Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-07-13280 July 13, 1983 (Regular Day MeetinM) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 13, 1983, at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia'. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fish-er, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:20 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: R. St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr., and County Attorney, George The meeting was called to order at 9:05-A.M. bY the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept and approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of June, 1983, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Change Order #6 dated June 14, 1983 in the amount of $5,476.00 for Phase II of the County Office Building, was received. Item No. 2.3. Notice of State Aid Funds in the amount of $358,925 for the Jefferson- MadisOn Regional Library for 1983-84 was received from the Virginia State Library and the County Executive was authorized to'execute an authorization form for the expenditure of said funds. Item No. 2.4. A request dated November 29, 1982, was received from Mr. Kenneth Mt Holet, for a street sign to identify Spring Lake Drive in Windrift Subdivision, Section 1. Mr. Holet has already purchased the sign. The following resolution was approved for same: WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Spring Lake Drive (State Route 1543) at the southwest corner of its intersection with State Route 664; and WHEREAS, a citizen, has agreed to purchase this sign through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. Item No. 2.5. Take Road into State Secondary System--Candlewyck Drive. Mr. Frank A. Kessler, by letter dated January 28, 1982, requests that Candlewyck Drive in Candlewyck Subdivision, be taken into the State Secondary System. All the necessary requirements are in order and the following resolution was adopted by the Board: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Seconday System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Candlewyck Subdivision: Beginning at station 10+08 on Candlewyck Drive, a point common with the edge of pavement of State Route 677 and the centerline of Candlewyck Drive; thence with Candlewyck Drive in a southwesterly direction 1,329.82 feet to station 23+37.82, a cul-de-sac and the end of Candlewyck Drive. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right-of-way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 696, page lB1. July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 28! Item No. 2.6. Readopt Resolution to take Court Place, Georgetown Court Subdivision, into State Secondary System. The original resolution was adopted on January 12, 1983 and was incorrect as to the length of the road. The following resolution to correct this error was adopted by the Board: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Georgetown Court Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+00 of Court Place, a point common to the centerline intersection of Court Place and the edge of pavement of Georgetown Road; thence with Court Place in a southeasterly direction 628.02 feet to station 6+28, the end of the cul-de-sac of Court Place in Georgetown Court Subdivision. ~ BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 42 foot unobstructed right-of- way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court o£ Albemarle County in Deed Book 699, page 118. Item No. 2.7. Report of the Department of Social Services for the months of May and June, 1983, were presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63~1-52. Item No. 2.8. Report dated June 1983 from the Thomas Jefferson Planning Distr~ct Commission regarding the progress of the Job Training Partnership Act of 1982 was received. Item No. 2.9.a. Letter dated June 15, 1983, from Mr. Oscar K. Mabry, Deputy Commissioner of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was received: "As requested in your resolution dated March 16, 1983, the following abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective June 15, 1983. ABANDONMENT LENGTH TOWN OF SCOTTSVILLE Route T-i306 from its intersection with Route T-1304 to its intersection with Route T-1307. 0.09 Mi." Item No. 2.9.b. Letter dated June 20, 1983, from Mr. John M. Wray, Jr., Chief Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was received: "Changes in the primary system made necessary by relocation and construction on Route 22 in Albemarle County were confirmed by the Highway and Transportation Commission on June 16, 1983, as shown on the. attached sketch, described as follows: SECTION ABANDONED AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 33.1-148 OF THE 1950 CODE OF VIRGINIA: Section i - Old location of Route 22, south of the new location, from the new location at Station 660+20 westerly 0.31 mile, being within the property purchased by Richard D. Sullivan." Item No. 2.10. Letters re: State Corporation Commission hearings. a) Notice dated July 5, 1983, from VEPCO regarding a public hearing to be held on December 6, 1983 to increase annual revenues was received as information. b) Notice dated July 6, 1983, from Commonwealth Gas Services regarding a proposed increase in rates approved by the State Corporation Commission until such time as a hearing can be held was received as information. c) Notice dated June 8, 1983, was received from Centel regarding an investigation involving intrastate toll service as ordered by the State Corporation Commission. d) Notice dated June 15, 1983 was received from Appalachian Power Company regarding a public hearing to be held on October 4, 1983 to increase rateS. e) Notice dated June 10, 1983, was received from Columbia Gas regarding proposed amended tariffs applied to service rendered on and after July 10, 1983 and that such tariffs remain in effect until such time as a hearing can be held by the State Corporation Commission. Item No. 2.11. Audit for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court for the year ending June 30, 1983, was received as information. Item No. 2.12. Audit for the General District Court for the years ending June 30, 1981, and June 30, 1982, was received as information. 282 July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: May 4, May 11, May 18, June 1 (Night), Miss Nash had read the minutes of May 11, 1983, and noted the following correction on page 159, agenda item #20, fourth paragraph, fourth line, change the word "Committee" to "Board". Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of May 18, 1983, and noted one typographical error. Mr. Henley had read the minutes of June l, (Night) 1983 and noted no corrections were necessary. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mrs. Nash, to approve the minutes of May ll, May 18 and June l, (Night) 1983, with the above noted corrections. Roll was c~lled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 4. Highway Matters. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and announced that Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, who has been with the Charlottesville office for seven years, has been promoted to Resident Engineer in Saluda, Virginia. The promotion is effective July 18, 1983. Mr. Coburn was present and extended appreciation to the Board and its staff for all the cooperation he has received during his employment with the Highway Department. He noted in particular, the staffs of the planning and engineering departments have made his Job a lot easier. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Coburn will be missed and he wished him well in his new assignment. Mr. Roosevelt announced that the new Park Street Bridge (Route 631) will be opened on July 18, 1983. He also noted that once the bridge opens, trucks which have been prohibited from using this route during construction will start using the area again. Miss Nash said she understands that the Rural Addition funds for the improvements on East Market Street and in the Lakeside Subdivision have not been used at this time because the property owners have not contributed their share of the matching funds. Mr. Roosevelt said that is part of the problem and the question of right-of-way has not yet been resolved. Miss Nash asked what will happen if these monies are not spent this year. Mr. Roosevelt said the State law allows the Board to carry the Rural Addition funds forward for three years or the funds can be reverted to secondary improvements in next year's budget. Mr. Roosevelt noted that when the Board approved the Rural Addition Funds for Lakeside Subdivision it was stipulated that the property owners had until December 30, 1983, to meet stipulations. This was done because there were not sufficient Rural Addition funds in just one year's budget to accomplish the improvements. Therefore, the Board will have to make a new decision on that date if the property owners have not contributed the funds by that date. Mr. Fisher said many people swim in the Hardware River and park their vehicles at the intersection of Routes 631 and 712. He has received numerous complaints about the~ parking along Route 631 and asked if "No Parking" signs could be erected in that area. Mr. Roosevelt said he would report the concern to the proper division and did not feel there would be any problem with getting signs erected. Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Soil Erosion Ordinance--Wendell Wood. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, was present. He said Mr. Wendell Wood, developer of the River Heights Hotel on Route 29 North has by letter dated July 5, 1983, requested the Board to hear his appeal regarding the issuance of a soil erosion permit for the hotel project (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:20 A.M.) Mr. Elrod then summarized the following memorandum from the Engineering Staff dated July 8, 1983: "Mr. Wendell Wood requested our approval to extend the limits of his grading permit into property which he owns adjacent to River (Hilton) Heights Road. The property is zOned R-15 Residential and there is no approved subdivision plan for that land. We, therefore, nOtified him under Section 7-5(c) of the Erosion Control Ordinance that we cannot issue him approval to clear or grade without an approved subdivision plat or site plan. Mr. Wood has requested a hearing before the Board to clear and grade the area shown on the attached sketch shaded in yellow to obtain fill for his Hotel project which is now under construction [Copy of sketch is on file in the Clerk's Office). The Engineering Department agrees that from a construction standpoint this is the logical place to obtain the needed fill. July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 283 This land is now heavily wooded and is approximately 25 feet higher in elevation than Route 29 and the adjacent commercially zoned area. This proposed excavation will lower the property to the level of the commercial land and Route 29. After this grading, the propertY will probably be more satisfaCtory for commercial use than for the R-15 that it is currently zoned." Mr. Elrod said grading has occurred on the hotel site over the past couple of years and some grading has been done to the west of the hotel site on the land zoned R-15; that grading was done under an approved erosion control plan. Additional fill dirt is now necessary for the hotel site to bring the site up to final grade and the R-15 property is the closest site for obtaining this fill material. Mr. Elrod noted that Mr. Wood has indicated that he does not feel the R-15 property is usable for residential purposes. Mr. Elrod said he therefore assumes that Mr. Wood is going to request a rezoning on the property to a commercial designation. Mr. Elrod concluded by stating that he did not feel allowing Mr. Wood to use the fill dirt on the R-15 property creates any problem. However, a grading permit cannot be issued without an approved site plan or subdivision plat. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for his comments on the procedure involved in this request. Mr. St. John said Section 7-7 of the County Code contains the procedure by which the ruling of the Zoning Administrator can be appealed to the Board. He then referred to a recent request similiar to this (Pepsi Cola Site Plan). Mr. Fisher said in that situation there could not be a subdivision plat or a site plan developed because nothing was proposed for the site. Mr. St. John said in that case it was felt that the grading being done on the one parcel was being done legitimately in conjunction with a site plan on another parcel of land which was actually located in the City. As fOr the request today, Mr. St. John felt the procedure was proper, and the grading could be done in conjunction with the site plan for the entire hotel complex project. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod the meaning of the statement made about the R-15 property being more suitable for commercial use after the grading was completed. Mr. Elrod then pointed out the contours on the R-15 property and noted that the land will be level with Route 29. 'Basically, the land which is zoned commercial and is being levelled will be extended into the R-15 property. Mr. Wood feels theR$15 property Will not be suitable for residential use because there will be no buffer between this property and the hotel complex. Mr. Fisher said granting the request today does not mean the Board is committing itself to approving any rezoning of the R-15 property. Mr. Elrod said he was only alerting the Board to the fact that grading of the property will lower the level of the property twenty-five feet and make it the same level as the property already zoned commercial. Mr. St. John said rezoning the R-15 property is not before the Board at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said in looking at the site plan before the Board today it appears that some grading has already been done on the R-15 property. He asked if the grading took place before a site plan was required and prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Mr. Elrod said the grading~was done after the Soil Erosion Ordinance was amended in 1981 to require an approved site plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a site plan had been presented. Mr. Elrod said he was not employed by the County at that time and could not answer that question. Mr. Agnor said the absence of a site plan was overlooked during the review for the grading permit. Mr. Lindstrom felt this is further exasperating a problem created by failing to originally comply with the ordinance. If the ordinance had been complied with initially, the R-15 property would have been left in a state that would have created some distinction between that property and the commercial property. Personally, he agrees with Mr. Elrod that if the grading on the R-15 property is permitted, then the property will be better suited to commercial zoning. Mrs. Cooke asked if there is any development on the R-15 property at this time. Mr. Elrod said no; he pointed out that the R-15 property extends over to the SPCA road and most of the development alOng that road is single-family. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Elrod agrees that fill is needed on the complex site. Mr. Elrod said some fill is needed in order to meet the requirements of the site plan. He pointed out Parcel A of the complex site which has been preserved with large trees. He understands that this area is for the future hotel office building. Also, Mr. Wood desires to preserve as many trees as possible on the commercial property. Therefore, much of the excavation cannot occur on the hotel complex site. Mr. Wendell Wood was present. He said at this time eight to ten feet of fill is needed on the hotel site. The most economical place to obtain the fill is from the R-15 property. He noted that there are no plans at this time to request any rezoning of the R~15 property. Mr. Wood did nOt feel there had been any violation of ordinance provisions because the grading permit was obtained two and one-half years ago, and no site plan was required at that time. The only grading done has been within the boundaries of the site plan. If fill dirt had to be obtained elsewhere, he would have to file a site plan on another parcel of land and that would take time, which he does not have. In conclusion, Mr. Wood said the logical place to obtain the necessary fill dirt is from the R-15 property. He is aware that approval of this request would have no ramifications on the R-15 property. He also noted that the R-15 property is not desirable for commercial usage because there is no way to get t~o the property off of Route 29 North nor off of the River Heights Road since the only entrance would be off of a bank. Mr. Fisher said the Board adopted an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance last week regarding borrow areas. He asked if that ordinance applies in this situation. Mr. Elrod said that ordinance provision applies only to rural lands; those zoned RA. Mr. Fisher asked the status of the R-15 property if this appeal is approved. Mr. Elrod said the land slopes gently in each direction and there is a twenty-five foot embankment at the rear of the property. Mr. Fisher said he is particularly interested in whether the area will have a bank left at the rear. Mr. Wood said the embankment would be lower than that currently in existence. Mr. Elrod said the slope will be planted, seeded and stabilized with berm ditches at the top to direct the runoff. £84 July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked what action is necessary by the Board. Mr. St. John said a grading permit has to be approved. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the grading on the R-15 property will make anything worse and the question of how the R-15 property should be zoned is not before the Board at this time. He said he does not assume that there had been an ordinance violation since the initial grading occured before a site plan was approved. Mr. Lindstrom stated that he does not have any problem with approving the request. Mrs. Cooke agreed and said she sees this as an expansion of existing development. She then offered motion to approve the request to extend the limits of Mr. Wood's grading permit for the River Heights property into property owned by him adjacent to Hilton Heights Road. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. Cooke would be willing to add language to the motion that this approval does not have any bearing on any future rezoning requests. Mrs. Cooke accepted that amendment to her motion. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, ~Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher asked the target date for opening of the hotel. 20, 1984, and everything is currently on schedule. Mr. Wood said it is May Agenda Item No. 6. VaCation: Ashmere Subdivision (Deferred from June 8, 1983). The public hearing on an ordinance to vacate a portion of a fifty foot easement on Ashmere Drive and to vacate that portion of the subdivision shown as lots 9,~10, ll, 12 and 13 was held on March 9, 1983. The public hearing was deferred from that date to June 8, 1983, at the request of Mr. Frederick Payne, DepUty County Attorney, for reasons as stated at the March, 1983 meeting. The basic reason for deferral was due to negotiations between the bankrupt developer and a property owner resulting in the sale of one lot; said proceeds of the sale to be used for completion of Ashmere Drive to the cul-de-sac; Mr. Payne stated at the March public hearing that if the road construction occurred as planned, vacation of a portion of the subdivision would not be necessary. Therefore, the ordinance was deferred to June 8, 1983, and on that date, Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, had requested deferral to this date since negotiations were not completed. Mr. Fisher asked the status of this request. Mr. St. John requested deferral of this ordinance to the September 14, 1983, meeting since the developer is still in bankruptcy proceedings. He noted that the County has used some of the proceeds (see Order of Bankruptcy Court dated March 7, 1983) to finish one part of Ashmere Drive, but the part of Ashmere Drive advertised for vacation has not been completed. Mr. St. John then noted that funds for this purpose have been taken out of the bankruptcy estate and placed into escrow. The escrow arrangement is just as good as a bond, and Mr. St. John felt it would be a mistake to vacate any portion of the subdiVision now that the funds are'in escrow. Miss Nash then offered motion to further defer action on the advertised ordinance to September 14, 1983, as requested by Mr. St. John. Mr. Butler seconded 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. 7. Street Lighting Policy, Revision Requested. Mr. Agnor said when the 1983-84 budget for Street Lights was being reviewed, he had indicated to the Board that the limitation set on revenue to be used for payment of street light costs was beginning to cause problems since an insufficient amount of funds is being set aside for this purpose. Therefore, the staff was to review this policy and make a report back to the Board. Mr. Agnor said the review has been completed and the following memorandum from Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, dated June 20, 1983, is being presented for the Board's consideration: "Attached are two applications for street lights that have been processed by VEPCO, the Highway Department and the County. Normally we would be recommending them for approval by the Board of Supervisors, but cannot do so until the 1983-84 budget is increased and the Board's Roadway Lighting Policy is changed. The 1983-84 budget increase is necessary because our budget request was reduced to cover only the cost of electric power for the existing lights. Therefore, if we add new lights we would probably exceed our budget. We feel that the budget should be increased to allow for at least twenty new lights which would add $2,500 for electrical service. Existing 1983-84 budget Allowance for twenty new lights Revised 1983-84 Budget request $39,500 2~500 $42,000 This change in policy is necessary because the present policy limits the amount that can be spent on electric power to 2.5 percent of the previous year's utility tax collections. The maximum amount that can be spent in 1983-84 is therefore: $1,461,507 (the 1981-82 utility tax) x 0.025 = $36,537 July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 285 which is less than we need to pay for the existing lights next year. are two reasons for this situation. There 1) 2) Power costs increased 10 percent in 1982-83 and will increase 6 percent in 1983-84. The amount of utility tax collected dropped in 1981-82 and is expected to drop again in 1982-83. We recommend that the percent allowed for power costs be increased to 3 percent. This amount will cover our expenses for 1983-84 and probably for 1984-85. $1,461,507 x 0.03 : $43,845 which exceeds our budget request for this year by $1,845 but will probably be enough for 1984-85 depending upon how many new lights are installed. The above requests do not allow for any installation costs because so far the County has not paid for any. One of the two attached applications however, the one in Hessian Hills, does have a charge which the homeowner requests that we pay. If the Board approves the above budget request we will pay 1/2 of this charge ($223 x 0.5 = $111.50) out of the budget. The policy requires Board action for us to pay the entire amount. There are several requests now being processed. One request involves the entire Northfields Subdivision. At this point, we do not know if there will be any installation charges for these projects and therefore suggest that we bring them back to the Board as they occur rather than trying to budget for them." Mr. Agnor said based on the above information from Mr. Elrod, it is evident that the existing policy does not set aside sufficient funds for the 198~,84 budget and for the above reasons, he recommends the street light policy be amended as requested. Mr. Fisher said as the County becomes more and more urbanized, he can see that more and more lights will be requested. When the original percentage rates were established, it was assumed that the utility tax would increase as growth occurred and there would be sufficient funds to take care of this expense. Mr. Fisher said he does not understand why the gross amount of the utility tax has decreased with the amount of new construction occurring. Mr. Agnor said there have been cutbacks in the commercial area and that is where the major portion of the dollars are collected. Mr. Agnor then noted that the two applications received today were not placed on this agenda for action, but will be presented for Board action at a later date. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following Roadwa~ Lighting Policy to amend paragraph (3) by increasing the amount budgeted for electrical lighting charges from two and one-half percent of utility tax collections to three percent of said collections. Mr. Henley said he thought the Board had decided that the County would pay for the electricity and the residents would pay for the equipment. Mr. Agnor said that was the initial policy which required a fifty-fifty match. Mr. Henley felt the Board may desire to remove the fifty-fifty match and let the installation be paid for by the person or persons making the request. He felt doing that would eliminate so many requests. Mr. Agnor then commented that the County has never had to pay any installation costs to date. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Note: The policy, as adopted, is set out below.) ROADWAY LIGHTING POLICY FOR THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA The County of Albemarle will engage in a roadway lighting program as defined and limited by the following conditions: 1. Existing roadway lights shall remain in use and the cost of their lighting paid for by the County until such times that, in the opinion of the Board changes in circumstances may make their removal and/or relocation desirable. 2. New lighting shall be considered upon the request of an individual or group or on the action of the Board-itself. Any such group or individual must be directly affected by the lighting requested. The requested lighting must be clearly a public necessity rather than a private or individual benefit in order to be considered by the Board, and there must be no objection to the lighting on the part of anyone who is directly affected by it. Areas within the County for which this policy may be applicable include: community buildings, growth areas as designated in the Comprehensive Plan, and nondesignated growth areas where existing residential density exceeds one dwelling unit per acre (1 du/ac). 286 July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Me~ting) 3. The County's financial effort toward the roadway lighting program shall be limited to a certain percentage of the utility tax collected for the use of electrical current, the amount budgeted for any succeeding year being computed on the last year preceding for which a total may be ascertained; the percentages as shown below: For the installation and/or relocation of lights: 0.50% For electrical current used in lighting: 3% The County shall continue to pay the cost of electrical current used in lighting the street lights which have been accepted by the County previous to the adoption of this Roadway Lighting Policy and will also pay the cost of electrical current used in lighting such additional lights as the County may from time to time accept into the system. In such cases where there is a charge for installing a street light sub-system, the County will participate in such installation in an amount not to exceed fifty percent of the cost, provided, however, that the applicant will match this amount. The Board may waive this limitation where the Board finds that such would impose such an unusual hardship on the applicant and the sub-system lighting in the opinion of the Board is of such value as to warrant the cost to the County. 4. Lighting systems shall be designed and installed in accordance with the policy of the Department of Highways and Transportation, as set forth in the Department's memorandum entitled Guide Policy for Roadway Lighting Facilities and Security Lighting Facilities, dated July 26, 1973, as amended. 5. The CoUnty Engineer shall review all applications for roadway lighting and recommend action to the Board of County Supervisors. The County Engineer may set rules for procedure for the processing of applications. 6. Except in such cases where the County itself instigates the installation of a roadway lighting system, the'County of Albemarle shall have no part in securing or purchasing any easements which may be necessary for the installation of a roadway lighting sYstem. Acquisition of such easements shall be responsibility of the applicant and/or the power company which will serve the system. 7. In such cases where the County itself instigates the installation of roadway lighting and there are costs incurred for such, the County of Albemarle may defray costs to the full extent of the funds provided under Item 3 of this policy. Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing: Amend and Reenact Police Force Ordinance to Change Effective Date of Hiring Personnel (Enacted as an emergency measure on June l, 1983)~ (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 28 and July 5, 1983.) Mr. Fisher said the ordinance being presented today was adopted by the Board at its meeting on June l, 1983, as an emergency measure. The amendment regards the appointment of the personnel for the police force which change basically deleted the date of "June l, 1983" and inserted the words "on or after June l, 1983, but not later than June 30, 1983". The purpose of this advertisement is to hold a public hearing before adopting the ordinance~ on a permanent basis with the above change. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Henley (preferenced his vote by stating he did not realize he would be able to vote against the establishment of the police force so many times). AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY POLICE FORCE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia: A police force as defined in Virginia Code Section 14.1-84.2(L) is hereby established which shall be responsible on and after June l, 1983, for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of criminals, the safeguard of life and property, the preservation of peace and the enforcement of state and local laws, regulations and ordinances. This police force shall be and hereby is designated the Albemarle County Police Force and shall consist of a chief of police and five full-time police officers. July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 287 The chief of police and all other personnel of the Albemarle County Police Force shall be appointed pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-598 and shall constitute a division of the County's Department of Law Enforcement under Virginia Code Section 15.1-608. All initial appointments to the positions established hereby shall take effect on or after June 1, 1983, but not later than June 30, 1983. The salary scale for members of the Albemarle County Police Force shall be prescribed from time to time by the County Board of Supervisors within the regular budgetary and appropriation process. It is the intent of this ordinance that the Albemarle County Police Force shall be jointly responsible with the Sheriff's Deprtment for Law Enforcement in the County, and this ordinance is not intended to diminish the present authority or responsibility of the Sheriff. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Fringe Benefit Costs for School Employees. 1983) Budget Amendment Relative to Accrual of Certain (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5, Mr. Agnor said this public hearing was scheduled on a budget amendment which will use Federal Revenue Sharing funds and he then summarized for the Board a memorandum from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, which was presented at the Board's meeting on June 29, 1983. (Note: see the minutes of June 29, 1983, for the details of this budget amendment.) The public hearing was then opened. With no one present to speak for or against this budget amendment, the public hearing was closed. After a brief work session in which the accrual method of accounting relative to this item was explained, and some explanation given as to the gradual change from ten-month to twelve-month paychecks by most of the teaching personnel in the schools, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $404,620.46 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Federal Revenue Sharing Fund and transferred to the School Fund and Coded to the following for payment of certain fringe benefit costs for School employees: Code 17G-295.01 FICA Code 17G-295.02 VSRS Code 17G-295.03 Life Insurance $191,292.06 198,348.32 14~980.08 $404,620.46 Mr. Agnor noted that information about the School Budget for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1983 will be presented to the Board in August. Agenda Item No. 10. Report on Charlottesville-Albemarle Student Ambassador Program. Dr. Pete Eberhart, Chairperson for the Joint Planning Committee for the City and County School Boards, was present to make a report concerning the Student Exchange Program with the County and City twin communities of Prato and Poggio a Caiano. Dr. Eberhart noted that a number of organizations have been involved in this program, in particular the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber agreed to assist in raising funds for scholarships to help participating students who need financial assistance for the trip, as well as to raise funds to pay costs of hosting the Italian students while they are visiting here. Dr. Eberhart noted that the students from Charlottesville and Albemarle have been in Prato and Poggio a Caiano since June 20, and the response from the students has been wonderful. Dr. Eberhart said host families are being secured for the Italian students who will visit here. Dr. Eberhart said activities planned for the Italian students visit here include such items as touring Monticello and viSting Richmond, and Washington, D.C. Dr. Eberhart said Mrs. Mary Ann Elwood is present for the Chamber of Commerce and will comment on the Chamber's involvement. Mrs. Elwood said the Chamber of Commerce has been thrilled with this program and its involvement in same. She noted that each student has a local sponsor. There is a wide range of sponsorship from fashion industry to banking. Mrs. Elwood said the original amount of money to be raised for the program was $15,000, with the scholarships estimated at $10,000 or $11,000, and with the remaining funds to be used for the traveling and hosting of the students. However, only $5,500 in scholarships were awarded and the total commitment then is $10,000 from the Chamber. Mrs. Elwood said $7,500 has been raised and the Chamber is still actively trying to raise the remaining funds. Mr. Fisher said he received a call yesterday from the Consulate and the Italian Students are now scheduled to arrive in charlottesville on July 29 instead of August 1. Dr. Eberhart said the Committee is attempting to get as many in-kind contributions for the program as possible and the Chamber does feel it will be able to fulfill its obligation to raise the funds necessary for this visit. Mr. Fisher then extended appreciation to Dr. Eberhart and Mrs. Elwood for the work that has been done on this program and hoped same will be a success. July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. ll. Courthouse. Proposal to place Memorial Bench in front of Albemarle County Mr. Fisher said a letter dated June 9, 1983, has been received from Van Yahres Associates regarding a proposal to place a bench in. the courtyard of the Albemarle County Courthouse in memory of Eaton Brooks; the bench being donated by Mr. Brooks' parents (Copy of this letter is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Fisher said he had requested Mr. William Sullivan, Director of Staff Services, to review the proposal and to comment on same. He then recognized Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres to explain the.proposal. Mrs. Van Yahres said the proposal is to place a mahogany bench measuring six feet by two feet in the Courthouse courtyard. Although simple in design, the bench will reflect the historical architecture of the Courthouse. Mrs. Van Yahres said both Judge David Berry and Judge Gerald Tremblay have seen the proposal and approved the design. Two proposed locations have been chosen for the bench. One is known as Location A and is directly in front of the Courthouse where two benches currently exist. The second location known as Location B contains one bench at the present time and is to the extreme left of the Courthouse. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Sullivan in his review of this proposal had recommended Location B since only one bench is being proposed. Also, Mr. Sullivan has indicated that the two benches in Location A will have to be removed when the renovation of the Courthouse is completed. However, Mr. Fisher said the request before the Board is to approve the donation of the bench. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the concept as contained in the letter dated June 9, 1983, for a memorial bench to be donated to the community in memory of Eaton Brooks and that the bench be located at Location B. 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. Agenda Item No. 15. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority re: of Well in Stoney Point Subdivision - Scottsville. Fluoridation Mr. Agnor reviewed the following letter dated June 20, 1983, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority: "Several years ago I advised the Board of Supervisors that grants could be obtained from the State Health Department to install fluoridation equipment at Scottsville, Crozet, and North Rivanna water treatment plants if the local governing body approved. The Board concurred and asked the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to apply for the grant. The grant was received and these systems are now operational. Through all of this we failed to consider the Stoney Point water system. Stoney Point is a small subdivision of 26 homes near Scottsville served by a central well system. Several customers in this subdivision have requested that fluoride be provided in their water. In the attached letter, the~¥anna Water and Sewer Authority estimates the cost of installation of a fluoridation system to be about $4,000 and is not optimistic that a grant would be awarded for such a small system. I feel we should aPply for the grant. Since the governing body must approve, would you bring this matter to the attention of the Board? If they concur, they should advise Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to make application for the grant. Please let me know if I can provide any additional information." Mr. Agnor said there is some speculation that because of the size of the Water system and the number of homes served, the requirements for a grant will not be able to be met. However, to be certain, application for a grant should be made. As noted in the correspondenc from Mr. Brent, the Albemarle County Service Authority recommends the addition of the fluoride equipment and requests the Board to allow the Rivanna Water and ~Sewer Authority to apply for the grant. Motion was then of.fered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to apply for a grant from the State Health Department t6~ install fluoridation equipment in the well in the Stoney Point Subdivision in Scottsville. 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. Agenda Item ~No. 20. Discussion: Request to Reestablish Resource Recovery Commission. Mr. Fisher said a letter dated July l, 1983, has been received from Mr. Laurence A. Burton, member of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, regarding the Resource Recovery Commission. Mr. Fisher noted that for a number of years there was a joint City/County/University Commission studying, with the help of federal grants and consultants, the possibility of establishing a resource recovery system for the co~unity. The Commission finally recommended that a recovery system be instituted using part of the heating system modified at the University of Virginia since the University is a user of steam. However, the University was not able to raise the capital funds needed to convert their heating facilities. The Commission was then disbanded. With the University again planning to upgrade its heating system, the old Resource Recovery Commission reports have been brought to the attention of the University. Mr. Fisher said if something could be worked out with the University, the amount of materials going to the Ivy landfill could be reduced, making the landfill last longer. Mr. Fisher then summarized the following letter concerning the request to reestablish the Resource Recovery Commission: July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) "Several days ago I attended, along with Wayne Harbaugh from the Planning District Commission, a presentation on the University's utilities plan which included a discussion of plans to upgrade the University's heating plant. At the presentation, William Middleton, Assistant Vice-President, Physical Plant, repeated a statement he had made earlier to the Planning District Commission about the University's interest in working with local governments to look further into the feasibility of resource recovery in connection with the changes that need to be made to the heating system. Mr. Middleton expressed a regret that the Resource Recovery Commission, composed of members from the University, the City and the County, had been disbanded, suggesting that such a group would be useful at this point in working with the University's consultants. I am writing Frank Hereford and Frank Buck as well as yourself to request that the Resource Recovery Commission be reestablished for such a purpose. Although the regional solid waste plan approved by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission recommends representation from all six local governments on such a working group, the TJPDC's executive committee has expressed support for a City-County-University committee, recognizing that the three entities have the largest interest in the possibility of resource recovery in connection with the University's .heating and energy needs. The executive committee asks only that the possibility of future resource recovery of waste from the four rural counties be addressed by any group you designate. Sincerely yours, (SIGNED BY) Laurence A. Brunton" Miss Nash said Mr. Middieton was present at a recent Planning District Commission meeting and did not appear very enthusiastic about the plan. She said the feeling is that the program should be on a regiOnal basis rather than just for the City and County. Mr. Fisher did not feel there is much collection of solid waste in any of the rural~counties. Mr. Agnor said this subject has been discussed at some of the monthly meetings between the City, County and University officials. The University people have several problems with the idea. l) The heating plant is not going to be moved away from the entrance to the Hospital. Therefore, the flow of vehicles generated by this type of system would create a problem. 2) The University is having difficulty with capital planning for a project of this significance. 3) The free use of a government-owned landfill does not help to encourage the University to change its system. Mr. Agnor said the City Director of Public Works and the County Engineer are jointly responsible for the operation of the landfill and discussions have been held recently to discuss the idea of processing waste into fuel at the Ivy Landfill. This would mean that the flow of waste~to the landfill would continue, but instead of being buried, this waste could be converted to process fuel. The fuel would then be delivered to a heating plant in a much lesser quantity. This concept was also discussed at the City, County and University meeting and the University was interested in the idea since this would eliminate processing at the heating plant. Mr. Agnor said since Federal funds were initially involved with the work of the Resource Recovery Commission, he does not feel there will be any funding available from either Federal or State sources if this Commission is reactivitated. Mr. Agnor suggested that perhaps the staffs of both the City and County could provide some assistance to the Commission~ Mr. Butler said there has been some mention of a commercial group building a plant in a location away from the University to generate energy to be sold to the community. He said the University people felt that was a more feasible approach to this concept. Mr. Fisher said he would be willing to explore anything that would prolong the life of the landfill. The idea of being able to reuse resources and create something that has a market value appeals to him. He also noted that over the last ten years, a lot of cities and some counties have started their own system. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that he felt the Board should communicate with the City and the University expressing the County's willingness to reestablish the Resource Recovery Commission and receive their reaction to the proposal. Mr. Butler agreed with Mr. Fisher about the past problems of establishing a landfill, and felt that as communities grow, a larger landfill will be needed, so some other method of handling wastes should be examined. ~ Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to communicate with the City and the University the County's interest in reestablishing the Resource Recovery Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Request: Christian Mission Aid. A letter dated June 6, 1983, from Mr. R. V. Finley, Chairman and President of Christian Aid Mission, was received by the Clerk of the Board requesting amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area to allow Christian Aid Mission to hook into a six-inch sewer line approximately 1200 feet down the established easement from the Mission property to the Route 250 pump station. On July l, 1983, another letter was received from Mr. Finley to further clarify the request of the above date. Based on the above letters, Mr. Fisher said he had requested the planning staff to prepare a report and that the report be done in light of other properties in the subject area to determine what could be done in relation to the Comprehensive Plan and the utility system. (Copies of the above letters are on file in the Clerk's Office.) July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, was present and summarized the following staff report: ".P.r?posal: Christian Aid Mission is~uesting amendment of the Albemarle Qount~ Service~ Author~ty's service area to provide for access to the ~rozet Interceptor. oewer service will soon be necessary for future development of the ~property. ~ing.~nd Current Utility Service: Christian Aid Mission consists of ~pp~O~imai~ly sixteen acres presently zoned Commercial Office. They are presently located within the 'Water Only' service area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Public water is not being utilized at this time however. Comprehensive Plan: This property and others to the east are located outside of the Urban Growth Area because of their location in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. Staff ' Comment: It has been the Board of Supervisors' policy in the past to limit utility service to those areas located outside of the County's designated growth areas and/or those areas lOcated within the watershed of a drinking water impoundment' This policy is used as a tool for discouraging intensive development in those areas not designated for future growth and development,~as, well as. those· . areas of drinking water impoundments which are most sensitive to development impact. Christian Aid Mission, as well as thOse properties located eastward between Route 250 West and the C & 0 Railroad, fall for the most part within the Board's criteria for~limited utility servic'e. For the Board's information, some of the properties mentioned above have approximately one hundred feet in depth along Route 250 West., which drains into the Morey Creek Watershed rather than the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. Based upon this information, th~ Board may wish to consider two alternatives for service area amendment: - Allow sewer service to this area for existing buildings (as of this date) only; and/-or - Allow both water and sewer service to the areas along Route 250 West which drain outside of the South Fork Rivanna Watershed." Mr. Tucker then listed for the Board the properties located in the water and sewer service areas in the subject area. Mr. Fisher asked the location of the boundary of the growth area. Mr. Tucker said all of Flordon~and Farmington lie within the Rivanna Watershed, which is. to the east and north of this property. Mr. Tucker said one site that could utilize the second alternative above would be the Kirtley Office building. Mr. Lindstrom said the entire reason for the jurisdictional area distinction was to discourage any urban type development that would be associated with a sewer line in the watershed. ~ Mr. Butler asked about the existing development on the Christian Aid Mission property. Mr. Tucker said there is development on a portion of the property, but Christian Aid Mission intends to develop further. Therefore, sewer will be needed because a septic system is being utilized. Mr. Tom Bond, representing the Christian Aid Mission, was present. Mr. Bond said Christian Aid Mission cannot further expand its operation without hooking onto the sewer line and the Mission is willing to conform to any County specifications. Next to speak was a Mr. Landess representing Christian Aid Mission. He said when the Mission moved to the subject location in 1976, it was their intent to expand the facilities. This has been the long-range plans and no such restrictions as this problem with hooking to public sewer were anticipated. Mr. Landess noted that the Mission would be severely restricted if this request is not approved. He noted that using septic systems would be a problem because that would mean going'into the wooded areas and removing a considerable amount of trees. The land without trees is not suitable for a septic system for public health reasons. Therefore, Mr. Landess noted that the Mission would be severely impacted if this request is denied. Mr. Fisher said he had not envisioned Christian Aid Mission developing to the extent proposed in the letter from Dr. Finley. He added that the development proposed is a very intensive use of the property and if that is the int~ent, he personally has serious reservations about approval of the request. This property is in the South Fork watershed and if this request is granted to connect to public sewerage, he could not visualize anyway the Board could ever deny anyone else the right to connect and there are many areas along the interceD~or line which could be developed intensively. Mr. Fisher said he had originally thought that~ the intent was to connect existing buildings and perhaps a small addition to the facility. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said that although he would like to approve the request, approval would present problems for the County in the future. Mrs. Cooke said it appears that the proposal is for eleven additional buildings. asked the amount of students to be housed in each dormitory. Mr. Landess said twenty students will be housed in each building. She July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) 291 Mr. Lindstrom questioned the alternative in the staff report relating to sewer service being allowed to this area for existing buildings on this date only. His concern is with defending the County's watershed policy. Approval of this proposal, even if for only one additional building, would violate the County's watershed policy. He said it is ridiculous to destroy trees in order to install a septic system instead of allowing the sewer connection which is a clean proposition. However, the issue has to be examined in terms of the overall precedent that this approval would establish. He said he agrees w±th Mr. Fisher that the Board would have a difficult time denying another person a connection in the~ future if this request is approved. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the implication-~f the~words "as of this date" in the staff's alternatives. Mr. Tucker said the attempt was to align this amendment with the policy adopted in reference to water connections. Mr. Tucker also added that he is not aware of any problems with the existing septic field on the Christian Aid Mission property. Mr. Lindstrom said in thinking only about this specific application, allowing the existing structures to hook to the sewer line would be best since less area would be disturbed. Mr. Fisher said with the interceptor line going across the county for eight or ten miles, the Board may have many other applications for connection for much more intensive development. Mr. Fisher said the biggest problem facing the Board will be the establishment of a uniform policy on how to deal with connections to the Crozet Interceptor line over a period of time. Mr. Lindstrom agreed but felt the same policy should be established relative to connecting to the Crozet Interceptor as was established to connect to the public water line for areas in the watershed. Miss Nash said she felt one of the reasons that sewer was not included in the policy was because having the availability of sewer would encourage intensive development. She felt the watershed POlicy should be eliminated if this request is approved. Mr. Fisher said the Ultimate plans for this property are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and with such intensive development proposed, he could not support the request. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the property is zoned Commercial Office. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the uses as proposed in Dr. Finley's letter could be contained on this sixteen acres. Mr.. Tucker said not without public utilities. Mr. Tucker said he understands the proposed dormitories are not for year round facilities, but rather accessory type uses to the office building. Mr. Lindstrom said considering all the time and effort that the Board has spent to develop and defend a policy for discouraging development in the South Fork Rivanna watershed, he would agree that approval of this request would be opening the doors to a concept not desired by the County. Mrs. Cooke said she would not object to providing the sewer for the existing buildings but could not support the request for all the reasons stated by the other Board members. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to deny the request for Christian Aid Mission to connect to the Crozet Interceptor line. 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. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Amend Service Areas of Albemarle County Service Authority to Conform Said Areas with Recent Revisions to the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 30 and July 6, 1983.) Mr. Tucker explained the key distributed regarding the jurisdictional areas which was color coded with the map (Copy of this key is on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tucker then reviewed the following staff report: "Staff has proposed amendments to the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to comply with recent amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, as well as to provide a consistent policy for service areas throughout the County. (Mr. Tucker noted that certain policies were adopted in 1982 relevant to service in the Route 29 North area, which do not apply in other areas of the County.) CROZET - Areas north of the current growth area have been broken down into water and sewer service for the existing small lot development experiencing septic field failure, and where there are already preliminary plans for sewer connections. (Mr. Tucker explained the areas involved and noted that these are areas developed in very small lots and which are having septic system problems. Mr. Tucker said the staff has met with representatives of the Health Department and the areas having problems have been identified by the Health Department.); areas presently being served with water only (Mr. Tucker said this is primarily the Thurston Subdivision which is not developed but has been platted and where waterlines exist.); areas contiguous to an existing waterline for existing structures only; areas which are undeveloped but which are proposed for sewer connection (Mr. Tucker said the staff is suggesting that these areas either be allowed to have a sewerage connection or permitted one residential connection per parcel.). July 13, 1983 (Regular Day Me~ting) - Service area for existing growth area is unchanged, except for commercial areas south of Route 250 West, which is for water only. (Mr. TUcker said the growth area was extended in the area around Gola's ReStaurant so the~area could be included for water service only~) - Area south and southwest of the growth area is deleted from utility service, except for existing structures contiguous to existing Waterline. (Mr. Tucker pointed out the Yancey Mills area and noted that this recommendation is in keeping with the Board's policy used in other areas such as the Route 29 North area.) Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Brent how much new line would be involved for w~ter and sewer service to the areas north of Route 240 between Beaver Creek Reservoir and 'Del Monte. Mr. Brent was not certain because the Service Authority is working from a preliminary master plan started in 1976. (Mr. Tucker said the Service Authority is also working from a map of the old growth area for Crozet.) The problem is that on the north side Route- 240, the whole area would have to be pumped to the south side of Route 240. The siting of a pumping station wouldalso be critical because the pipe would have to go under the railroad and the highway, and the effluent would then be drawn by gravity to Lickinghole Creek and then to the interceptor. Mr. Tucker said a site plan for the "western &lbemarle shOpping center" is still pending before the Planning Commission. While the applicant could locate this shopping center on a septic system, he noted that the Board may want to allow the applicant to pump the effluent over to the Lickinghole Creek drainage basin. Mr. Henley asked if the shopping center property abuts a waterline. Mr. Tucker said yes, but the sewer line is located outside of the Crozet growth area. Mr. Henley asked if this property should be colored light green which would place it in the "water and/or sewer available to existing structure~ or one residential connect for vacant lots of record" category. Mr. Tucker said it probably should be since it does abut the waterline, but there are no existing structures on the parcel. Mr. Lindstrom asked if private structures will be treated the same as the Board's policy on public structures (showing only the building on the property as receiving service, and not the entire parcel). Mr. ~u.cker said the policy was worded this way in order to take in Bloomfield property. Mr. Tucker said public and private structures are treated the same. IVY - Water service only to those areas currently being served or having approved plans for water, and those parcels with existing structures conginguous to existing waterlines. - Spring Hill Subdivision and Ivy Creek Farm (Winery) have been maintained in the service area because of their request for inclusion, even though they are not currently using public water. (Mr. Tucker said these two areas fall outside of the existing service area but Spring Hill Subdivision recently made a request to the Board for inclusion. The properties were left in so the Board could decide whether or not to delete them. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Brent has indicated that he is having discussions with the owners of the winery for the extension of water service. Mr. Tucker then pointed out Kearsarge Subdivision and noted that this subdivision has been experiencing problems with its well. He noted that there is not a waterline to this property. Mr. Lindstrom asked why Spring Hill was included originally. Mr. Tucker said Spring Hill was in the growth area at that time.) SCOTTSVILLE - Provides for water to existing structures contiguous ~ to waterline. - Expands service area for water and sewer to conform with new growth area boundaries. - Deletes service to areas outside of existing growth area except for the Scottsville Shopping Center, and for commercial uses and other uses in need of fire protection along Route 6." Mr. Tucker noted that this completed the staff's recommendations. In reply to a question from Mr. Henley, he said the properties of Acme Visible Records and Del Monte in Crozet have been included for water and sewer even though some of these properties are outside of the new growth area. Mr..Fisher asked how much of the area is undeveloped. Mr. Tucker said the only area that is undeveloped is an area zoned industrial. The public hearing was opened.~ Mr. Allen Benn, owner of the property proposed for a western Albemarle shopping center, was present. Mr. Benn said seven and one-half acres of his property is currently zoned for shopping center development and the remaining thirty acres is zoned Rural Areas. Mr. Benn said he had a site plan approved for this property in the past and septic tanks were proposed at that time. However, at that time the Planning Commission requested that this site connect to the public sewerage if, and when, same became available. Therefore, Mr. Benn said that had been his plans and he would request the seven and one-half acres be included in the service area. Mr. Benn said another point he would like to mention is the issue of runoff in the area. The RA part of this property not only has natural runoff into Lickinghole Creek but also collects the runoff from the property across the road on the northern side of Route 250. Mr. Benn said the runoff plan that has been prepared for this site, will show that runoff can be contained as per County ordinances, but will also contain that runoff from across the road. Mr. Benn said there would be no problem putting in a septic field on this property, but he is suggesting that in accordance with good planning and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, that this property be connected to public sewer when same becomes available, and he personally feels that was a reasonable request of the Planning Commission. JUly l~, 198B (Regular Day Meeting) g93 Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Brent if he had any comments. Mr. Brent said the Service Authority Board of Directors has not seen this information and therefore, he had no comments at this time. With no further comments for or against the amendments, the public hearing was closed. A brief discussion followed and the consensus of the Board was to defer this discussion until August]~0~, 198B, in order that the Service Authority Board of Directors could respond to the proposed amendments. Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest that the word "public" be deleted in the key regarding "water and/or sewer to public or existing structures" because he felt public and private structures should be treated the same. Mr. Brent noted that there have been discussions about expanding the Airport facility itself and the Airport was included in that category. Since the property is not within the watershed that should probably be looked at again. Mr. Tucker said the staff would examine the suggestion because if that language is changed, an impact may occur on other areas, and the Airport property may need to be included in the water and sewer area. Mr. Lindstrom said if a public structure needs water and sewer, he would rather amend the Comprehensive Plan at that time and attempt to be consistent with the service areas-. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Butler, to defer the amendment of the ServiCe Areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority to conform to recent revisions of the Comprehensive Plan, until August 10, 198~. Roll was called and the motion carried by the followiing recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session. Mr. Fisher said the County Executive has requested an executive session for discussion of land acquisition and/or sale. At 12:B1 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive session to discuss property acquisition and/or sale. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:42 P.M. Agenda Item No. 18. Notice from Virginia Housing Development Authority re: Development called Heritage Acres V. letter dated June 25, 198~, signed by John Ritchie, Jr., Executive Director of the Virginia Housing Development Authority, brought this matter before the Board. The letter stated that the County was being notified pursuant to Section ~6-55.~9 of the Code of Virginia, that VHDA was considering the financing of a multi-family residential, rental housing development consisting of approximately l~0 units of which only thirty-two units would be subsidized by the HUD Section 8 Program. The development .is to be situated on a parcel of approximately 8.65 acres in size located in the northern end of Branchlands PUD adjacent to Fashion Square Mall, Squire Hill Apartments and Chapel Hill Subdivision. Mr. Ritchie had noted that the Board would have sixty days in which to disapprove the development proposal, if so desired. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning and Community Development, read the following staff report: "Current Zoning: This portion of Branchlands PUD was approved under ZMA-80-26 for a maximum of 82 dwelling units. This proposal would raise gross residential density from about l0 dwelling units per acre to about 15 dwelling units per acre. Conditions of approval of ZMA-80-26 require facilities improvements such as: construction of a portion of the Branchlands Collector Road, a major parallel road to Route 29 North; and provision of open space and developed recreational areas (some improvements are based on phasing of development). Staff understands that to achieve the proposed l~0 dwelling units, a rezoning petition to amend the PUD will be submitted. Staff understands this proposal would reallot units from another area of the PUD. (Staff would emphasize that no proposal has been submitted at this writing). "Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends medium-density resi- dential and commercial uses for Branchlands, based on the approved PUD. "Need for Subsidized Housing: The need for subsidized housing in Albemarle County can be documented from these sources: - Section 8 Rental Program Waiting List - U. S. Census Poverty Statistics - Uo S. Housing and Urban Development Needs Assessment "The first source of data and probably one of the more important local sources is the waiting list compiled by the County,s Section 8 Rental AsSistance Program. The list of households waiting for assistance is presently in the 50 - 100 range with special emphasis needed in the two to three bedroom size unit. July 13, 1983~.(Regular Day Meeting) "Secondly, data from the U. S. Census indicates that persons who had below the poverty~.le~el in Albemarle County in 1980 numbered 4,902 or 8.8 percent of the total population. "Finally, composite, data developed by the U. S. Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) indicates a sUbstantial need of renter households in Albemarle County for assistance. Approximately 2,171 renter households in the County in 1981 were in need of assistance in securing access to adequate housing. The criteria used in this assessment includes both overcrowded and Substandard housing, household~income andhousing costs required beyond a normal percent of income. Again, the greatest need appears.to be concentrated in the small family households. "The proposed project would assist in meeting some of the needs of low- and moderate-income families in Albemarle County. Both the Comprehensive Plan for Albemarle County 1982 - 2002, and the Thomas Jefferson Areawide Housing Oppor- tunity Plan (AHOP) contain goals and objectives relating to providing assistance to low- and moderate-income families for housing. A goal of the Comprehensive Plan is to provide sefe~ sanitary and adequate housing for Albemarle County residents of all income groups. The Plan recommends that the County take advantage of and promote Federal and State programs as they relate to Albemarle's housing problem. "The AHOP also suggests housing oppcrtunities should be made available to all income groups, especially those in need of special assistance. Numerical goals suggested in the AHOP for Albemarle County are 25 percent of the number of renters eligible for assistance." Mr. Tucker noted that he had received a copy of a letter this date from Charles W. Hurt addressed to R. W. Frizzell, President of HCMF Development Corporation stating that he would.~ apply for an amendment to ZMA-80-26 to increase the number of units in Area A and decrease the number of units in Area D of the Branchlands approved PUD plan. Mr. Tucker said this request would require amendment of the PUD plan and apprOval of a site plan, all through the normal planning process. An unidentified gentlemen was present for the applicant, but said he had nothing in particular to say about the request, except that this approval is only for financing purposes and has nothing to do with any of the planning aspects. The development will meet all local code requirements. Mr. Fisher said if the Board wished to approve this developments and sign the certificatior which had been furnished with the papers on the request, a sentence should be added that the land in question does rot currently meet zoning required for such a project. Miss Nash said she felt the Board should go on record as approving the project and offered motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the certification of approval, putting in a provision that this approval has nothing to do with zoning and the project will be subject to all County ordinances. The~ motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. The gentleman said that all local codes will be adhered to, but it might be better to include a statement about complying with codes so that the Virginia Housing Development ~ Authority does not get bogged down in just zoning. Mr. Lindstrom clarified the motion by stating that it already included a statement about the project being in compliance with mm~ applicable local ordinances. Roll was called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. The Certificate signed by the Chairman read as follows: CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL In accordance with Virginia Code Section 36-55~39(B), the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies to the Virginia Housing Development Authority its approval of the proposed multi-family resi- dential housing development called Heritage Acres V, as expressed in this resolution adopted on July 13, 1983, provided that all approvals necessary under all applicable local ordinances and regulations are duly obtained. Agenda Item No. 16 (discussed out of order). Clarification of Intent. re: Rezoning of Land for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the purpose of this Work session is to seek the guidance of the Board prior to advertising for a public hearing on the rezoning of certain lands in Crozet, Ivy, Scottsville and Earlysville. Mr. Tucker then mentioned several areas in each of the areas listed where the staff had questions about the zoning category which matches recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan. After a short discussion, it was the general concensus of most of the Board members that the changes be set for public hearing, with property owners being notified, and the Board would take a more in-depth look at the proposals at the public hearing. Agenda Item No. 19. Report from Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 2:45 P.M.) Mr. Agnor said that legislation adopted in 1982 required that local governing bodies develop a plan to Coordinate long-term care services to prevent inappro- priate and unnecessary institutional care and provide appropriate long-term care in the home and community settings. This task was undertaken by the Planning District Commission and a report is ready. J.Uly 13, 1983 (Regular Day Meeting) Mrs. Jane Saunier from the Planning District Commission said there were seventeen representatives from six different localities who participated in this process. Information received from the State Long-Term Care Council said that this committee was not to develop a comprehensive plan for coordinating community based long-term care services for the frail elderly, but the State Council was only interested in determining the level of services that are delivered in the community both by the private sector and the public sector. Mrs. Saunier said that there has been a prescreening process in effect for a long time when a person wanted to enter a nursing home and received State Medicaid funds, and about seventy-five percent of the individuals applying are admitted to a nursing home. The State is interested in finding out what happens to the other twenty-five percent. Does the family care for that person, is it a combination of public services such as a companion, or just what is the combination of public and private services that the individual receives, and how much do these services cost. The Long-Term Care Coordinating Committee developed a procedure to collect and report information requested by the State's Council (see pages 4 and 5 of the report). All information is forwarded to the State Council at a given point in time. The pro~ess for collection of data drawn by this Committee meets the State mandate and if the Board feels the process is appropriate, the Committee asks that the procedure and report be approved. Mr. Agnor noted that he had reviewed the report and it seems to meet the State's mandate, and will have no impact on County staff. Mrs. Saunier said that the agencies involved haYe helped to design the process and do not feel this information gathering will tax their resources. There will probably be no more than thirty-five people who will have to be tracked each quarter from all six jurisdictions. Mrs. Saunier said the information gathering was to have started in July, but the Virginia Office on Aging asked the staff of the Virginia Long- Term Care Council to have the localities wait for three months before beginning since they wanDed to test the procedure first in the Richmond locality. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the "Long-Term Care Report and Plan for Data Collecting, Virginia Planning District Ten" prepared for the Counties of Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa, and Nelson and the City of Charlottesville, by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, May, 1983. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash, None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 21. Disposition of McIntire School Building. Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum of July 8, 198B, addressed to the Board on this subject: "The School Board has declared the McIntire School property as surplus to their needs effective July l, 1983. Their action, when recorded in the Clerk of the Circuit Court's office, transfers the property to the Board of Supervisors. The building currently houses the following agencies: 1. County School Media Center which will be transferred to the County Office Building upon completion of Phase II remodeling in October or November. 2. County School McIntire Day Program, a program for emotionally handi- capped students, occupying approximately 2,700 square feet, needed for the 1983-84 school year. 3. County and City V.P.I. and S.U. Extension office which will be trans- ferred to the County Office Building upon completion of Phase II remodeling this fall. 4. The Y.M.C.A. which has rented for several years approximately 9,300 square feet, and would like to continue to rent the space for approximately two more years until the Daily Progress building renovations are complete (Market Street property given to the United Way). To my knowledge there is no County government need for the building, other than the McIntire Day Program. The building contains about 15,650 square feet and has recently cost $35,000 to $40,000 per year for utilities alone. Maintenance in recent years has been minimal, and is difficult to estimate. Insurance costs included in blanket coverage of all buildings will add to the costs of owning and maintaining the property. Ownership obviously must continue until present occupants relocate. The Media Center and Extension Service can move in four to five months. The McIntire Day Program and Y.M.C,A. have no plans to date for relocating. I am advised by Mr. Papenfuse that the 1983-84 school budget does not include- funds for the continued costs associated with the building. It is recommended.that approval be given for the property to be sold, and until sold, the use of the building be self-supporting. From July through October, it is recommended that the four occupants pay a monthly rental fee sufficient to carry the cost of utilities, insurance, and maintenance related to usage, divided among the occupants on the basis of the square footage which they occupy. Upon relocation of two of the occupants in October/November, it is recommended that the remaining occupants be charged a monthly fee that will carry the costs of the use of the building that is in excess to the costs for a maintenance level that prevents freezing and vandalism. Confinement of the Building's~use to one area, with valving off of the heating system in other areas, can provide some reduction in utility costs. It is my'understanding that the McIntire School Day Program can be relocated through rental of other property, if necessary. Relocation of the Y.M.C.A. is more difficult. Upon notification of the occupants that the property is to be approximately self-supporting, a timetable to accomplish the sale and possibly meet the needs of the occupants can be established." July 13, 1983 (Re~N~ar Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor said this is a large building and hard to operate. Since writing this memo- randum, conversations with persons at the Y-.M.C.A. reveal that they need more space than iSm!~ presently occupied, and it may be possible for them to pay an increased amount of rent. Mr.~ Agnor said the Board is familiar with the process for selling property, but he would restate that the property must be declared surplus to County needs, and then a value determined. The value could be set either through the auction process (which he would not recommend) or by the taking of bids after an appraisal has been made. This property is located within the confines of the City of Charlottesville and is actually zoned R-l, which is a low-density type of residential use. The use of the facility has been allOwed to continue as being related to its school use. Mr. Fisher asked what maximum residential use could be made of the entire property based on its land area. Mr. Agnor said he had not tried to make that determination yet, because he was not sure the Board would agree to selling the property. Mr. Fisher said that some of the most imaginative uses of old school buildings has been~ a conversion to housing~ Mr. Fisher said he was not sure that the County hash looked at all public uses that might be made of the property, and he feels that is needed before the Board~ makes a decision. Mr. Agnor asked if when Mr. Fisher referred to public uses, if he was referring to uses which are government related, or community related. Mr. Fisher said he had~ not'thought just in terms of agencies which the County partially supports,.but was thinking about the area of housing because the property is already zoned for residential use. Mr. Agnor said the appraisal process will appraise the property for its highest and best use. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Planning Staff should look at the building and then give the Board some ideas for its use taking into consideration such thingS as access, size of parcel, eto~ (Mr. Butler left the meeting at 3:02 P.M.) Mr. Fisher said he would agree to start the process for getting an appraisal, but felt the staff should make some recommendations on what might be the greater needs of the community which are not being met at this time. (Mr. Butler returned to the meeting at 3:10 P..M.) Agenda Item No. 2~. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a letter dated July 7, 1983, from the Prince Edward County Board of Supervisors, asking that this Board chastise the General Assembly for its position on the funding of Constitutional Officers and the salaries set for said officers. Mr. Fisher said he would not recommend that any action be taken by this Board on the request. The other members agreed. Mr. Agnor said that he and Mr. Jones have discussed the change in the budgets of the consti- tutional officers and will be bringing back budget adjustments at next month's meeting. Agenda Item No. 22. Executive Session: PerSonnel. At 3:1~ P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn into executive session for personnel, namely to interview applicants for various boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened into open session at ~:~ P.M. Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. Fred C. McCormick to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals for~a term to expire on August 21, 1988. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded bY Miss Nash, to reappoint George W. Bailey and James L. Higgins, to the Criminal Justice Advisory Council, for terms to expire on June 30, 198~. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash to appoint Mrs. Sally Grymes Gieck to the Library Board of DirectOrs for a term which will expire on June 30, 1986 (this appoint- ment is to fill out the unexpired term of a person who had resigned) The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by MiSs Nash, to appoint Ms. J. Rose Farber to the Youth Commission, said term to expire on Jule l, 198~ (this appOintment is made to replace a person who had resigned). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. July 20, 198B (Regular Night Meeting) July ~, 198B (Regular Day Meeting) 297 Mr. Fisher noted that there is some urgency to filling the vacant position on the Jail Board. Agenda Item No. 24° Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Butler made a brief statement about a meeting he attended in Blacksburg last week with the State Extension Advisory Committee. He attended a lecture by Mr. Whitmere on agriculture, from the present time into the future. The presentation focused on the United States being the provider of approXimately one-third of the world's food and the fact that about one million acres of agricultural land is being lost to development each year. Mr. Butler also noted that there is a big need for extension work and the fact that the Federal government is cutting back the amount of funds it has been providing for this purpose. Only two percent of the Congressional vote is now for agriculture, so a hard sell is needed to get any support of same. Mr. Butler said the Advisory Committee has been broken into two groups, and he has been put on the public relations side. Agenda Item No. 25. adjourned at 4:55 P.M. Adjourn. With no further business to conduct, the meeting was July 20, 198B (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held,on July 20, 198B, at ?:50 P.M., in Meeting Room 71, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and J. To Henley, Jr. and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John~ and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at ?:B2 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item~No. la. Consent Agenda. The following three street light requests were presented from the County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod, for Board approval: A street light request on State Route 715 in Esmont; A street light request on Buck Mountain Road (State Route 789) approximately 400 feet north of the intersection with St. George Avenue (State Route 1202); A street light request in Hessian Hills SubdiMision on the north side of Angus Road to be installed on pole #X0-78-44. This request for installation of the light to be on a shared cost basis; specifically, Mr. James F. Nelms, a homeowner has agreed to incur one-half of the construction cost, or $111.50, if the County will incur a similar amount. Motion to approve the consent agenda as presented was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda ItemNo. 2. SP-SB-4B. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department/Charlottesville- Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc. Request to amend SP-78-?0 by deleting condition requiring emergency connector road between Berkmar and Commonwealth Drives and to require that alignment of this future road still be shown on the site plan. Located on B.B acres zoned C-l, 2/10 mile south of Route 6B1 and on west side of Berkmar DriVe. County Tax Map 61-M-U, Parcels 12-1G and 12-1F. Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 5 and July 12, 198B.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the following staff report: "Location: Property described as Tax Map 61-M-U, Parcels 12-1G and 12-1F, is located on the west side of Berkmar Drive, and is zoned C-l, Commercial. History: In prior special use permit and site plan approvals the applicants were required to make provisions for a new public road to connect Berkmar Drive and Commonwealth Drive and to provide emergency access from the site into Berkeley Subdivision.