Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-06-081'98 June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors was held on June 8, 1983, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Board Members Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (Arrived at 9:08 A.M.), Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 9:31 A.M.), Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 A. M. by the Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept and approve the consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Butler, Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley. Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of May, 1983, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of May, 1983, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia. Item No. 2.3. Report of the County Executive for the month of May, 1983, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of May, 1983, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Grant Project Fund Capital Improvements Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Mental Health Fund $ 35,679.74 611,073.02 1,944,800.00 41,302.00 81.47 72,503.74 1,050.00 252,916.05 356.97 256,522.58 $3,216,285.57 Item No. 2.4. Letters dated May 20, 1983, from the Virginia Department of Highways and ation, signed by Oscar Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, were received as follows: "As requested in your resolution dated February 9, 1983, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective May 20, 1983. ADDITION LENGTH IVY FARM SUBDIVISION Ipswich Place - From: Route 657 Northwesterly 0.20 Mi. to End of Cul-de-sac. 0.20 Mi." "As requested in your resolution dated February 9, 1983, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective May 20, 1983. ADDITION LENGTH IVY FARM SUBDIVISION Pheasant Lane - From: Route 1015 Southerly 0.45 Mi. to End of Cul-de-sac 0.45 Mi." Item No. 2.5.a. Letter from Highway Commissioner, Harold King, giving tentative 1983-84 for Interstate, Primary and Urban System and Transit and Six-Year Improvement , dated May 19, 1983, was received. Item No. 2.5.b. Letter ~rom Highway Commissioner, Harold King, dated May 13, 1983, 1983-84 Construction Allocations for the Secondary System, was received. June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 2.6. Letters dated May 19, 1983, from H. Bryan Mitchell, Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, stating that the properties of C!iffside, Edgehill, Carrsbrook, and Guthrie Hall have been placed on the Virginia Landmarks Register, were received. Item No. 2.7.a. Notice from the Potomac Edison Company dated June 2, 1983, requesting an increase in rates based on financial operating review was received. A public hearing is scheduled for September 23, at I0:00 A.M. in Richmond. Item No. 2.7.b. Notice from the C & P Telephone Company dated June 7, 1983, re. investi- gation to consider the impact of Modified Final Judgment in United States vs American Tole was received. · Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: January 5 and April 20, 1983. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of January 5 and reported finding no errors or omissions Miss Nash had not read the minutes of April 20, 1983. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the minutes of January 5, 1983, as presented The motion carried by the following recorded vote: ' AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash NAYS: None. · ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Mr. Fisher noted the following request: Request - Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Company. "The Seminole Trail Fire Department requests amendment of SP-78-?0 to remove the requirement of the 14-foot paved emergency access roadway to Commonwealth Drive. We do not believe it is possible to limit use of this roadway even if our station were manned 24 hours per day. The lane will constitute an attractive nuisance and its benefits will not offset this disadvantage. Experience on the site has already shown this nuisance potential since people have driven automobiles, motor bikes, motorcycles and bikes across the uncleared right of way." Mr. Tucker noted that on April 6, 1983, the Board reviewed a request from Seminole Trail Fire Company to delete a requirement for a public road connector between Commonwealth Drive and Berkmar Drive across property of the Fire Company. At that time, the Board decided that a temporary access should be installed at this time to fulfill the condition on the special permit, and that the alignment of a future road for public use should be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways at this time and shown on the site plan. Pending those two ac~tions, the conditions would be fulfilled and the Fire Company could obtain a-certificate of occupancy for their training room. Mr. Tucker showed to the Board the revised site plan -showing a temporary parking area which can be used until the Board determines that a public connector road is necessary. Mr. Tucker said Dr. Iachetta is requesting that the Board reconsider its thoughts relative to the emergency access road. The Fire Company is presently making some fire engine time runs in the Berkeley/Four Seasons area to see if they really do save time by going through to Commonwealth Drive when they have a ~call in the Berkeley/Four Seasons area. Dr. Iachetta said the Fire Company has requested this change because of the impact a permanent road would have on the site. The grades for that future road would demolish most the parking area the way it was originally laid out. The alternative just presented by Mr. Tucker eliminates the permanent curbing which is a substantial amount of money, and also the blacktop that was in the original plan. Dr. Iachetta said the Fire Company itself would not receive enough benefit from the fourteen foot emergency access to Commonwealth Drive to put up with the hassels of having such a road in place. The Fire Company has already had problems with maintaining limited control across the right-of-way by the public. The Fire Company has looked at a lift-gate type of control which would have to be operated from the station. Dr. Iachetta said he feels the gate would have to be replaced very often. During some time runs, no particular benefit in time savings has been found to alleviate the nuisance problem. The Fire Company has invested over $~1,000 this year in the community room which will be of benefit to the neighborhood and the Fire Company would like to move its bingo operation from Woodbrook School to the Fire Company building. Dr. Iachetta said he has talked with Larry Claytor of the Rescue Squad and the Rescue Squad is not interested in this emergency access road since there is no substantial savings in response time. The Fire Company can also foresee a problem with going through a residential area which usually does not have vehicular traffic. Mr. Fisher said he believes that eventually there will have to be public access from Berkmar to Commonwealth Drive. Dr. Iachetta agreed but said that the Fire Company did not want to invest funds in a parking lot which will eventually have to be disrupted. Mr. Tucker said that should the Board decide to proceed further with the request from Dr. Iachetta, a public hearing on an amendment of the special permit will need to be scheduled before both the Planning Commission and the Board. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, for comments. Mr. Roosevel~ said his department is concerned that the permanent road remain shown on the site plan and that no action be taken by the Board to prohibit ¢onstructicn of that road at some future time. The benefit of the emergency access road would be apparent during times of high water over Dominion Drive and Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Fisher asked if there are any highway funds available for construction of the permanent road. Mr. Roosevelt said there are only Secondary Road Funds and he is not sure the Department would allow the use of these funds for constructio of such a road at this time. Mr. Fisher asked for an estimated cost. Mr. Roosevelt said this would be a thirty-six to forty foot wide, curb and gutter roadway, of approximately 300 feet in length; probable cost, $25,000. 20o June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Dr. Iachetta said the Fire Company has determined that it can run its vehicles through any amount of water that might overflow Commonwealth Drive. For a true emergency, a four-wheel vehicle can go through the existing right-of-way now, or if a small amount of brush were cut', other vehicles could use that right-of-way. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said he had met with Dr. Iachetta to discuss the benefits of building the parking area to the grade that will be necessary when the permanent road is constructed, versus leaving the current elevation which would place the parking lot at a higher elevation which would have to be lowered about five feet at the time a permanent road went through. Mr. Fisher said if the County decided at that time that the permanent road should be constructed, the Fire Company probably would not have the money to rebuild the parking lot. It seems to be a waste of money not to go ahead and grade it out to what will be needed at that time. Mr. Elrod said it depends on how long it will be before the road is built. For those time reasons, the Fire Company decided to prime and seal the road and use temporary curbs rather than asphalt. Mr. Tucker said when this issue first came up, the Board discussed the fact that the plans for Route 29 North called for the closing of the cross-over at the entrance to DominiOn Drive. If no need is found for this new access before that happens, that alone will trigger- the need for this new road. Mr. Fisher said if the conditions of approval are left as presently worded, the Fire Company can build its parking lot, but the Board might find that in Just a few years (or it might be 20 years), the road is needed, then the investment will have been wasted. Miss Nash asked how this proposed road would affect the parking on the site. Mr. Tucker said that most of this parking area is for the community room; there is room in front of the building for the volunteer firemen to use Mrs. Cooke said she is not in favor of requiring the Fire Company to build a road. The Fire Company has trouble raising funds for equipment and the services that they furnish as a~ volunteer group. She asked what the Board can do to help them use their facilities and at the least cost to the Fire Company. Mr. Tucker said the site plan can be developed in two phases, with Phase I being the least expensive (temporary design of a road and parking lot as recommended by the County Engineer). This would put the parking lot at grade and require minimum grading and the taking down of a small amount of trees, use of railroad ties for curbing around the lot, and posting of a bond for the emergency road while the Board schedules a public hearing on the request to relieve the Fire Company from construction of the emergency road. This would allow the Fire Company to obtain a certificate of occupancy and use the building as desired. Phase II, which is the ultimate design of the property, would require the actual construction of the road, and installing curb and gutter. The majority of the expense would accrue to the County for the road construction. (Note: Mr. Henley arrived at 9:31 A.M. ) Mr. Lindstrom said the Board needs to make a decision as to whether this road should be constructed at this time. He does not have strong feelings about the road, but feels the requirement should be lifted from the special use permit so the fire company can use its facilities. He asked if the prime and double seal in the parking area is a substantial expense, and asked if the lot might be gravelled at~ this time. Dr. Iachetta said that the cost of the seal is 905 per square yard; the gravel must be put in place anyway. Mr. Lindst~om asked if the staff would be agreeable to having Just a gravelled surface. Mr. Tucker said the staff feels it will be quite a while before any public road is constructed on this prope~t~ and that is the reason for requesting the prime and seal. Mr. Elrod said the parking lot is quite steep so there would be trouble keeping the gravel in place for any length of time~ Dr. Iachetta said there is presently a drainage problem on the property (affecting the resc~J~ squad property) which must be corrected. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution of intent, adding that the staff should request Mr. Roosevelt to investigate the possibility of using Secondary Road Improvement funds to finance construction of the road adjacent to the Semin01e Trail Volunteer Fire Company building between Berkmar Drive and Commonwealth Drive, but in any event to show the right of way as being dedicated to public use so that should the money become available, the road can be built. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vot'e' AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, intends to amend Special Permit 78-70 for Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department/Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc.,. to delete condition three which presently reads "Access from Berkmar Drive to Commonwealth Drive will be only fOr emergency use until such time that public access is deemed necessary by the Board of Supervisors"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the Board's intent that alignment for this future road still be shown on the site plan; and FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearing o.n said proposals to amend SP-?8-?0 and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date. Agenda Item No. 4b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom expressed his appreciation to Mr. Roosevelt for some work done on the shoulders along Route 676 at Ivy Creek Methodist Church. Mr. Butler asked if Mr. Roosevelt had arrived at any estimated cost for work on the curve on Route 22 at Keswick Store. Mr. Roosevelt said the District Engineer has authorized him to do some survey work and drawings to see how much cutting would have to be done on the curb. Information relative to this request will be furnished at a later date. June 8, 198B (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked for a report on the Georgetown Road Walkway. Mr. ElrSd said~there have been some technical problems with the contractor which have now been resolved. The Walkway may be completed by the beginning of the next school year. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to remind Mr. Roosevelt of the conversation that took place about four years ago between Dr. Iachetta, Lester Hoel, Mr. Roosevelt and himself about the four-laning of George- town Road (Route 656). Mr. Lindstrom said it was decided at that time that there would be no such improvement and he understands that the word has.not been received by all parties. He does not want this. project on somebody's drawing board. Mr. Roosevelt said the County has shown Georgetown Road in its adopted Comprehensive Plan as a two-lane roadway. Agenda Item No. 5. ~Vacation of Ashmere Subdivision (Deferred from March 9, 198B)~ Mr. St. John recommended that the Board defer this item again; but more than thirty days. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to defer this item until July lB, 198B. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Bids: Parking Lot - County Office Building. Mr. Agnor said that three contractors submitted bids for this project. Faulconer Construction Company was the low bidder with a price of $27B,712.10 and a time frame of 120 days. Total budget for this project is estimated at $Bll,583 which includes $273,713 for construction; $13,636 for a five percent contingency; $19,22B for architect/engineer fees; $961 for architect/engineer fee contingency; $3,500 for compaction testing (the field is so flat is does not drain well so will have to have some filling work); and $500 for printing of plans. The Capital Improvement Program contains an item of $484,152 for complet~ ~h~.~C~unty, Of~ce Building compI~eX and parking lot. Also included in that figure is expansion of the telephone system into the remodeled wing, furniture and fixtures, and moving expenses. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the bid from Faulconer Construction Company be accepted and that the Board authorize an appropriation for the parking lot of SBll,58B. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the bid of Faulco~ner Construction Company be accepted and that the fallowing resolution be adopted.: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $311,58B be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Capital Improvement Fund and transferred to Code 9700-7060.01 for construction of the parking lot of Phase II of the Albemarle County Office Building Project, by the construction firm of Faulconer Construction Company. The motion was seconded by Mr.~ Henley. Mr. Fisher said he had received a couple of questions fromt~itikens asking whether the parking lot would take the entire football field. Mr. Agnor said it takes the football field to the short fence between the football field and the baseball diamond. The construction will connect that field via a ramp along the railroad side, with the parking area directly around the building. The two lots will be interconnected and will create a new main entrance for this building from Preston Avenue at Fourth Street so that when the reconstruction of McIntire Road takes~place, the present entrance will be closed and a new entrance will already be in place. The construction not only removes the temporary wooden bleachers, but also the concrete stadium and develops the entire football field into parking area. Miss Nash asked if the City still owns the baseball diamond. Mr. Agnor said no; the County owns the land, but it is being used by City baseball leagues. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. l?. Authority to Execute Agreement re- Easement - Centel. Mr. Agnor said that this is a request to sign an easement for a buried telephane line across Chris Greene Lake property to a tenant house owned by Mr. Frank Quayle. The easement borders the roadway into Chris Greene Lake along an existing easement and then goes across a small area of parks property. The Parks s~aff has examined the easement and finds that it will not conflict with any use of the park. It is recommended that the easement be granted and the County Executive be authorized to sign same on.behalf of the County. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Claim against the Countyre: Starks. Mr. St. John mentioned his letter of May 19, 1983, requesting that this item be included on the agenda, and the letter dated May 17, 1983, from Sa'ad E1-Amin, attorney for the Starks: "I have a copy of the letter written to the Board of Supervisors by Mr. Amin, May l?, 1983. This constitutes a claim against the County, which should be put on the Supervisors' agenda for answer. I, as County Attorney, am required to recommend disposition of this claim, and I am going to recommend disallowance.~ i do not think it is necessary to have Mr. and Mrs. Starks present, nor to hear any further evidence on this matter, as in my judgment the claim is not allowable as a matter of law, on its face." June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. St. John Said the Board is already familiar with the facts because of previous discussion of flooding conditions on Commonwealth Drive. This claim, in essence, requests that the County institute condemnation proceedings with ~the.~pu-rpose of, and ~ view ~oward,. paying for the damage done to the real and personal property of Mr. and Mrs. Starks due to the flooding of that property. Mr. St. John said he believes that this claim could not lawfully be approved as a matter of law; it would not be a proper expenditure of public funds. Mr. St. John then recommended that the claim be ~isallowed by the Board of Supervisors Mr. St. John said that under State Code, no action can be brought in Court until this claim has been made to the Board of Supervisors. Several months ago, Mr. El-Amen asked for documen- tation showing denial of this claim; he believed that the claim had been made and denied previously during discussions which were held about the flooding in this area. Mr. St. John said a review of those minutes and documentation on file lead him to believe that there had never been a claim presented in the form required by State statute. Mr. E!-Amin has now made a claim in proper form. Mr. Fisher said the County Attorney has recommended that the Board disallow this claim, and he req~e~te~ a motion to that effect. Miss Nash offered motion that the Board disallow the claim as set out above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. The Clerk was asked to notify Mr. E1-Amin by certified mail of the Board's action. Agenda Item No. 21. Special Appropriation - Budget Amendment: Summer School Program. Mr. Agnor said the County School system is going to administer the summer school program for both Albemarle and Charlottesville students t~is year. ~The School Board~, at a meeting held on May 25, 1983, requested the Board to make an appropriation for this self-sustaining program in the amount of $27,050. This request was based on a projection-of fi~e sections of enrichment instruction and nineteen sections of remedial instruction. It was also noted in the request that the amount of the appropriation may need to be amended depending on the actual enrollment in the program. The Director of Finance, Ray Jones, advises that the Board take two separate actions on this request. First, that the Board adopt a motion this date endorsing the program and authorizing the Department of Education to begin the program on June 20, 1983; second that the Board wait to approve the actual appropriation at the July 6 meeting because actual expenditures will take place in the 1983-8~sg&~cal year. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Director of Finance that the Department of Education be authorized to begin this program on June 20, with the actual appropriation of funds taking place after the beginning of the new fiscal year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, L±ndstrom and Miss Nash, None. Agenda Item No. 22d. Apointment: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Butler noted that an application had been received from Dr. Richard W. Lindsay for this Board. He has also personally called Mr. Butler about wanting to serve on this Board. Dr. Lindsay is a Professor of Medicine and Head of the Division of Geriatric Medicine at the University of Virginia School of Medicine. Miss Nash offered motion to appoint Dr. Lindsay to this vacancy for a term to begin immediately and expire on March 31, 1985. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 22b. Appointment: Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee Mr. Lindstrom said he has talked with both of the County representatives on this committee about an appointment he would like to make to the committee. There has been talk of having a citizen member (as a watchdog) who could be sure that all of the possible alternatives to a Route 29 bypass through the western part of the County are clearly examined. Mr. Lindstrom then nominated Mrs. Charlotte Humphris to this committee. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NqDe. Agenda Ztem No. 22c. Appointment: Jail Board. Mr. Henley said an appointee is needed for the Jail Board. The term of Mr. John Burns has expired and he is not eligible for reappointment. Agenda Item No. 22h. Appointment: Soil Erosion Advisory Board. Mr. Lindstrom noted that Lt. Cot. Dirk Van der Voet has stated that he does not wish to be reappointed to this Board. Mr. Lindstrom would like to sign a letter of appreciation to Lt. Col. Van der Voet for his service on this Board. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An Ordinance Amending and Reenacting Section 14-13 of the Albemarle County Code referencing Certain Maps Defining Reservoirs Subject to the Requirements Applicable to Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1983.) June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor said that there was an unintentional omission on the current map in that the map does not show the Ivy Creek area or the U~per Reaches of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as being subject to the ordinance provisions. The revision is to replace this one map with five new maps outlining each of the reservoirs in detail; specifically detailing actual tax map and section numbers affected by the ordinance. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against this ordinance amendment, ~he public hearing was closed. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the f~llowing ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 14-13 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE REFERENCING CERTAIN MAPS DEFINING RESERVOIRS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS UTILIZED BY THE RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that Section 14-13 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Section 14-13. Reservoirs affected. The following reservoirs shall be subject to the requirements set forth in this-article: Sugar Hollow, Ragged Mountain, Upper and Lower, South Fork Rivanna, Beaver Creek, and Totier Creek. The boundaries of these reservoirs are shown on maps attached hereto and on file in the office of the clerk of the board of supervisors, entitled as follows: "Sugar Hollow Reservoir, County Code Section 14-14, Tax Maps 24, 25, 38"; "Ragged Mountain Reservoir, County Code Section 14-15, Tax Maps 59, 74, 75"; "SOuth Fork Rivanna Reservoir, County Code Section 14-16, Tax Maps 30, 44, 45"; "Beaver Creek ReservOir, County Code Section 14-17, Tax Maps 41, 56, 57"; and "Totier Creek Reservoir, County Code Section 14-18, Tax Maps 130, 136". The foregoing motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing: An Ordinance amending and reenacting Sections 14-15(b), 14-16(b), 14-!7(b) and 14-18(b) of the Albemarle County Code to prohibit use of any internal combustion engine on water supply reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1983.) Mr. Agnor said that the Rivanna Water an~ Sewer Authority Board of Directors took action on December 20, 1982, and again on February 28, 1983, at the request of a citizen and also from the Division of Game and Inland Fisheries, proposing a relaxation of the ordinance requirements so that instead of prohibiting boats equipped with combustion engines within the boundaries of the water supply reservoirs, these boats would be permitted under certain conditions. The County Attorney drafted proposed amendments to relax the requirements, and those amendments are the subject today of this public hearing. It was brought to the attention of the Rivanna Board that to physically remove internal combustion engines from some boats is a very complicated process in that it removes the steering linkage from the boat as well as some of the electrical wiring. It is impractical for some of those types of removals to occur. In order to respond to this concern the Rivanna staff and Rivanna Authority Board had meetings with representatives of the Division of Game and Inland Fisheries and examined ordinances from other localities where similar prohibitions are imposed on reservoirs. It was learned that on Game Commission lakes, internal combustion engines are not required to be removed from the boat, but are not allowed to be used, and are required to be tilted so that from the shore an officer can recognize that the motor is not being used. This ordinance today will bring the County ordinance more into line with the ordinances of the Fish and Game Commissioh regulations. If the boat has a removable gas tank, it will require that the tank be removed before entering the water. It has been found that a number of gas tanks are buiIt into the hull, so there is no way to remove the tank. This ordinance will allow the engine to be left on the board, put into a tilted position while on the reservoir, and require the removal of a removable gas tank. The public hearing was opened. Mr. John Kaufman from Free Union, a supervising fishery biologist for the Division of Game and Inland Fisheries, said the Commission supports the changes recommended by the Rivanna Authority. He said the existing Albemarle County ordinance is unique by the fact that it is the only ordSnance in the State which prohibits the mere presence of an outboard motor on a boat. The regulation as it is worded can present serious problems to fishermen who might fish other waters, such as Lake Anna, or Lake Monticello. The Commission feels the ordinance can be modified to incorporate the concerns of the County~ about allowing outboard motors on the reservoirs. Mr. Fisher said he had supported the existing ordinance because of the people who cannot resist the temptation to turn on the motor when their electric battery fails. He asked how these requirements are enforced on Game and Inland Fisheries lakes. Mr. Kaufman said it is part of the regulations, so the person would be given a ticket for violating that part of the code. Mr. Fisher asked how often that happens. Mr. Kaufman said there are very few violations. He said that the Division of Game and Inland Fisheries did not even know the existing County regulations were in effect until August of last year. Mrs. Cooke asked if the ticket constitut~ a fine or a warning. Mr. Kaufman said it is usually a fine; that is the prerogative of the judge. Mr. Woody Calhoun said he and his wife fish on the lakes involved and have never had a more enjoyable summer. Both he and his wife are disabled, and if they awake in the ~0rnings feeling good, they can go out and fish for a few hours. Since his wife has arthritis, she could not get up and walk around in a "john" boat with any safety, so they have a large boat. He requested that the Board rescind this regulation. With no one else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Jufle 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 205 Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING S~OTIONS 1~-15(b), 1~-1~(b), 14-17(b), AND 1~-18(b) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE TO PROHIBIT USE OF ANY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE ON WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS UTILIZED BY THE RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Sections 14-15(b), 14-16(b), 14-17(b), and 14-18(b) of the Albemarle County Code are hereby amended and ~re-enacted as follows: ~Sec~tion t4-15~. ,Same -- Ragged Mountain~ Upper and Lower. (a) Same. (b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, picnicking, and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower. Fishing, canoeing and boating without a permit from the City of Charlottesville Public Works Department shall be prohibited. Ail boats operated with internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes. The owners of those boats equipped with internal combustion engines not having written permission to operate the same shall at all times have the engine tilted in a non-operating posi- tion when within the boundaries of ~he Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower. In such case, for those boats equipped with or utilizing removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering Reservoir waters. Section 14-16. Same -- South Fork Rivanna. (a) Same. (b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, picnicking and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Ail boats operated with internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir except for those boats operated with the written permission of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. The owners of those boats equipped with internal combustion engines not having written permission to operate the same shall at all times have the engine tilted in a non-operating position when within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. In such case, for those boats equipped with or utilizing removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering.Reservoir waters. Section 14-17. Same -- Beaver Creek. (a) Same. (b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Ail boats operated with combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boun- daries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes. The owners of those boats equipped with internal combustion engines not having written permission to operate the same shall at all times have the engine tilted in a non-operating position when within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir. In such case, for those boats equipped with or utilizing removable'gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering Reservoir waters. 'SeCtion 14-18. Same -- Totier Creek, (a) .Same. (b) Prohibited uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir. Ail boats operated within internal combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir, except for those boats operated by the,_Bivanna Water and Sewer Authority for watter supply purposes. The owners of those boats equipped with internal combustion engines not having written permission to operate the same shall at all times have the engine tilted to a non-operating position when within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir. In such case, for those boats equipped with or utilizing removable gas tanks, the gas tanks shall be removed prior to entering Reservoir waters. The foregoing motion was-seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisherl Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact Section 4-3 of the Albemarle County Code concerning the Disposal of the Bodies of Dead Animals and Fowl. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1983.) June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor said that the existing ordinance requires that if an owner does not properly dispose of a dead animal or fowl,.the magistrate can order the animal or fowl cremated and $5.00 for the animal or $1.00 for the fowl can be recovered. This ordinance amendment states that this cremation would be ordered by a judge of the General District Court and the fees recovered would be the actual cost of the cremation, but not more than $7.5.00 for an animal, or $5.00 for a fowl. This is primarily to update costs and shift responsibility to the judge of the General District Court, and was brought about by a recent case in court where a violator was not held guilty because of a flaw in this ordinance (State law had been changed, but the County ordinance had not been amended to match that change). At this time, the public hearing was opened. Jeff McDaniels of the State Health Department said the case was tried in court last week and nul-processed because the ordinance as written is invalid. This amendment will update County law to match State law and make the ordinance valid once again. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RE-ENACT SECTION 4-3 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE CONCERNING THE DISPOSAL OF THE BODIES OF DEAD ANIMALS AND FOWL BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 4-3 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Section 4-3. Disposal of bodies of dead animals and fowl. When the owner of any animal or grown fowl which has died knows of such death, such owner shall forthwith have its body cremated or buried, and, if he fails to do so, any Judge of a General District Court, after notice to the owner, if he can be ascertained, shall cause any such dead animal or fowl to be cremated or buried by an officer or other person designated for the purpose. Such officer or other person shall be entitled to recover of the owner of every such animal so cremated or buried, the actual cost of the cremation or burial, not to exceed $75.00, and of the owner of every such fowl so cremated or buried, the actual cost of the cremation or burial, not to exceed $5.00, to-be recove~red in the s~ame- ~- manner as officers' fees are recovered, free from all exemptions in favor of such owner. Any person violating the provisions of th±s section shall be guilty of a Class IV misdemeanor. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to require the burial or cremation of the whole or portions of any animal or fowl which is to be used for food or in any commercial manner. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item NO. 9. 1983). SP-83-20. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (Deferred from May 18, Mr. Fisher noted that this petition was deferred in order to allow some additional information to be presented to the Board relative to the cost of installing this proposed interceptor line along an alternate route lying on Route 250 West, and several other concerns expressed by Board members and the public at that meeting. Mr. Paul Shoop, Design Engineer for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, noted report entitled "Design Information for the Crozet'Interceptor" dated June 2, 1983, which has been furnished to the Board. Mr. Shoop went over the report in detail; a few sections are excepted below: "Plans and specifications for Part II of the Crozet Interceptor have been reviewed and approved by the Virginia State Department of Health, the Virginia State Water Control Board, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The plans are currently being reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and a grant offer is anticipated to be forthcoming. Construction of Part II is antici- pated to begin in the summer of 1983. The line will include gravity sewer along Little Ivy Creek from Route 708 to a point west of West Leigh where Little Ivy Creek crosses the C & 0 Railway and enters West Leigh Subdivision. Ail line sizing and design flows to this point were based on the fifty-year development of the Community of Crozet. Design routings were based on following gravity flow routes along existing drainage basins. Beginning at this point (the C & 0 Railway), three alternate routes were considered: 1) Construct a gravity sewer through West Leigh and construct a pumping system to tie into the Morey Creek system; or 2) Construct a pumping station paralleling C. & 0 Railway property to tie into the Morey Creek System; or 3) Construct a pumping system along Route 250 to tie into the Morey Creek system. The three alternatives listed can handle sewage flows of 2500 gallons per minute which is the limiting capacity of the Morey Creek Interceptor. The 2500 gpm is projected to be reached in twenty to twenty-four years. June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Virginia Sewerage Regulations require that projects such as the Crozet Interceptor be designed for a fifty-year life. Three possible routes to handle the flow after the 2500 gpm capacity of the Morey Creek Interceptor has been exceeded, are: 1) 2) Gravity sewer along Ivy Creek to a point north of Farmington; construct a pumping system to the Morey Creek Interceptor and construct a gravity sewer parallel to the existing Morey Creek and Moores Creek Interceptors; or Gravity sewer along Ivy Creek to a point west of Albemarle High School; construct a pumping system to the Albemarle/Berkeley system; and parallel that system and the Meadow Creek Interceptor to the Rivanna Interceptor; or Construct a gravity sewer along Ivy Creek around the South Rivanna Reservoir and tie into the Rivanna Interceptor. The decision on this ultimate route does not need to be made at this time and has no bearing on the "West Leigh" issue at hand. West Leigh Gravity Routing Of the three options available at West Leigh, the route along Route 250 was dropped from consideration because pumping head requirements would necessitate two pumping stations as opposed to the one for the C & 0 Railway pumping route. This left two options to study: 1) gravity sewer through West Leigh; and 2) a pumping system parallel to the C & 0 Railway. The cost of these two options was evaluated both as to twenty-year and fifty-year project lives. If the Morey Creek Interceptor were to be abandoned in twenty years, the actual cash outlay would be higher for the C & 0 routing. Since a majority of the costs would be in operations and maintenance, this option would be $817,051 higher than the route contemplated in the special permit request. In twenty years, if the flow were split between Morey Creek and the residual flow route, the actual cash outlay would be higher for the C & 0 route and about $907,981 higher than the route contemplated in the special permit request. Mr. Shoop.said a.~qmestion was raised at the May 18 meeting of the Board as to whether estimate of cost of property acquisition for the alternate routes had been made. Ail property acquisition will be private for either route, therefore, the cost of easement purchase will be negligible compared to the estimated construction and restoration costs. A question was also raised as to the impact on property values in West Leigh. The special use permit required for this project confirms the location of the facilities within the floodway. The fact that the underground structures will be located where no buildings could be constructed, and with properties being restored to their original condition, will warrant nominal impact on property values. Any damages will be paid for in the easement acquisition. Mr. Shoop said a question about odors was also raised. The main source of odors in a sewage system is septicity. The Rivanna Authority is concerned with septicity in that it hinders biological treatment. For this reason, hydrogen peroxide or a substitute will be added as an oxidant to "freshen" the sewage and minimize odors. Additionally, vented manholes have been strategically located next to the railroad and in a pasture near a barn. Mr. Shoop said two issues were raised by property owners in West Leigh. Regarding the lake, the County Engineer and the Watershed Management Official will be involved in the review and inspection of erosion control measures during construction. The Rivanna Authority is also willing to perform a depth survey of the lake before and after construction to determine impact resulting from construction of the interceptor. Regarding the roads, the Authority is willing to have the County Engineer's Office assist in reviewing road conditions before and after construction to ensure restoration. Mr. Shoop said he would be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Fisher said he cannot believe the Rivanna Authority is looking at three alternatives that go directly to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. The whole point of the 1973 EPA study was to find alternative routes to keep sewage service away from the Reservoir. That study recommended that no sewage lines be built closer to the Reservoir than along Route 250 West. Mr. Shoop said the original design work done by Ecol Sciences in 1974 was based on the then current Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan which had a life of twenty years. Therefore, they looked for a twenty-year design solution. Mr. Fisher asked why the size of the Morey Creek Interceptor could not be increased. Mr. Shoop said that is a feasible alternative, but that decision is still twenty years away. Mr. Fisher asked if any of the "green" (three alternatives) routes shown on the map on the wall were a part of the original Four-Party Agreement which created the Rivanna Authority. Mr. Shoop said if the question is whether the Four-Party Agreement binds any of the routes, he believes the wording in the agreement is only "to construct-a Crozet Interceptor" and does not set out the exact routing. Mr. Agnor said the Four-Party Agreement does not address specific routing. There was a pollution abatement study (the Malcolm Pirnie Report) which caused the Rivanna Authority to be created. That report showed the Crozet Interceptor in general terms going from Crozet, down Ivy Creek, around the Reservoir, and then to the Rivanna River, but that was just a conceptual idea. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any cost analysis of enlarging the Morey Creek/Moores Creek Interceptors to handle the fifty-year flows as opposed to the building of any of the three alternative routes has been made. Mr. Shoop said the Rivanna Authority has not analyzed which of the three alternative routes it would choose. ,208. June 8, 198~ (Regular Day Meetin~)~ Mr. Lindstrom said the whole issue of the South Fork Rivanna watershed has. been a major problem for many years. This Board has been trying to direct growth away from the Reservoir area. Unless the Rivanna Authority has really good monetary reasons for running these lines into that watershed, he feels the alternative of enlargement of the Morey Creek/Moores Creek Interceptors should be selected. When the Rivanna Authority did not bring forth such a proposal, it made him curious to know whether there was any'consideration given to just expanding the size of the existing interceptors. Mr. Shoop said the original design of the Crozet Interceptor was actually for a gravity sewer flowing to a point behind Farmington, and with the elevation changes from that point, all flow could be handled with a single pumping station to the Moores Creek Interceptor~. A lot of the design work has been calculated on what might happen in twenty years. Mr. Fisher said he is totally opposed to making decisions today on what might happen twenty years from now. Mr. Lindstrom said he had been unable to determine from Mr. Shoop's answers whether or not there had actually been a cost analysis made of enlargement of the existing Morey Creek/ Moores Creek Interceptors. Mr. Shoop said there had not been the exact type of cost estimate made that Mr. Lindstrom was asking about. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has imposed a tremendou: cost on property owners in the watershed by regulating the way they can use their land. That cost far exceeds any cost that would be involved in two pumping stations, or even one pumping station; it is a question of fairness. The Rivanna Authority is really dealing with another aspect of the problem. Mr. Shoop said he had tried to find a common solution. He did some cost analyses on the alternative C & 0 route, pumping over the hill just beyond the entrance to West Leigh. He also looked at the alternative of retaining what is already in the ground and whether to size the line behind Farmington for the entire fifty-year flow. Mr. Shoop then went into details explained in the report mentioned earlier. Mr. Lindstrom said that after all the effort this Board has spent on protecting the South Fork Rivanna watershed, he cannot approve a special permit for lines that go through that watershed. Although he recognizes that there are additional costs, the Board has imposed a lot of costs on private properties in trying to protect that Reservoir. Eventually, there would be constant, repeated pressure to allow hook-ups to that line and he believes the Albemarle County Service Authority might eventually accede to that pressure,. Mr. Lindstrom said that in the back of his mind there is a slight suspicion that future customers may have been the bases for looking at these particular routes. Mr. Shoop said that the lines were choosen purely on the difference in cost between gravity flows and building pumping stations. Mr. Agnor said he talked with Mr. George Williams when he learned of the proposed routing. Mr. Agnor said it has been his understanding for a number of years that the proposal for a line to the Rivanna River was dead and buried. The Ecol Sciences report dealt with a twenty- year planning period, but regulations now require a fifty-year design. It is a completely different set of circumstances. Even the new AWT Plant does not have a fifty-year life. Mr. Agnor said that even though the Rivanna Authority is looking at a fifty-year plan, perhaps the design work should be limited to a twenty-year cycle, which was the original cycle for the pollution abatement program. Mr. St. John said the Board should recognize at this time the legal nature of the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. A fifty-year life is two and one-half times the life of the present plan. The question is, when this Comprehensive Plan expires, will the next plan be built on what has been done under the plan in effect at this time, or does the Board anticipate that when this plan expires it will be totally reversed and scrapped rather than building on the present plan. Mr. St. John said he does not believe that the General Assembly, in setting up this land use program, meant that a comprehensive plan would just die at the end of its twenty-year life. The Board cannot sit here today and claim to be living under the present plan, and at the same time approve something that is contradictory to the concept of the plan after it expires. Mr. Fisher said that is exactly what he was trying to say. Mr. St. John said there are legal implications involved in endorsing or approving the "green" (the three alternative routes) lines shown on the map. There would be legal implications affecting the present Comprehensive Plan and its status if the Board should endorse anything like this proposal. At this point in the discussion, the public hearing was reopened. First to speak was Mr. Rick Richmond who made a statement (copy of file in the Clerk's Office), a summary of which follows: "The report (Design Information for the Crozet Interceptor, dated June 2, 1983) is a comparison of apples and oranges. The estimated savings are speculative and begin to accrue, if at all, only at the end of a twenty-year period. In one breath, the Rivanna Authority states that it is not necessary to make an ultimate de.cision to decide the West Leigh issue, yet in the next breath it recommends spending a huge additional sum of money at the present time which may result in savings in the long run only if you make the ultimate decision now. The fifty-year life design requirements leave options for cost effective shorter term construction techniques provided the. fifty-year concept is considered in the overall design.' By using the new Chessie route there will be a savings of between $197,747 and $400,000. It is irresponsible to spend that amount of money.in 1983 with any projected savings as speculative as set forth in the report." Mr. Lou Eaton said he is the property owner most affected by the Rivanna proposal. This line would run through 1500 feet of his property, nearly all of which is in the two hundred year flood plain. He is in favor of the line, but does not feel that this issue has been thoroughly evaluated in terms of long-term planning. He also does not believe the watershed issue has been evaluated. Mr. Eaton said he is concerned because this line will restrict the use of his property. He is concerned about the damage that will occur. Based on histor~'ca] things he has seen as a geologist and topographic engineer, there is the potential for him to be the receipent of a bad situation. His home is the original Meriwether Lewis land grant house, dating to 1760; probably the oldest house in Ivy. Also, he does not believe this line can be installed through his property without destroying a road which has at least .two or t~hree years of life in it without having to resurface about 1300 feet of same. Mr. Eaton said there are multiple reasons why he as a property owner is concerned. '209 June 8 1 ~~ar Da~Meetin~__ Mr. Richard Atkinson said he lives in West Leigh. It is his barn by which the proposed vent on the sewer line will be installed. The barn does not smell bad now, but he believes it will in the future. He feels this will devalue his property and he would prefer that the Chessie route be chosen; Mrs. Nell Tiller said she lives in the Crozet area. She has been fighting for five years to get the interceptor line installed to Crozet. When her family moved to the Crozet area it was during a drought, so they did not know what they were getting into. Since that time, they have spent about $2000 on their septic system. She said that her septic system was pumped last Sunday and almost weekly. Septic systems are failing throughout the whole coramunity. She feels badly that this line will affect the property of many, but if a decision is not made soon, she feels that the State Water Control Board may take away the grant money. Mrs. Katie Hammock said she lives in Crozet. She asked that the Board put aside any talk about land being torn up and consider this issue only from a health standpoint. She said there is black, putrid sewage on top of the ground in some places in Crozet, and children play on that ground. She begged the Board to decide on the route for this interceptor line and said that if a decision is postponed, someone might die. Mr. Phil Dougherty said he lives in West Leigh. He has no objection to this line, but is present only to question the routing of the line through West Leigh. Mr. Fisher said he has been working on this proposed Crozet Interceptor since 1972. He has been to Richmond about six times seeking the necessary money, and he does not expect to let the project get lost. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was reclosed. M~. Lindstrom said he can echo the comments made by the people from Crozet. He has been working on this problem for a long time. The question is not whether this interceptor will be built, but if it will be built in such a way as to foreclose any part of the line going through the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Lindstrom said the Comprehensive Plan that this Board has worked on is one that he feels the Board must stand by. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that this special use permit would not be necessary if there were not alternative routes available. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the route directly along Route 250 West is the alternative that should be picked and for that reason he offered motion to deny SP-83-20. He said he would like to add to the motion that it is the sense of this Board that the C & 0 alternate be selected and that planning be done to make the Route 250 interceptor line shown in the Comprehensive Plan, the permanent line, and that all planning for constructioI of lines through any part of the South Fork Rivanna watershed, be avoided. Mr. Fisher asked the staff if denial of the special permit application is the way to accomplish the construction of the C & 0 route. Mr. Tucker said that there will still be parts of the line in the flood plain. He said it would be better to condition the permit on the alternate C & 0 route. Mr. L~ndstrom asked if a special permit is actually required. Mr. Tucker said the special permit is required only because the line goes through the flood plain. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be sufficient to say that approval of the special permit is conditioned on following the C & 0 alternative. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said he would then change his motion to do just that. Mr. St. John reminded the Board that this approval carries with it a finding that the C & alternate route is in accord with the recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan according to Vi.rginia Code Section 15.1-456. This project cannot be built unless it is found to be in accord with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that possibly the best way to approve this special permit would be to delete Condition #2 which presently reads: ~'Staff approval of site plan for West Leigh pump station to include a landscape plan and facade treatment;" and change that condition to read: "The C & 0 alternate will be the route for the Crozet interceptor line;" and retain the other conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker asked that the language just deleted be kept, but just delete the words "West Leigh" so that the staff can still require a site plan for any pump station along the route. Mr. Lindstrom changed wording to: "Staff approval of site plan for any pump station to include a landscape plan and facade treatment." Mr. Lindstrom suggested adding a condition #5 stating: "Route approved is limited to the C & 0 (Chessie) alternate." Mr. Fisher restated the motion to say that SP-83-20 is approved as recommended by the Planning Commission with an amendment in Condition #2 substituting the word "any" for "West Leigh" and adding Condition #5 stating: "Route approved is limited to the C & 0 (Chessie) alternate" as shown on the map on display. This motion was then seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Lindstrom said that the Board is constantly "putting out brush fires" and it concerns him. It is certainly no secret how this Board feels about preservation of the South Fork Rivanna watershed. It is no secret how the Comprehensive Plan is worded and the effort that has gone into preservation of the watershed for the past few years. He cannot understand how significant planning can be done assuming that a twenty-year plan will be reversed in twenty years and that the Board will go along with another alternate. The plan originally presented to this Board by the Planning Commission would surely "put nails in the coffin" of all of the planning that the Board has done recently. He cannot understand why agencies that work for the public cannot work more consistently with one another. This board of supervisors is the only group of people at this meeting who are elected to represent the citizens. It does seem that the policies this Board sets would filter through to these other agencies that serve the public. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion which passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. 210 June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) (The conditions of approval are set out below:) l) 2) 5) County Engineer review and approval in accordance with the requirements of Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; Staff approval of site plan for any pump station to include a landscape plan and facade treatment; Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit ~o be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, Comprehensive Plan, and State Water Control Board; Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies; Route approved is limited to the C & 0 (Chessie) alternate. Agenda Item No. 10. of Sewage Sludges. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority - Application for Land Disposal Mr. Agnor said a letter had been received from Mr. Ronald E. Conner, Regional Director of the State Department of Health, dated May 24, 1983, in reference to this subject. A plan for the land application of sewage sludge from the Moores Creek wastewater treatment plant has been formulated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff. This land application is for stabilized sewage sludge to be applied to parcels of agricultural land in the County under the supervision of the Rivanna Authority, and in accordance with Sewerage Regulations adopted in 1977. The plan includes five separate parcels of land totalling 210 acres. Additional sites will be submitted for approval at a future date. Mr. Agnor said the Board has been notified of this matter because of recently enacted legislation (Section 32.1-164.2) which requires ~hat the local governing body be given an opportunity to comment on the applicat: Mr. Agnor said that a Comprehensive Sludge D~sposal Plan for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. has been forwarded to the State for approval. He asked Mr. Paul Shoop, member of the Rivanna staff, to explain about the disposal procedures and the site selection. Mr. Shoop said part of the overall design of the Moores Creek AWT Plant is what will be done with sewage sludge. A plan for the ultimate disposal of municipally generated sewage sludge on agriculture land has been presented to the State Health Department and the State Water Control Board for approval. The intent of the plan is to calculate loading rates based on several considerations. Because this area has a nominal amount of industrial waste, the sites have been selected on the basis of nitrogen loading as to expected crop uptake. However, in the South Fork Rivanna drainage basin, the loading rates have been set based on phosphorus uptake of a particular crop. Mr. Fisher asked how stream boundaries are protected; is there a setback? Mr. Shoop said the Health Department requires a fifty foot setback from the edge of a stream. Miss Nash asked how many farmers are involved in this program. Mr. Shoop said the Rivanna Authority has been disposing of liquid sewage sludge for years. The majority of the. property owners who were originally involved in the program have liked the benefits from the use of the sludge. His office has received calls from farmers inquiring about the program; but it has principally been through the grapevine. Mr. Fisher asked the Watershed Management Official for comments. Mr. Norris said he has read and reviewed the plan. It would seem appropriate that the setback presently in effect in Albemarle County in the watershed areas be applied in this case. Also the plan specifically. mentions just the South Fork Rivanna watershed, but should also apply to the Totier Creek watershed. Mr. Norris said the application forms that are enclosed in the study seem thorough, but the program relies heavily on the individual property owners doing what they say they will do. The plan does not require any monitoring of application rates, so it is up to the landowner to put the material where he says he will put it and at the proper rate. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is a substantial demand for this program in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. Mr. Shoop said there is a demand all over the County, but currently it is not being used in the watershed. Mr. Fisher said if the Watershed Management Official feels it is all right for such application of sewage sludge within the watersheds with the reduced loading rates and~ with the requirement for an additional setback, would the Board members like to make a formal comment? Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to offer the following comments relative to the Comprehensi~ Sludge Disposal Plan for the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, as prepared by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff, dated October, 1982, and revised February, 1983: l) Any reference made in the report to the South Rivanna Reservoir, South Rivanna Reservoir Drainage Basin, or South Rivanna Reservoir Watershed; should be changed to read "Watershed of any water supply impoundment located within Albemarle County". 2) In the application form entitled "Land Use Requirements and Restrictions For the Use of Composted Sludge On Agricultural Lands" (as illustrated on page 9 of the above noted report), the following information should be added: a) Under APPLICATION, a paragraph lettered (D) should be added stating: Sludge is prohibited in accordance with the Albemarle County Runoff Control Ordinance, which states "Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall also be unlawful for any person to construct any sewage disposal system any part of which lies within the limits prescribed in this section, as follows: a) within two hundred hori- zontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any impoundment; or b) within one hundred horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream." (Albemarle County Code Section 19.1-6(a)(2). June 8 _1,8 _Re:-ul~ar Da~E Meeti__~ vote: AYES: NAYS: b) Under RATE OF APPLICATION, letter (D) should be changed to read as follows: "Application sites located within the watershed of any water supply impoundment located within Albemarle County, must be in accordance with Application regulation (D) above. Ail of the sites outside this area must be located fifty feet from any surface water." The foregoing motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Mr. Fisher left the meeting at 11:43 A.M.) Agenda Item No. 11. Dance Hall Permit. Mr. Agnor noted letter dated May 21, 1983, from Bruno C. Wehren, Director of Operations, Red River Rib Company, making application for a dance hall permit and giving information relative to the request as required by the Albemarle County Code. Attached to that letter are memorandums from the Fire Prevention Officer and the Building Official stating that the building is in compliance with applicable laws. Mr. Henley asked if there was any one present to speak. Ms. Coleen Keifer, Assistant Manager of the Red River Co. said that the restaurant has received many requests from patrons asking for a dancing area. Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve this request for a dance hall permit for the Red River Rib Co.~ located at 1240 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville, Virginia, in accordance with Albemarle Code Section 3-12(b)(5) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) -- Housing Rehabilitation (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 27, 1983). Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows: INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE Albemarle County is one of three hundred and three localities in the State eligible to apply for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). As you may be aware, Albemarle County applied for funding in 1982 and was ranked twenty-fifth out of one hundred fifty applications. Of the total applications, only twenty-two received funding. Albemarle County also submitted a regional grant application, along with Fiuvanna, Lousia and Nelson Counties. This application was ranked thirty-fifth out of the total of one hundred fifty applications. Both projects were aimed at rehabilitating the existing housing stock for low-to-moderate income persons. Following discussion of potential CDBG projects by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 1983, the Board voted to support applications for CDBG funds in the same manner as in 1982: $500,000 for the local application, and $200,000 for the regional application. While both projects are aimed at rehabilitating existing housing stock, the emphasis of the local application is to benefit the "neediest" families through a basic grant program. The regional application, on the other hand, proposes to assist a slightly different group of low-to-moderate income persons through a very low interest loan fund (grants would be utilized where necessary to assist in securing financing). Rehabilitation monies for Albemarle from both the local and regional application will be executed through the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). The local application is aimed at rehabilitating housing in three strategy areas identified in the Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002. These areas are Old Dominion-Esmont-Porters, Blenheim-Woodridge and Boonesville-Mount Fair. The regional application proposes to assist families in the three other strategy areas: Covesville-Alberene-North Garden, Dudley Mountain and Southwest Mountain-Cismont-Keswick. The local proposal contains the following facets: 1) Total request of $500,000 from CDBG funds; 2) Fifty-five units to be rehabilitated: - Twenty-five units in 01d Dominion-Esmont-Porters area~ - Twenty units in Blenheim-Woodbridge area; - Ten units in Boonesville-Mount Fair area; 3) Rehabilitation efforts are directed at major improvements (units without plumbing and/or major structural problems which may be hazardous); Average cost of rehabilitation is estimated at $i0,000 (this will vary according to job); 5) $6,000 of rehabilitation cost will be provided by CDBG monies; June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meating) 6) The remaining $4,000 of costs will be leveraged (increasing the value of the grant monies by the utilization of similar and compatible monies, i.e., local monies, volunteer efforts, family contribution, other grant programs such as Farmers Home, Charlottesville Housing Foundation Loan Fund, and weatherization monies from Region 10 Energy Conservation Program); ?) The grant program will be administered by the Planning and Finance Departments and executed by AHIP; 8) No new structure or organization will be needed to complete the project; 9) The grant period will run for twenty-four months. Participation in the rehabilitation program will be limited to those families who qualify according to Section 8 Income Standards, published by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The Section 8 standards vary according to locality; Albemarle County's are provided below: Household Size 1 2 3 4 ~ 6 7 8 Income Limit lZ~,~50 16,0--50 18,~50 20,T00 21,350 22,~00 23,~50 25,T00 Albemarle Housing Improvement Program currently utilizes these standards for determining eligible families in their ongoing rehabilitation efforts. The proposed gran~ program will rehabilitate, approximately fifty-five units in the three strategy areas. The improvements should remove approximately twenty-three percent of the homes identified in these areas from the substandard list. The grant has an excellent chance of being funded this year, as. last year's winners are not eligible to reapply. Also, refinements to last year's proposal should strengthen the County's application in several areas. The grant application will be submitted in June and grant offers are targeted for early August." (Mr. Fisher returned to the meeting at 11:48 A.M.) Mr. Tucker said the regional application will be the subject of a public hearing at the Board's June 15 meeting, but Mrs. Jane Saunier from the Planning District Commission is present today and would like to have a few minutes at the end of this discussion to mention the articles of incorporation and membership recommendations for an entity proposed to manage the regional grant. At this point, the public hearing was opened, Mr. Ken Ackerman from the Monticello Area Community Action Agency spoke in support of the application. He said that his organization did a community needs survey in 1981 and housing was identified as the second greatest need in the area. The MACAA staff could help with a housing rehabilitation program in several ways; a resource specialist on the staff could provide information to community groups and individuals on the availability of the program resources. Also, potential applicants could be contacted and referred directly to the program. Mr. Ackerman said he hopes the County is successful in gaining these funds because housing can provide direct benefits to low and moderate income people. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. moved to adopt the following resolution: Mr. Butler immediately RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES WHEREAS, it is the purpose of local governments to create a climate which encourages a wide range of adequate housing for its citizens; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has participated in programs and activities which have broadened the choice of housing for its citizens, particularly those who have less choice in the market place; and WHEREAS, this jurisdiction has accepted a mutual obligation to share in the development of assisted housing opportunities through participation in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP); and WHEREAS, one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is rehabilitation of existing housing stock which does not meet minimum standards of quality, health, and safety; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on June 8, 1983 do hereby authorize the submission of an application titled Housing Rehabilitation Strategy to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for $500,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds for housing rehabilitation for low and moderate income families in the County; the source of funds for the proposed project are $500,000 from Community Development Block Grant, $200,033 from Albemarle County budget, $17,500 from Region 10 Energy Conservation Program, $7,824 from Monticello Area Community Action Agency, $110,000 from Charlottesville Housing Foundation loan fund, and ~69,550 from family and volunteer labor contribution; public hearings, duly advertised, have been held to gain public input for the development of this proposal; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby authorize the County Executive of Albemarle County to sign on behalf of the County of Albemarle any necessary certifications and assurances relating to the application as may be required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to the approval of the County Attorney. .... ne ~81 LRe cular Da~ Meeti_~ The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Miss Nash said she did not realize the Board had put 9200,000 in the County budget for this expenditure. Mr. Tucker said the money is a part of the County's contribution to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. Mr. Keith Mabe said this money is for a two-year period of time. An estimate had to be made of what the Co~ty appropriation to the program might be. The $200,000 figure is about seventy-five percent of the AHIP appropriation. Mr. Gary 01ivera said that there will be no additional costs to the County from this program. This amount was projected as part of the current operating funds which support AHIP. Roll was called on the motion which passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mrs. Jane Saunier was present to speak about the application for a regional CDBG appli- cation which will be the subject of a public hearing before the Board on June 15, 1983. Mrs. Saunier said that last year, one of the deficiencies noted was a lack of "readiness to go". Therefore, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has prepared articles of incor- poration and membership recommendations for the entity proposed to manage the regional grant. This Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvement Corporation will be a twelve member board with three members being appointed by each governing body (Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson). Mr. St. John has reviewed the proposed articles of incorporation and has recommended a couple of changes. Mrs. Saunier said she is trying to get the Corporation into place, get board members appointed, and call a meeting of same before the application deadline on July 1, 1983. This board will need to look at the kinds of criteria to be used in making loans, the eligi- bility of individuals, and the board also needs to set target and strategy areas. There are also some additional resources which may be used for making loans if the region should not be successful in obtaining this money. Mrs. Saunier said the members of the corporation will not be wasting their time, nor will the members appointed to the board. Mrs. Saunier asked if the Board could appoint a governmental representative this morning. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor for a recommendation as to an apPointee. Mr. Agnor recommend~ that M~. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner, be appointed. Mr. Fisher said he was surprised; he felt that Mr. Agnor would have recommended the Housing Coordinator. Mr. Agnor said that later on today's agenda there is an item to adopt a revised pay plan for the County; one of the reconur~endations in that plan will be to dissolve the existing Housing Office and change the Planning Department to the Department of Planning and Community Development, thus absorbin the housing function with the planning function. There will no longer be a housing coordin~ At this point, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint Mr. Keith Mabe as a County representative on the Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Set Public Hearing to Amend Service Areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to Conform to Revised Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he had requested that this item be placed on the agenda for discussion. This came about following a discussion he had with the Planning Director. Last winter, the Board adopted a revised Comprehensive Plan, and there were some changes made in the growth areas in that plan. The Board has taken no action to change either the zoning or the service areas to conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Adoption of a motion today will start the process of preparing maps and having those raaps reviewed by the Planning Commission before returning same for Board action. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to direct the staff to advertise these amendments for a public hearing on July 13, 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board should direct that amendments be prepared to the zoning map itself to make same conform to the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he does not have any idea at this time what the implications of these changes would be. Mr. Lindstrom said it might be a good idea to at least set a public hearing on amending the zoning map so the Board can at least discuss the changes. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to set a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Map) to also bring that into conformance with the amendments recently made to the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Lindstrom add to his motion that this item be heard on August 3, 1983. Mr. Lindstrom added that to his motion. Mr. Butler accepted that amendment to the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. At 12:08 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch, and reconvened at 1:31 P.M. ,214 June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 15. Request for Industrial Development Authority Bonds: Westbury Hall. Mr. Jim Murray, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present and said he would like for the Board to defer today's discussion of the request for Westbury Hall because of changes in the State law regarding Industrial Development Authority procedures. As indicated to the Board recently, the new Federal law requires that a public hearing be held on requests for bonds but did not specify exactly which body was to hold the public hearing. The Virginia General Assembly has enacted legislation which will become effective on July l, 1983, requiring the Authority to hold an advertised public hearing. Mr. Murray said the Authority has been operating for the past six months on the assumption that the governing body was to hold the public hearing. The Authority held a hearing on the Westbury Hall request but the hearing was not legally advertised. Therefore, if this request for Westbury Hall is not acted on before the new legislation goes into effect on July l, 1983, then the Authority will have to advertise and rehear the request. Mr. Murray said in conjunction with this request, the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance must be amended to allow one additional bond issuance. Unless the Board schedules a meeting before July l, 1983, to hear the amendment to the ordinance and receive the Westbury Hall request, nothing else can be done today. Mr. Murray also noted that he has attempted to maintain an unbiased approach to any requests brought to the Authority and is not pushing this project on the Board. However, the Authority did approve the project on the grounds that this is a facility for the elderly and is virtually identical to three other projects which have been funded by the Authority. Therefore, the Authority did not feel it could deny this request. Mr. Fisher said perhaps some action could be taken today to schedule a public hearing on an amendment to the ordinance and also hear the merits of the Westbury Hall proposal at the same meeting. Mr. Murray said in the past he has discussed with Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Hancock the possibility of using a County staff member as clerical help for the Authority. Mr. Murray said the workload has become great with reams of information being requested on various bond issuances and his secretary cannot continue to handle this function. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to discuss this situation with Mr. Murray to see if a solution of the problem can be found. Mr. St. John said he felt the County does have the responsibility to provide some staff help to the Authority or there could be a disaster if proper records are not kept. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was any mechanism in the legislation creating the Authority which allows the Authority to collect a fee for direct cost of services. Mr. Murray said last week, the Authority adopted a resolution to amend the application form for industrial bonding to inform applicants that expenses of counsel and associated administrative expenses will have to be incurred by the applicant. Therefore, the clerical help for Authority will not be a County expense. The Board concluded the discussion and no action was taken at this time. Agenda Item No. 18. Approval of Revisions to Pay/Classification Plan. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated June 6, 1983 for the revisions to the Pay and Classification Plan: "In December, 1982, the Professional Group was employed to review the existing employee classifications and salary ranges to determine if the plan accurately reflects the County operations, and to recommend revisions to update the plan and keep it competitive with comparable employers. Attached is an explanation of the methodology used by the consultant in this review, and the conclusions and recommendations (Copies of these attachments are on file in the Clerk's Office.) The following summarizes the findings and recommended revisions: The plan is generally accurate and has been adequately maintained by the staff through annual revisions. Of 97 position titles, 18 are recommended for reclassification upward by one or two grades, one is recommended for a five grade increase and two are recommended for a one grade reduction. (These changes are as follows: Clerk III, Real Estate Transfer Clerk, Clerical Supervisor, Business License Examiner, Senior Business License Examiner-retitled position, Deputy Director of Finance, Director of Finance, Programmer/ Analyst, Data Processing Manager-retitled Director of Data Processing, Director of Engineering, Facilities Inspector I, Facilities Inspector II, Deputy Zoning Administrator, Director of Inspections, Printer I, Director of Parks and Recreation, Director of Social Services, Deputy Sheriff Positions, and Deputy Animal Control Officer. Two positions reduced by one grade are the Appraiser I and Appraiser II. The appraiser series now includes a senior leVel position since the position of Supervisor of Assessments has been eliminated.) Six new position titles recommended to be added to the plan are as follows: Supervisor of Administration, Printer II, Assistant Director of Staff Services (this is not to be funded for 1983-84, but kept in the plan for future needs), Office Manager-Social Services, Senior Programmer/Analyst, and Chief Accountant. June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) The salary schedule was determined to be competitive, and the five percent adjustment planned for July 1 in the FY 83-84 budget should maintain the competitive position, and possibly provide a competitive edge. The current salary schedule format with six, five percent merit steps and two longevity merit steps is recommended to be retained, with the addition of a two and one-half percent merit step between each full merit step to provide a two level merit plan instead of the single level merit plan now being used. Currently a merit step of five percent is awarde~nnually to an employee whose performance is determined to be outstanding. A two level plan would provide a two and one-half percent step to an employee whose performance is determined to be above average. The revisions are recommended for adoption effective July 1. Staff '~eVi'e~ '~ 'Rec'ommendations: The department heads have studied the consultant's recommendations, and generally concur in the revisions. On a departmental basis, the following changes are recommended in the salary ranges proposed: A. Finance The new position of Chief Accountant proposed for a Range 19 should be a Range 21. The position requires an applicant to be eligible for a Certified Public Accounting Certificate, and a starting salary effective July 1 of $18,661 (Range 19, Step A) is below the market for such a position. A recent advertisement for applicants for this position has proven the inadequacy of the salary range. B. Data Processing The new position of Senior Programmer/Analyst proposed for a Range 21 should be Range 22 to provide a two range spread between a Programmer/Analyst (Range 20) and the senior position. Other senior positions have a two range seniority over the next lower position. C. Inspec't'i'ons 1. The new position of Senior Facilities Inspector proposed for a Range 18 should be Range 19 to provide a two range spread between the next lower position of Facilities Inspector II. 2. Deputy Building Official proposed for Range 18 should be Range 20 to recognize the seniority over the Inspectors in the departments. D. Parks and Recreation !. The Director's proposed Range 27 should be reduced to Range 25 as the first increment of moving the position from Range 22 to Range 27. The consultant's recommendation was for a five step adjustment over a two- year period. A move to Range 27 can be considered next year in the annual revision to the plan for Fiscal Year 1984-85. 2. The positions of Park Superintendent and Recreation Superintendent proposed for Range 16 should be Range 18 to recognize the departmental relationship between these two positions and the Director's position. E. Planning The Director of Planning has been retitled Director of Planning and Community Development to recognize the functions of community development assumed in the past several years by the Planning Department. These functions include staff coordination of budget requests of human service agencies, the Capital Improvement Program, and the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG). Effective July 1, it is proposed that the staff of the Housing Coordinator be merged with the Community Development Division of the Planning Department. The merger will centralize the coordination of housing programs in the department where the community development responsibilities are already assigned, and will eliminate the part-time position of Housing Coordinator. These duties will be assumed by the Chief of Community Development in the Planning and Community Development Department. The merger will also result in a full-time Executive Assistant on the County Executive's Staff, replacing the part-time Administrative Assistant and Housing Coordinator. To recognize the merger and the resulting increased staff of the Planning Department, it is recommended that the Director of Planning and Community Development be revised from Range 29 to Range 30. ~ne 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) F. Police Department 1. The job description of the position of Sheriff is recommended for revision to include the duties of Chief of Police of the County Police Department. (This does not include an increase in pay.) 2. A new position classification of Police Officer is recommended with the same salary range (14) and job description as a Deputy Sheriff. ~ Your approval of the consultant's proposed plan with the r~'visions recommended by the staff is respectfully requested, with an effective date upon adoption for new positions requiring June approval, and other revisions taking effect July 1." Mr. Fisher asked if there are sufficient funds already included in next year's budget to cover the monies involved in this revision. Mr. Agnor said yes, with the exception Of the Parks budget because the range changes in this department were not anticipated. He noted that there are funds reserved in the personnel budget for merit increases and that amount has never been fully utilized. Without any further discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the revisions in the Pay/Classification Plan as explained (entitled "Personnel Management System" by the Professional Group, Richmond, Virginia) and recommended by Mr. Agnor in the foregoing memorandum with the effective date of the revisiOns being July l, 1983, except the new position classification for the Police Officers being effective this date. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Agricultural/Forestal District Ordinances. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 24 and May 31, 1983.) At the Board meeting on June 1, 1983, the County Attorney was requested to redraft the parent ordinance creating the Agricultural and Forestal Districts in order to eliminate the right to all subdivisions of property in these districts not just those subdivisions as defined in the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. St. John said this has been done and noted the following wording "and other than a subdivision having a minimum lot size of 21 acres or a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 21 acres" has been inserted to alleviate concerns expressed at the June I meeting. Mr. Henley said he will support the ordinance as it is presently worded if the provision regarding the rental of more than one dwelling unit on any parcel only applies to new construction and not existing rental units. Mr. St. John said the intent is for new construct~ and existing rental units would be grandfathered under new legislation. With that understandir Mr. Henley said he would accept the contents of the ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any additional staff comments before the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and noted that since the public hearing on April 20, 1983, Mr. John Morris has requested that this property containing 211 acres, which meets the criteria of the Agricultural and Forestal District, be added to the district. Mr. Tucker also noted that some of the property owned by Mr. Guenther Hawranke which is within the Scottsville growth area in the Comprehensive Plan has been recommended by the Planning Commission to be deleted from the Agricultural,/ Forestal District. The public hearing was then opened. Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres was present and noted that the average person will be confused with the reference to sections contained in the ordinance and not really understand the intent of the ordinance. She asked for an explanation of what the term "more intensive use" really means. Mr. St. John said the term means any subdivision, or any division of land, except for a subdivision into lot sizes of twenty-one acres or more, or the building and occupancy of dwellings on land that is not to be divided. Mr. Lindstrom said he intended that the only subdivisions which would be permitted in this district would be those with parcels larger than twenty-one acres or those for family divisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he still questions whether the language .actually prohibited any subdivision other than a subdivision having a minimum lot size of 21 acres. Any subdivision of land is a more intensive use as defined in Section 18-2 of the Subdivision Ordinance. If the ordinance did not refer to Section 18-2 then he would not question the wording. Mr. St. John suggested deleting the clause "any subdivision of land as defined in Section 18-2 of the County Code" in the last paragraph of the ordinance and adding the words "any division of land" in its place. Mr. St. John said that would allow family divisions and densities of more than twenty-one acres. Mr. Lindstrom was satisfied with that suggestion. Mrs. Van Yahres asked if rental units were built for farm employees and then found not to be needed for that purpose if the units could be rented. Mr. St. John said once a unit is built for an employee and has been occupied as such, he did not feel the Board could require approval if the unit is then rented to someone outside of the farming operation. (Miss Nash left the n~eting at 2:26 P.M.) )n Juu~ 8~ 198~ (ReMular Day Meeting) 217 Mrs. Van Yahres said when a similar ordinance was adopted in Greene County, it was not made effective for thirty days in order that the property owners in the district could have time to withdraw their application if so desired. She was concerned because this ordinance does not contain such a provision. Mr. Fisher asked the timetable involved for the adoption of this ordinance. Mr Tucker said June 30 is the deadline on this first Agricultural/Forestal District Application. Mr. Tucker suggested that the parent ordinance be adopted today and that the ordinance actually creating the two districts be adopted at a later date. Mr. Henley asked how many property owners would have to be notified. Mrs. Van Yahres said there are about fifteen. Mr. Tucker said a letter could be sent to the property owners giving a deadline and if there is no response, then it can be assumed that the property owners are agreeable to the provisions in the ordinance. Mr. Fisher agreed with this suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom said he has some concern that a district might be adopted and then an individual change his mind after the adoption. Therefore, he preferred an extra meeting be scheduled at the end of June on the ordinance creating the districts. Mr.'~Fisher suggested June 29, 1983, as the date for the adoption of the ordinance creating the districts. Mrs. Van Yahres said another concern is that the ordinance does not contain the exact amount of time the ordinance will be in effect. The Board has the authority to set the time for a minimum of four years up to a maximum of eight years. Mr. St. John said he did not see any requirement in the legislation for setting a time to review the ordinance. However, inserting~a date would be all right. He then read Section 15.1-15Il(E) of the State Code regarding the review of the districts created and noted that if there is no date inserted, then the local governing body would be under the mandate of the Code to review at any time from four to eight years after the adoption of this ordinance. If there is-no review or any modification of the district, then the district would continue as originally constituted. Mrs. Van Yahres felt a time period should be included in order that a landowner could withdraw his property from the district in the future. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the ordinance terminates, if there is not a review. Mr. St. John did not feel the Code provides the Board with the right to state that after a certain period of time, the ordinance will automatically expire.~ However, any owner can apply to withdraw his property by filing a written notice of termination with the local governing body and after a hearing where reasonable cause is shown, the governing body may allow the withdrawal. Mr. Fisher said he felt this discussion should have been handled at a committee level rather in public session. He felt the Board is ready to adopt the parent ordinance and schedule the ordinance creating the specific districts for a meeting on June 29, 1983. He said Mrs. Van Yahres should meet with Mr. St. John to work out her specific concerns. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the answers to the questions be submitted at the Board's meeting on June 15, 1983. With no one else present to speak for or against adoption of the ordinances, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance creating the Ag and Forestal Districts. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the wording as suggested by Mr. St. John regarding division of land be deleted and the words "any condominium development with a maximum density of more than one dwelling unit per 21 acres" be added in the last paragraph between "21 acres" and "or". Mr. Henley accepted that amendment to his motion for adoption. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Miss Nash. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE CREATION OF AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the Board may, by ordinance, from time to time, create one or more agricultural and forestal districts within the County in accordance with the Virginia Agricultural and Forestal Districts Act (Title 15.1, Chapter 36 of the Code of ~irginia (1950), as amended). 2. That the procedure for and the consequences of the creation of such districts shall be as set forth in the said Act. 3. That the Director of Planning shall cause to be prepared application forms conforming to the sample form set forth in Virginia Code Section !5.1-1509E, and shall thereafter maintain in his office for use by eligible landowners a reasonable number of copies of such forms. 4. Each application for creation of an agricultural and forestal district shall consist of the completed application forms as set forth hereinabove, together with all required maps, and shall be submitted to the Planning Commission, at the office of the Director of Planning, in twenty copies. 5. Each such application shall be accompanied by a fee of fifty dollars. June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 6. As a condition for approval of any proposed agricultural and forestal district pursuant to this ordinance, any parcel in the proposed district shall not be developed to a more intensive use during the period which said parcel remains within the proposed district without the prior approval of the Board. For purposes of this ordinance, the term "more intensive use" shall include any use which is not permitted by right in the Rural Areas (RA) zoning district; any division of land other than a subdivision which is required to be reviewed pursuant to Section 18-57'of the County Code, and other than a subdivision having a minimum lot size of twenty-one acres; or any condominium development with a maximum density of more than one dwelling unit per twenty-one acres; and the rental of more than one dwelling unit on any parcel, other than dwelling units occupied by members of the immediate family or any of the owners of such parcel or by bona fide farm employees, together with their respective families, if any. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer action on An Ordinance Creating Two Agricultural and Forestal Districts to June 29, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None.~ ABSENT: Miss Nash. (Mr. Henley left the meting at 2:47 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mrs. Cooke said a problem in the Carrsbrook area concerning the shooting of cats with pellet guns has been brought to her attention. Mrs. Cooke asked if there is an ordinance ~ prohibiting the use of pellet guns in residential areas. Mr. St. John said there are laws against cruelty to animals and if the person can be found there are laws against such crimes. Mr. Agnor said each summer the Board cancels a meeting in order to have a vacation. If this is to be done~this year, action is needed in order to schedule zoning items. After a brief discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to cancel the August 17, 1983, meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher then distribUted a copy of the following statements and requested that both'~ be inserted in the minutes of this meeting. Motion to incorporate the following statement~ into the minutes was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Let the minutes reflect that on May 23, 1983, four members of the Board accepted an invitation to meet with certain officials of the University of Virginia in executive meeting, at the offices of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce, at which those officials informed the Board members of the University's interest in possible acquisition of real property in the County, for public purpose. Those Board members attending were Mrs. Cooke, Miss Nash, Mr. Butler and Mr. Fisher. The County Executive, Mr. Agnor, was also present. No action was taken. Let the minutes reflect that on May 25, 1983, five members of the Board of Supervisors attended a news conference scheduled and conducted by officials of the University of Virginia in the County Office Building, at which those officials made public the University's plans to pursue funding for the establishment of the National Electron Accelerator Laboratory at a location near the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport in Albemarle County. Those Board members attending were Mrs. Cooke, Miss Nash, Mr. Butler, Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom. The County Executive was also present. No action was taken. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor to arrange a meeting of the City/County Consolidation Co~ review staff reports on consolidation of the City and County Social Services Departments and t! City and County Inspections Departments. At 2:57 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:06 P.M. Lttee to June 8~ 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 19. Appeal: Wendell Wood Commercial Area Site Plan. (Site Plan of Parcel B located on U. S. Route 29 about 0.8 Mi. North of the North Riganna River, Rivanna District for Wendell W. Wood, drawn by R. O. Snow & R. W. Ray, Inc., dated April 16, 1983) Mr. Fisher said he had requested that this site plan be reviewed since the Planning Commission's approval regarding entrances for this plan differed from the recommendations of the staff. This is the last large parcel of undeveloped commercially-zoned property on Route 29 North and there has been some concern about the development of same. He then asked Mr. Tucker to summarize the site plan. Mr. Tucker referred to three different recommendations for this site~pla~;~on~ £rom the applicant, one from the staff, and one as approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker pointed out Austin Drive which is the main access into the General Electric property and is to also be an entrance for this commercial site. Mr. Tucker said there are about ten acres of commercial land between the end of this project and Camelot Drive which is not included in this proposal. (Miss Nash returned to the meeting at 3:ll P.M.) Mr. Tucker said this property lies in the area for public water a'nd sewer service, but sewer capacity is not available in the Camelot Treatment Plant at this time. Mr. Tucker said a letter was received from a representative of General Electric expressing concern that the Austin Drive entrance may be used before Austin Drive is taken into the State Secondary System. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission required that Austin Drive be taken into the State System before any grading or construction begins on Parcel A of' this site plan. Therefore, that concern has been alleviated. Another concern of General Electric was the screening for this project. General Electric has gone to considerable expense to provide a good landscaping plan for their property. The applicant is proposing a good screening plan and is being required to have the landscaping done upon the completion of grading in each area. There will be a bond held to assure that this is done. Mr. Tucker also noted that this plan is for a long-range project and it is hoped that when the project is finally completed, the trees planted will be mature enough to provide adequate screening from surrounding properties. Mr. Tucker then summarized the staff recommendations for the entrances as follows: 1. The direct access on the Parcel "A" site plan should be deleted because of its proximity to the Austin Drive intersection. Although this proposed entrance meets the requirements of the ordinance (500 feet from the crossover), the staff feels that some turning movement problems might occur. The access noted from Austin Drive should adequately serve this parcel. (Mr. Tucker said the Site Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance and the Route 29 North Corridor Study recommendations indicate that any entrance must be located at least 500 feet from a crossover and this meets that requirement.) 2. The direct access proposed on the Parcel "C" plan should also be deleted for two reasons. First, the Highway Department has commented that plans have been developed for Route 29 North which will alter the grades on the entrance proposed at Parcel "C". The Department is recommending that the applicant grade this entrance to its ultimate slope to prevent a slope in excess of 15 percent when the Highway Department does this road work on Route 29 North, or that this entrance be deleted. The applicant's objection to this recommendation is that no timetable has been set for this road work and regrading this entrance will be detrimental to the site. This road work was supposed to have been a part of the project on the bridge over the North Fork Rivanna, but was deleted due to a lack of highway funds. Second, the staff recommends deletion of this proposed entrance because when Briarwood Drive is constructed it should serve this part of the project adequately. The staff is recommending that Briarwood Drive be constructed from Route 29 North to the end of the commercial area to serve either Parcel "B" or "C", whichever develops first. 3. The staff recommends that the direct access on Parcel "B" be retained as proposed by the applicant. This includes the 200 foot turn lane and 200 foot taper as proposed. 4. The staff does not feel that construction of a third lane with curb and gutter along the entire frontage of the property is justified if the above recommendations are accepted. But, the applicant has provided for the grading of the third lane on the site plan. Mr. Tucker then summarized the conditions recommended by the staff regarding the entrances: lg. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances at Parcel "B" and Briarwood Drive, including turn lanes, both northbound and southbound, where applicable; lh. Delete the entrances on Parcels "A" and "C" shown d'irectly onto Route 29 North (southbound lane). June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on May 24, 1983, recommended the following conditions for the entrances which differed from the staff: lg. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances on Parcels "A" and "B" and Briarwood Drive, including the northbound turn lane at Briarwood Drive, and full third lane designed for a rural section from Austin Drive to Briarwood Drive inclusive; lh. Delete the entrance on Parcel "C" shown directly onto Route 29 North (southbound lane). 12. Austin Drive, from Route 29 to its intersection with Briarwood Drive, shall be accepted into the State Secondary System prior to any grading or construction on Parcel "A". Mr. Tucker then continued summarizing the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr.-~ Lindstrom said since this is a long range project but the grading will be done early in the project, is there anything other than Soil Erosion Ordinance requirements proposed to stabilize the soil in the area. Mr. Tucker said the Soil Erosion Ordinance provides for seeding the area after grading. Mr. Lindstrom said that would allow the parcel to remain the same for eighteen months without any improvements. Mr. Tucker said a bond is required with the grading permit so that the landscaping will be done when the grading is completed.~ (condition #4 as recommended by the Planning Commission). Mr. Fisher asked how long such a bond can be held. Mr. Tucker said if construction is not begun within eighteen months of approval, the site plan expires. Mr. Fisher asked what happens to the performance bond at that time. Mr. Tucker said the performance bond does not expire with the site plan. Mr. Tucker then continuedwith the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. He noted that this is strip commercial and the proposed reverse frontage, interior access roads are preferred by the staff rather than having individual entrances directly off of Route 29. Mr. Tucker noted that the applicant is proposing that the dirt from the grading of this property be used for improvements to the bridge on the southbound lane of the North Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Fisher asked about the sewage being pumped up hill to Camelot Treatment Plant. Mr. Tucker said the sewer lines~are above the elevation of the buildings so there will'be pumping up to the line and then gravity feed down to the Camelot Plant. The Albemarle County Service Authority does not want the responsibility for individual pumps at individual buildings. Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from the Highway Department regarding the entrance requirements of the Planning Commission. Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He said the recommendations of the Route 29 Corridor Study are to be followed wherever possible. The Planning Commission did approve the entrance between Briarwood and Austin Drive with a full third lane which is a requirement of the study. Basically, the Highway Department does not have any objections to the Planning Commission's conditions. Mr. Fisher then asked for comments from the public. Mr. Wendell Wood, applicant, was present and said he preferred to keep the entrance south of Briarwood but understood the concerns of the Highway Department regarding the future grading of Route 29. Mr. Wood said the entrance from Austin Drive is desired because this makes the project economically feasible. He also noted that the third lane requirement will be built with reluctance. Mr. Wood said the entrances are not that close and the plan contains almost a mile of road frontage. In conclusion, Mr. Wood said he hoped that the Board did not change the Planning Commission's conditions. Mr. Fisher noted that only a portion of Parcel C has been included in this site plan. He felt future development on this parcel will require a connector road with this site plan and he did not see any provision for that. Mr. Wood said that is the intent even though it is not shown on the site plan. Mr. Tucker said when another phase of this plan is brought in for approval, that can be required and if this property is subdivided, then access easements could be provided. Next to speak was Mrs. Joan Chapman, a resident of Briarwood. She said the distance between Briarwood and Route 29 North is very short and did not feel a shopping center in this particular area is in the best interest of the residents. She did not feel the residents of Briarwood and Camelot should have to suffer from the noise and other nuisance items related to a shopping center. She noted that the back of her lot is located on the curve where Sections A and B meet. Mrs. Chapman said the property is not wide enough for a shopping center. Mr. Fisher noted that this land was zoned for commercial use before Briarwood was zoned for residential use. The issue before the Board today is not whether a shopping center can be built on the property but what is the best plan, particularly access from Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Coburn if the roads in Briarwood meet Highway Department standards. Mr. Coburn said Austin Drive can be taken into the State system once the final paving takes place. The preliminary plans for Briarwood Drive have been reviewed and are acceptable as far as the grading is concerned. Mr. Coburn said the property is steep and it was recognized from the beginning that the property would be difficult to work with. Mr. Fisher asked what the elevation of the buildings would be when the road grading is done. Mr. Roger Ray, land surveyor for the applicant, was present and said the buildings will be closer to the grading of Route 29 North. Mr. Ray said the buildings are ten to twenty feet higher than the elevation of the existing Route 29 southbound lane. Mr. Wood noted that a person looking out of a Briarwood home would lOok over the top of this commercial property. June 8, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 22 i Mr. Lindstrom asked how the banks will be stabilized since it appears that some may be forty feet tall. Mr. Tucker said the banks cannot exceed a two to one slope and that slope can be easily stabilized with white pines. He said the requirements of the Soil Erosion Ordinance will be met not only from the vegetation and stabilization requirements but slope requirements as well. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present and briefly summarized the requirements of the Site Development Plan. He noted that if there is any drainage toward the slopes, the developer will construct a berm ditch at the top of the slope to drain the water off the side. He also noted that condition 5 of the Planning Commission is intended to handle the stabilization of the banks and other disturbed areas. Mr. Tucker also noted that the manner in which the 'soil erosion will be handled has to be shown on the grad!mhE permit. Mr. Elrod said the Soil Erosion Ordinance requires that the disturbed areas be seeded within sixty days after an area is disturbed. Mr. Fisher said with the review of the plan and the reverse frontage planned for access to the buildings, he is satisfied with the Planning Commission's approval. Since the Highway Department does not have any problem with the recommendations, and unless there is a change desired by the Board, the action of the Planning Commission on May 24, 1983, will stand. No requests for changes were offered by the Board. Agenda Item No. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said Mr. St. John has brought to his attention that since the Board will be meetng on June 29, 1983, to consider the ordinance for an Agricultural and Forestal District, the Industrial Development Authority request could be handled at that time. A brief dis followed on whether to amend the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance to allow an unlimited number of bond issuances. Mr. St. John said this would need to be handled separatel from the Westbury Hall proposal. He also felt that the only control the Board currently has on bonds is the type of facilities and the number of bond issuances. Therefore, he did not feel the Board would desire that control eliminated. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on June 29, 1983, an ordinance to amend Section 2-52 of the Industrial Development Authority to increase the number of bond issuances from eight to nine and to hear the Westbury Hall proposal if the applicant and the Authority are ready at that time. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. ~Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission has recommended that some property owned by F. Pierson Scott which is to be us'ed by the Town of Scottsville for the borrow area for the levee be deleted from the Agricultural and Forestal District. Mr. Fisherm said that should be discussed on June 29, 1983, when the ordinance is considered. Mr. Agnor noted that the Scottsviile Precinct Change Committee report has been received. He asked Miss Nash how she wished this report handled. Miss Nash said the Committee would like to present the report and the Electoral Board feels they should also be present since they initiated the precinct change. Mr. Fisher suggested that this report be presented on June 15, 1983. Mr. Agnor saidboth groups would be notified of that date. Agenda Item No. 25. At 3:53 P.M., without any further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.