mr. St. John noted that Virginia Federal Savings & Loan has now filed suit in Albemarle ~ounty Circuit Court to recover the penalty assessed against it in December of 1983 for late 3ayment of real property taxes. No date has yet been set for the trial. Mr. St John said he ~as filed a response. ~ .......~ ' Agenda Item No. 14. At 8:30 P. M.,there being no further business to come before the ~oard, the meeting was adjourned.