Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-09-07343 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 7, 1983, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Secoqd Floor, County Office Building, 401 MCIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr~ James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Acting County Executive, Ray B. Jones; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 1.A. Consent Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that there were four items of information on the Consent Agenda. Motion to note receipt of the following items was offered by'Mrs. Cooke, 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. Agenda Item No. 1.A.1. Report of the County Executive for the month of June, 1983 was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15 !~/~-. 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 June, 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 $ 865.1'5 918,392.57 4,663,650.84 76,354.85 45,690.28 130,285.39 9,432.47 243,825.93 386.63 255.580.99 $6,344,465.10 Item No. 1.A.2. Received copy of Superintendent's Group Handbook for the Albemarle County Public Schools for 1983-1984. Item No. 1.A.3. Received a copy of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report of the Albemarle County Service Authority for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1983. Item No. 1.A.4. Received copy of the Monthly Building Activity Report for the month of July, 1983 from the Planning and Community Development Department. Agenda Item No. 2 3, 1983.) Agenda Item No. 3 3, 1983.) Agenda Item No. 4 ZMA-8-37. SP-83-38. SP-83-39. John L. and Elizabeth W. Wildermuth. (Deferred from August John L. and Elizabeth w. Wildermuth. (Deferred from August John L. Wildermuth. (Deferred from August 3, 1983.) Mr. Fisher has been advised of a written request from the applicants for deferral to October 19, 1983. A motion is made to defer this petition to October 19, 1983, by Mr. Butler seconded by Mr. Henley. The roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-83-50. Swift Air Delivery, Inc., Request to locate truck terminal on .99 acre out of 10 acres zoned Light Industrial, LI. Located on Wahoo Drive, northern side of Rt. 649, one-half mile west of intersection with Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E (part). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31, 1983.') (Mr. Lindstrom abstains as applicants are clients of his firm. meeting room at 7:32 p.m.) He leaves the Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, was present and presented the following staff report: "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Truck Terminal 0.99 acres LI Light Industrial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 17E (part), is located on the north side of Route 649 about three-fourths mile west of Route 29 North. 344 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Character of the Area: This site is located in the Airport Center'industrial subdivision and is bordered on all sides by property zoned LI. To the southeast is a dwelling on property zoned LI. Staff Comment: Swift Air Delivery ia an air freight trucking business requiring location near the airport. SP-80-37 authorized Swift Air to occupy 1200 square feet in an existing building on Lot 2. Swift Air proposes to construct a larger facility consisting of a 3600 square foot building area on Lot 3. Staff opinion is that this use is: compatible to the area; an airport related industry; and complies with the Comprehensive Plan which recommends industrial use in the area. Staff recommends approval." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 2, 1983 unanimously recommended approval of this petition as presented. Mr. Fisher asked the status of SP-80-37. Mr. Tucker answered that SP-80-37 has now ex- pired,.adding that the special permit was good for oniy eighteen months. Swift Air was going to use an existing building, but never located in that building and now needs a larger facilityJ Mr. Fisher then asked about entrance requirements. Mr. Tucker responded that since this facility will be located in an industrial subdivision, there is already a commercial entrance built according to plans and specifications approved by the Highway Department. Miss Nash asks if Swift Air Delivery owns or will lease the land. Mr. Tucker responds that he understands Swift Air will be purchasing Lot 3 from the owners of this industrial subdivision. Mr. Fisher_asks if the owner of the property is also an applicant for this special permit. Mr. Tucker answers that Mr. Pietsch, the owner of the property actually signed, but the applicant is Swift Air. ~t was then ascertained that no one was present to represent Swift Air Delivery, Inc. Fisher suggested deferring this petition until later in the meeting. Mr. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-83-11. T. Thomas Kangur, D.M.D., M.S. and Helge T. Kangur. Request to rezone 1.83 acres out of 2.33 acres from R-4 to CO, Commercial Office. Located eastern side of Route 743, across from Albemarle High School. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 27A (part). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 24 and August 31, 1983.) When Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting, Mr. Fisher noted that the applicant for Swift Air was not present and that the petition will be taken up later in the meeting. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning.:. Acreage: Existing Zoning: CO Commercial Office 1.948 acres R-4 Residential Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 27A (part), is located on the east side of Hydraulic Road '(Route 743) about 300 feet south of Lamb's Road (Route 657) across from Albemarle High School. Character of the Area: Oak Forest Subdivision, zoned R-4, is to the east. A day care center was approved for R-4 property to the south in 1978. To the north, and served by the same access road as this property, are offices zoned Commercial Office. A portion of this property (0.5 acres) was recently recommended by the Planning Commission to be rezoned from R-4 to CO (ZMA-83-11 Phillip Halapin~)'¥ A dwelling exists on this property. are available. Public water and sewer Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial office and low-density resident±al uses in this area. Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with the commercial land use standards of the plan and recommends the proposal to be consistent with those~'~. standards. Staff Comment: Staff has reviewed this petition for consistency with rezoning criteria as set forth in Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Statement of Intent of the CO Commercial Office district. Staff offers the following comments and observations: The request is substantially consistent with the rezoning criteria of Sections 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance as well as the Statement of Intent of the CO zone and the Comprehensive Plan. Public utilities are available to the property. Improvements to Hydraulic Road are underway. The Highway Department has stated that the existing commercial entrance is adequate for increased usage. Access to the property serves adjacent office uses. Office zoning appears to be a logical action. Expansion of Commercial Staff identified no particular areas of concern regarding this petition which would warrant an approach other than a conventional rezoning. Staff recommends approval of this rezoning petition as s~/~t~t~ad!." 345 September 7~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 2, 1983 recommended approval by a 4 to 1 vote of this rezoning petition. Mr. Tucker added that he brought a topographic map of the area indicating the earlier Halapin property in order to refresh the Board's memory (requested by the Board at the August 3 meeting). Mr. Tucker noted for the Board, properties which drain toward the South Fork Rivanna reservoir, and those that drain away from the reservoir. Mr. Lindstrom asked the concern of the Planning Commission member casting the dissenting ~ote. Mr. Tucker replied that it was due to transportation problems which might be created along Hydraulic Road from commercial office usage. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is currently an entrance and exit from this property. Mr. Tucker answered that there is an existing entran which serves the other commercial office property in front of this property, so there is a circular road going from Whitewood Road to Hydraulic Road serving this property. The public hearing was then opened. Dr. Kangur, applicant, was-present. He had nothing further to add to the request and asked that the petition be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission. There being no one else from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Kangur if he proposes to use the existing structure on the property. Dr. Kangur answered that he intends to build a new structure on the property which will be used primarily as professional offices. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if it is possible for this property to be developed so all the drainage will be away from the South Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Tucker said he did not think there is any way the property can be regraded to shift the drainage completely away from the Reser- voir or from that drainage basin. Mr. Tucker said the applicant will have to comply with all runoff control measures. Mrs. Cooke asked the function of'the existing dwelling on the property. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. Dr. Kangur replied that it wQuld be used as a rental, residential property for several years until the rest of the property is developed. He added that it is anticipated that the building may be renovated and possibly also used for professional offices. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there are presently about five acres in this area which are un- developed and which drain to the South Fork Rivanna reservoir. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board had discussed the issue of the land lying in the South Fork Rivanna reservoir when the Halapin application was presented. He believed the Board felt, and the County Attorney agreed that it was reasonab!'e to draw a boundary line between the watershed an--~Hydraulic Road since it is the most prominent geographic feature in the area. To determine the exact location of the ridge linetwould be difficuZt. Considering the ~m~[$~mount of acreage that could be effected, Mr. Lindstrom said, it will be difficult to deny a rezonlng os adjacent parcels based on watershed considerations~, if the Board rezones the Kangur Property. There max be other reasons to deny a rezoning request, but that one would not be applicable. Given th~~ and the Staff report, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve ZMA-83-11 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Butler seconds the motion. Mr. Fisher said he finds it very difficul~ to support the motion He said the property in question seems to be very different from the adjacent parcel (Halapini where most, or almost all of the property, lies outside the watershed. Almost al.1 of this parcel lies within the watershed. Mr. Fisher stated that it is a considerable amount of land to be developed and he cannot support the motion. Miss Nash asked if there is any entrance to the property other than the one narrow road that goes straight to the property. Mr. Tucker said the road also serves the existing office buildings which are adjacent to Dr. Kangur's property and as he had indicated earlier, it loops around to Whitewood Road. Miss Nash asked what would happen if Parcel B were further developed ~th reference to the exit onto Hydraulic Road. Mr. Tucker said that at the time a site plan is submitted, the Planning Commission will be able to review this particular access road to determine if it is adequate to handle the additional office usage proposed. Mr. Tucker added that if there are left-hand turns anticipated out of this particular road onto Hydraulic Road, most people will probably use the Whitewood Road access so they can make the left turn movement through signalization (there will eventually b~ a light at Whitewood and Hydraulic). Mr. Tucker added that the Whitewood Road access, is the only access point that the Planning CommiS- sion and staff will support. With no further discussion of the petition, roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. (Miss Nash said she believes the reservoir issue has been discussed so much that the Board would be on dangerous ground if it continued to allow development beyond Hydraulic Road.) Agenda Item No. 5- meeting.) SP-83-50. Swift Air Delivery, Inc. (Deferred from earlier in the (Mr. Lindstrom abstains and leaves the room.) Mr. Fisher asked if a representative from Swift Air Delivery was present. Mr. Robert Forrest acknowledged his presence. Mr. Fisher then told Mr. Forrest that the Staff's Report had been presented earlier. He then opened the public hearing asking Mr. Forrest to make a statement. 346 September 7, 198.3 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Forrest said that his request was recommended for approval unanimously at the August 2, 1983, meeting of the Planning Commission. Swift Air has been operating a terminal in a building at the site for three years under a special use permit. He has now ~signed a contract to purchase a piece of property at the present location and intends to construct a building to provide more adequate facilities. Mr. Fisher asked if Swift Air is in fact operating now on an adjacent parcel. Mr. Forrest answered that he leases space in a warehouse operated by Manson and Utley. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Forrest if he is operating under special permit 80-37. Mr. Forrest responded in the affirm.-., mative. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Forrest if S?-80-37 had been issued to him. Mr. Forrest replied that the-special permit had been issued to Swift Air Delivery approximately three years ago. Mr. Fisher said that since special permits stay in existence forever unless something is done to cancel them or the use is discontinued, would Mr. Forrest object to having special permit 80-37 voided simultaneously with approval of the new request. Mr. Forrest answered that he would have no objection. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher recommended that if the Board intended to approve this request, a condition should be added to void the previously issued SP-80-37. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke to approve SP-83-50, as recommended by the Planning Commission adding condition number 1 reading: "SP-80-37 will be automatically void at the time the approved site under SP-80-37 is vacated." The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom ' Agenda Item No. 7. SP-83-47. Cecil H. or Doris M. Gardner. Request to locate a mobile home on 16 acres zoned RA, Rural Acres. Located on the east side of Route 600 approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the intersection of Routes 22 and 600, Rivanna Magisterial District. County Tax Map 65, Parcel 20. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 12, 1983.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Acreage: Zoning: Mobile Home 16 acres RA, Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 65, Parcel 20, is located on the east side of Route 600, approximately 1/2 mile southeast of the intersection of Route 22 and Route 600. Character of the Area: The surrounding properties are heavily wooded. There are several other homes in the area but these are not visible from the mobile home location. The Gardners' property is open from Route 600 to the existing home. The mobile home is located behind and slightly below the house and the residue acreage is heavily wooded. Staff Comment: According to the applicants, the mobile home has been located on the property since 1976 and has been used for storage. A memo to the file from then-Zoning Administrator, Mr. Benjamin Dick, concerning a 1976 violation on the Gardner site listed a number of vehicles and other materials located on the property. No mention was made concerning a mobile home. (Letters concerning the 1976 violation, V-76-11, Cecil Gardner, are on file in the Clerk's Office.) In June of 1983, Mr. Andrew Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator, investigating a complaint on the Gardners' property, examined the site and informed Mr. Gardner that two wrecked vans located on the property must be removed and that other vehicles located on the site must be screened from view by a stockade-type fence. Completion of this fence, Mr. Gardner was advised, must occur by August 30, 1983. Mr. Evans also informed the Gardners at that time that mobile homes could not be utilized for storage and that issuance of a special use permit for the_ mobile home was required in order to retain it on the property. Due to the location of the mobile home behind the house and the fact that the land slopes downwards gently from the house, it is the Staff's opinion that the mobile home would not be visible to any existing homes. It is possible that were a house to be built on Parcel 20A, located adjacent to the Gardners' property on the south side, the mobile home might be visible depending on the location of that building. At the August 16, 1983, Planning Commission meeting, during review of SP-83-47, the applicants stated that they intended to continue using the mobile home for storage. Members of the Planning Commission expressed their concern about approving a special use permit for a mobile home when the applicants had stated in public that they intended to use the mobile home for a use that was not permitted (i.e., storage). The Planning Commission was also concerned with a possible violation of Article 4.13.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Should the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, Staff recommends the following conditions: September 7~ 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Mobile home to be retained in existing location and a sketch to be submitted with dimensions noting current location; 3. Completion of stockade-type fence to satisfaction of Zoning Administrator prior to issuance of the special use permit. Mr. Tucker said~the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 16, 1983, in a t'ie vote, denied the petition. Mr. Tucker added that three members of the Planning Commission felt that ~he permit should not be approved because the applicants indicated that the mobile home would continue to be used for storage. The other three Planning Commission members voted to approve this petition because the Gardners' indicated that at some time in the future they might use the mobile home for residential purposes. Mr. Fisher referred to the length of the staff report and said there have obviously been frequent discussions between the Gardners, the County and the Gardner's neighbors. He then asked for comments from Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator. Mr. Vaughn then briefly outlined the history of the automobiles located on the property. Mr. Vaughn said the first complaint was received on January 27, 1976. A considerable number of automobiles were located on the property at that time, but no count was reported. On May 18, 1976 an agreement was made between the then-Zoning Administrator, and the Gardners to remove all the junk cars and retain only the antique cars (approximately twelve or thirteen cars). Mr. Vaughn felt it reasonable to assume that the Zoning Administrator at that time had determined that the remaining cars could be made operative thus not being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr.Vaug~~ said that two inoperable vehicles were permitted under Section 16A of the Zoning Ordinance. ~t a meeting on May 18, 1976, the Gardners indicated that they would apply for a special use permit for a public garage. On July 6, 1976, the Planning staff wrote a staff report on the request for a public garage. On July 26, 1976, a new Zoning Administrator, Mr. Benjamin Dick, had a meeting with the Gardners and their attorney, Mr. James Murray. It was decided at this meeting that since Mr. Gardner was not going to be doing repair work for the public, the term public garage was not applicable. On July 29, 1976, the application for a special permit was withdrawn. Mr. Vaughn continued, that on August 2, 1976, Mr. Dick wrote a memo for the file after making an on-site inspection. It is noted in the memo that Mr. Gardner had already removed sixty to eighty vehicles from the property. Mr. Vaughn said this was the end of the case at the time and it seems that no further action was taken on the complaint. Mr. Vaughn stated that on March 14, 1983, an anonymous complaint was received by his office again regarding the number of automobiles on the Gardner property. An inspection was made by the Zoning inspector, Mr. Thacker, who basically found the same automobiles that were on this property in 1976, with the exception of three wrecked vehicles. The three wrecked vehicles were described by Mr. Vaughn as two vans and a Chevrolet station wagon. The other vehicles included a 1953 Pontiac, a 1937 Chevrolet, a 1963 Ford Thunderbird, an early 60's model Lincoln Continental, a Continental convertible and five Monticello Dairy trucks. The Gardners were told they must remove the wrecked vans and wrecked station wagon from the and he understood that has been done. In addition, Mr. Va~ghn reported, in reviewing the old files, he found an agreement about screening the antique cars in order to comply with zoning ordinance requirements. An agreement was reached in 1976 between the Gardners and Mr. Clark to screen an indefinite number of cars from adjacent properties. Mr. Andrew Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator, stated that he has received good cooperation from the Gardners who have agreed to move the vehicles next to an existing structure and install an eight-foot fence to screen the vehicles thus rendering them invisible to the public road and bordering properties. Mr. Vaughn said the Gardners began construction of the fence but the zoning staff delayed completion of the fence because it was being installed on a VEPC0 easement. Mr. Gardner has recently brought him a letter from VEPCO giving permission to construct the fence on the easement. Mr. Vaughn said Mr. Gardner has been cooperative in honoring agreements made several years ago with previous zoning admininstrato~s. Mr. Vaughn stated that on the last inspection, Mr. Evans noticed the mobile home and had advised the Gardners they would have to remove the mobile home or obtain a special use permit. Mr. Fisher asked i.f it was based on this inspection that the Gardners applied to keep the mobile home and Mr. Vaughn-responded in the affirmative. Miss Nash asked Mr. Vaughn for the definition of a mobile home. Mr. Vaughn read the definition from the Zoning Ordinance, the intent being that the unit be "designed to be used without a permanent foundation for continuous year round occupancy as ~dwelling..." Mr. Lindstrom asked if this unit was designed to be used as a dwelling. Mr. Vaughn answered yes. Miss Nash asked if this particular building was designed to be used as a dwelling and if it contained plumbing fixtures. Mr. Vaughn stated that the mobile home has been used for storage and the Gardners have not applied for permits (water and septic system)~ Miss Nash then asked Mr. Vaughn if the Gardners could move in and sleep in the mobile unit. Mr. Vaughn answered yes, after obtaining the proper permits. Miss Nash reiterated her question stressing the "phYsical possibility" of the Gardners living in the mobile unit, aside from having to obtain permits. Mr. Vaughn said that he did not know. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Doris Gardner, applicant, was present and rose to speak. Mrs. Gardner stated that they want to keep the trailer because they have children. They have not bothered to fix it up, but the trailer can be hooked to water; all that.is required is for the electricity and the plumbing to be connected. She assured:the Board that with a "little work" the mobile unit would be liveable Mr. Fisher said the Board had struggled many times over approval of mobile home permits where there were conflicts between neighbors. In many cases the Board had approved these permits because the mobile unit was to be the applicant~!Shome. Mr. Fisher commented to Mrs. Gardner'that he understands she and her family dO have another place to live and the mobile unit in question is not their primary residence. Mrs. Gardner responded that she has a~:home sitting in front of the mobile unit. However, she does have children who may need a home to live in and she does have an aunt currently living in the Towers. They have considered re- modeling the mobile unit for her aunt as a residence, but were not aware they needed a permit to do so. Mrs. Gardner said she had called and asked if a permit was necessary when the trailer was moved onto the property. Mrs. Gardner said she was told that as long as no one was living in the unit, a permit was not required. She had not realized that a permit was neces~ ~y until just recently. Mrs. Gardner then presented Mr. Fisher and the Board with a letter '348 September 7~ 1~8~ (Regular Night Meetin.~._~ ....... from one of her neighbors with the comment that this was the only neighbor who could "see the place." She also stated that the two neighboring owners, Dr. Kingsley and Dr. May, who live directly across the road from her property and looked directly toward her house, have said they do not object to the trailer. Mr. Fisher then read into the record a letter dated September 6, 1983, from Mrs. Herbert Lamb; "I do approve for Cecil and Doris Gardner to have a house trailer on their land." There being no one else present to address this issue, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom reiterated Mr. Fisher's earlier statement regarding the Board's struggles with mobile home permits. Mr Lindstrom said he has never had a problem approving a permit when' the mobile home is needed as a dwelling. He added that according to the statements made tonighl this mobile unit had been on the property for some time and never been used as a dwelling, and it seems that their use of the mobile home in the future as a dwelling is speculative. On this basis, Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support issuance of this special use permit. Mrs. Cooke said she shared Mr. Lindstrom's views when individuals request use of mobile homes as a residence. In this case, she added, the Gardners have adequate housing and she could not see the need to support this motion when the mobile home is not necessary for an immediate dwelling need. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to deny SP-83-47. Mr. Butler said he had a problem with the application, because this mobile home is located in a rural area and he feels most people require storage spaces. He was not sure what the ordinance required of a home when there is a need for storage of equipment and materials. Mrs. Butler said that he certainly respects the Planning Commission's concern about providing cle.an and acceptable homes in a community, but he feels the Board should be considerate of people who have similar problems. He added that he did not know the financial situation of the family as it relates to making provisions for storage of materials. Mrs. Cooke was interested in the wording of the ordinance concerning out-buildings and storage buildings. Mr. Tucker responded that storage buildings and out-buildings are con-- sidered to be accessory uses and no permit is required other than possibly a building permit. He added that it was not necessary to obtain a permit for an accessory building. Mr. Fisher said he did not want to set a precedent and felt mobile homes should be approve~ onlY as necessary homes for the people who apply for permits. Mr. Fisher said he believes that the Board has, in the past, approved over ninety-five percent of the requests made by individ- ~uals who needed mobile homes as their place of residence. Mr. Fisher said to expand such use county-wide as storage units could potentially create many units which would not pass inspec;.~ - f tion or would be falling down on the property in a few years. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion. Miss Nash said she was still confused about this request. Mr. Evans initially inspected the Gardner property because of a complaint about vehicles. Then, suddenly, the Gardners are required to have a special permit for the mobile home. Mr. St. John said he would like to speak. In his opinion this is not really a regular mobile home application because the Gardners have not used the unit as a dwelling and have not stated that they intend to use it as a dwelling. Mr. St. John felt the real question is whether or not a mobile home, or a structure that was built to be a mobile home, can be used as an accessory structure to the existing dwelling on the property. He said that this question: is not before the Board, but was already decided by the Zoning Administrator when he ruled that a mobile home cannot be used for storage or as an accessory structure. Mr. St. John said that decision of the Zoning Administrator could have been appealed to the Board o.f Zoning Appeals at that time by the parties. Instead, they requested this special use permit which, if approved, would mean that the mobile home could not only continue to be used as a storage unit but could also be used as any other mobile home permit, or as a dwelling. Mr. St. John said this appli- cation came to the Board "through the back door" and should be treated as if the mobile unit is to be used as a dwelling, and not as a storage unit because that question is not before the Board at this time. Mr. St. John said the Board is not the body who interprets the Zoning Ordinance. That question is for the Zoning Administrator and has already been answered by the Zoning Administrator; his interpretation, concluded Mr. St.John, was not appealed. Miss Nash asked what will happen if the Board denies the mobile home permit. Will the Gardners have to remove their storage unit or reappear before the Board at another time. '~r. St. John answered that if the request is denied, the Gardners will either have to move the mobile home and make other arrangements for their storage or they will have to request an amendment to the zoning ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Gardners have not requested the permit in order to live in the mobile home. He said the applicants may have been mislead by the staff into thinking this was a feasible way to solve the problem, but he does not feel this is the proper way to handle the matter. With no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion to deny SP-83-47 carried:by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Butler. .349 September 7~ 198~ ~Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8. Ashcroft Water System. It was noted that a letter dated August 22, 1983, from Mr. Gary Cooper, President, Liberty Land Limited, had brought this request before the Board. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, noted that at the May 11, 1983, meeting of the Board, a request was received to increase the number of allowable connections to the Ashcroft central well system. Original approval for the well limited connections to twenty-six dwelling units. Mr. Elrod stated that twenty-six building permits have been issued and the homes ~re under construction. The Building Inspections Department has begun withholding building permits in this subdivision, although there are sixty-three lots recorded. The developer has prepared plans for connecting to the public water supply and has submitted those plans to the Virginia State Health Department and the Albemarle County Service Authority for review. Both of these agencies have commented on these plans and returned same to the engineer for changes. Mr. E!rod said the storage ta~kand transmission line to which this subdivision w~ll connect are under construction by the~~a and Sewer Authority, but there is a problem with multiple leaks in the line. The contractor has been having a very difficult time attempting to find and repair the leaks. Mr. Elrod continued, that right at the moment it is difficult to predict when the facilities will be available. Given this background, Mr. Elrod stated, the request from the developer was discussed by members of the Planning Department staff, Engineering ~epartment staff and the Service Authority. These persons agreed to recommend that the devet- loper post a bond for the cost of connecting his existing private system to the public water sUPply. When a bond has been posted and the plans approved by both the Health Department and the Service Authority, it is further recommended that the developer be allowed as many connec- tions as the Health Department will permit. Mr. Elrod stated that on September 2, 1983, when he wrote his report on this request, he did not know the number of connections the Health Depart- ment would approve. Today, Mr. Elrod spoke with Jim Moore, the Area Engineer from Lexington, who stated that based on usage records presented him by the developer, the developer would be permitted a total of thirty-five connections utilizing the one well. Mr. Elrod felt that Mr. Moore's decision, as well as the Engineering Department's recommendation, is based on the fact that connection to the water supply is imminent and the belief that the County will not have to go through another dry season. Therefore, Mr. Elrod felt allowing the developer to go from twenty-six connections to thirty-five is agreeable to all parties concerned. Mr. Elrod feels that having a bond posted for this connection to the public water supply is one method of guaranteeing that the developer will carry through with the work. Mr. Fisher asked if the bond can cover not only the contractor's fees but also the admin- istrative costs involved if the County should have to exercise the bond. Mr. Elrod responded that in the past six months, a ten percent contingency factor has been added to the amount of the bond due to the fact that even though these plans be approved there is no way of knowing the exact costs. Mr. Elrod said that in addition to that contingency amount, another ten percent has been added for administrative costs. Mr. Elrod said the amount has not been set for this bond because the plans have not been approved. There were a number of changes in the plans by both the Health Department and the Albemarle Service Authority, therefore Mr. Elrod did not want to make any estimate until he knew the specific changes. Mr. F±sher co~_ ~e~ted that Mr. Eirod had written in his memo of September 2, 1983 that the bond would be set to expire on January 10, 1984 and would be renewed only if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority facilities were not operational. Mr. Elrod said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said it appears that Mr. Elrod and the staff are looking at this as a short term solution. Mr. Elrod responded that this was indeed the case. Authority Mr. Elrod said he cannot predict how soon the Rivanna Water and Sewer/facilities will be a~ailable. A contract has been issued for the work and it is fully bonded. He stressed his belief that public facilities will soon be in operation. Mr. Lindstrom commented that in his view, Mr. Elrod is essentially depending on Health Department standards and evaluations to set the number of connections to the well. Mr. Elrod said that the existing well essentially serYes twenty-six connections based on flow rate, however, the homes in this subdivision are actually using less water than expected. The Health Department has reevaluated and now states that thirty-five connections may be allowed to the well. Mr. Fisher was concerned that if the homeowners run out of water, the Board of Supervisors will be blamed, and not the Health Department. Mr. Elrod said that based on records, it has been established that the average use in this subdivision is between 270 and 300 gallons per day. Mr. Elrod said that the present situation is such that if the developer never makes the connection to the public system, there will be twenty-six homes with no way of obtaining water. Mr. Elrod~said he feels that with the bond which will be taken to insure the connection, plus the fact that the Rivanna Authority has also bonded construction of its facilities, these facilities will be in the ground by next summer at the latest, and the two systems hooked together. Mr. Fisher asked when the public water line was to have been ready for use. Mr. Elrod replied that it was to have been ready on June 30, 1983, however, because of numerous problems on the project, no one at this time can accurately estimate a completion date. Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority was present and agreed with Mr. Elrod's comments. Miss Nash asked if the topography in the area is contributing to the problem. Mr. Elrod said this project not only required that the Rivanna River be crossed, but also that water be pumped up hill to 'the Rivanna's storage tank (which is actually located on Ashcroft property~ The developer will have to pump the water further up hill from this storage tank to a second storage tank in order to feed water into the system that will service the houses. Mr. Lindstrom noted that Mr. Etrod, in his memorandum dated September 2, 1983, expresses h~s feeling that increasing the number of connections to this well system is worth the gamble in order to get the bond. Mr. Lindstrom said this is obviously a "deal" since the developer does not have to post a bond, likewise the County does not have to issue any more building permits. Mr. Fisher said he has serious misgivings regarding the worth of a bond if water is n~t .available. At this time, motion was made by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nas~ to accept the recommendations of the County Engineer, which are as follows: 350 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) "(1) To require the developer to post a performance bond in an amount sufficient to construct the connection to the Albemarle County Service Authority facilities. The bond will be set to expire on January 10, 1984 and will be renewed only if the facilities are not operational. Otherwise, the bond will be called and the County will construct the connection and the Albemarle County Service Authority will assume the maintenance of the Ashcroft system. (2) To amend the original central well permit and to allow the issuance of 9 (nine) additional building permits - total number not to exceed 35. These additional permits will not be issued, however, until the plans for the connection are approved by the Health Department and the Albemarle County Service Authority and the bond for that construction is posted with the County. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels some sympathy for the developer in that he is being delayed by problems the Rivanna Authority is having in terms of completing the public facilities to which~ this subdivision will connect, however, he will rely on the staff's judgment that the contracts design and construction of the facilities will provide the water in the near future. There being no further discussion, 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. Not Docketed. Mr. Lindstrom noted the progress being made on construction of the George- town Road Walkway, and commented to Mr. Elrod that people are actually taking notice of the project. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-83-73. Ralph and Ruby Taylor. Request for extension of special use permit for mobile home; said permit to expire on September 1, 1983. County Tax Map 071, Parcel 33D1. Mr. Fisher called the Board's attention to the report prepared by Miss Lettie Neher and read copy of same as follows: "On December 15, 1982, the Board heard a request for SP-82-73 requesting a two-year extension on a previous permit for a mobile home. After a long discussion, the Board approved the request for SP-82-73 but changed the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Those original conditions read:~ 1) This special use permit is intended to permit the use of the mobile home only as an interim means of housing during the construction of a permanent dwelling. 2) The Zoning Administrator shall inspect the site on or about May 1, 1983, to determine if the applicant has proceeded in good faith in the construction of a permanent dwelling. Should the Zoning Inspector determine that substantial improvement has not been made, or that construc- tion activities have not commenced, or that construction activities have been suspended for an unreasonable time or in bad faith, he shall, after notice pursuant to Section 15.1-431 of the Code of Virginia, refer SP-82-73 to the Board of Supervisors for revocation.. 3) This speciaI permit and all authority granted hereunder shall expire on December 1, 1983. The mobile home shall be removed from the site no later than December 11, 1983. '~The Board of Supervisors approved this special permit with the first two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but changed number three to read: 3) The mobile home shall be removed from this site no later than September t, 1983.TM Mr. Fisher instructed the Board to consult the packets and referred them to a letter received on August 29, .1983, from Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Taylor requesting an extension on their special use permit. Mr. Fisher then proceeded to read the contents of the letter. "...in order for us to continue construction of our permanent residence. The construction process has continued other than the delays which resulted from in- clement weather this winter and spring. Construction was halted' for a period of approximately six months because the footer could not be poured. Inspections were made at various times by the Inspection department to determine if work could be done during this period. It was determined that conditions did not allow the footer to be poured. As soon as weather conditions improved, construction resumed and substantial progress has been made. We regret the completion date has not been as requested by your Board. However, lost time has not been under our control. We have acted in good faith and construction is continuing. The Inspections Department has made an inspection of the progress today. We hope the progress will satisfy your requirements. Thank you all for your cooperation .... " ,351 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher then called attention to the memorandum from Mr. Robert Vaughn dated September 1, 1983 and read same as follows: "An inspection was made today by John Grady, Zoning Inspector. The inspection report indicated that there were five workmen at the site who were laying brick and studding up the inside. Ail the windows and doors have been installed. The inspector indicated that he could see a big improvement since the previous inspection on August 26, 1983." Mr. Ralph Taylor was present and addressed the Board. Mr. Taylor said work is continu.in construction of the home and he regrets that it has not been completed on time. He stated had been five to seven people working continuously and once the footers were poured in May, construction has continued from that point to date. He added that there had been several other delays, one being that the trusses, once received, were found to be incorr, ect. This resulted in a three week delay. In addition, the storm of several nights ago washed the mortar out of the newlY-laid bricks necessitating the removal of three rows of bricks. Mr. Taylor expressed his dismay regarding the problems which have occurred. He referred to livestock on his property which need to be watered every day and noted it would be almost impossible to move the mobile home while the permanent home is under construction. The Taylors have a son attend- ing Western Albemarle High School and it would place an undue burden on the child if he were forced to move out of the area. Mr. Taylor said the first problem he and his family encoun~ was.an inability to sell their previous home due to poor market conditions. When they finally were able to sell the home they were forced to accept a price below fair market value and "took quite a beating on that just to get started." Mr. Taylor added that construction is continuing in good faith and he would like to request an extension of nine months from September 1, 1983 in which to complete the home. He called the Board's attention to the fact that he is acting as his own general contractor. He pointed out that. construction does not proceed as quickly when one is doing the work himself. Mr. Taylor distributed photographs showing progress of the construction, taken on July 23, 1983, for the Board's information, and added since the pictures were taken the roof has been put on. He also informed the Board that the brick layer has been at the construction site every day but has some thirty thousand bricks to lay. He feels that in order to complete the work an additional nine months will be needed. Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Taylor that many of his neighbors had appeared before the Board during public hearing on this original per~_~t request, because they felt Mr. Taylor was not making rapid enough progress. Mr. Fisher then said that if the construction is progressing as well as Mr. Taylor has indicated, nine months seemed an excessive amount of time for an exten- sion. Mr. Fisher referred to the snapshots taken in July and asked Mr. Taylor if it were correct that the roof was in place. Mr. Taylor replied that the shingles are on and a worker is laying brick and doing the porch work. Concrete is being poured and an attempt is being made to complete all outside work before winter sets in. Mr. Taylor added that the mobile home will have to be removed over the back side of the property and during the winter months this will be almost impossible. The reason for this seeming difficulty is due to the fact that one of the neighbors has planted trees so the mobile home could not be removed through the same area where it was brought in. Mr. Fisher said that if the Board were to extend this permit for an additional nine months without first notifying Mr. Taylor's neighbors, this could arouse a great deal of anger. Mr. Henley remarked that if the neighbors were that concerned, they would have been present tonight. Mr. Henley added that since Mr. Taylor is doing a lot of the work himself, the work will certainly take longer. Mr. Lindstrom said that when the September date was set it was done because no construction had taken place and the Board was beginning to feel uneasy. Mr. Fisher felt the neighbors were not aware of this request being on the agenda tonight. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested setting another date and sending notices to the public. Mr. Fisher suggested extending the permit for a short period of time and then setting another hearing. Mr. Lindstrom pointed out that the permit would obviously have to be extended because Mr. Taylor is presently in violation of the permit requirements. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the. permit could be extended without a public hearing. Mr. St. John replied that this could be done. Mr. Fisher recommended that the permit be extended to December 31, 1983, and suggested that if the structure is still incomplete at that time, a public hearing be set for the first meeting in January and that all interested parties be so notified. Miss Nash wondered if on January 1, 1984, a big improvement is not noted, would Mr. Taylor then be able to appear before the Board and request another extension. Mr. Fisher replied that this was the point of holding a public hearing. Mr. Taylor assured the Board he would certainl work on the house during that period. Mr. Henley pointed out that Mr. Taylor has a sizeable piece 'of land and he felt the mobile home is not an eyesore for any of the neighbors. He added that he felt the main concern of the neighbors was that Mr. Taylor had not made any progress on h~s house but added that Mr. Taylor had certainly made progress recently. Mr. Henley then said he was willing to go along with the request for a nine month extension, but if the Board wanted to: just extend the permit to January 1, 1984 and then look at it again, he was in agreement. Mr. Fisher stated he felt it was only fair that Mr. Taylor's neighbors be made aware of what was going on. Mr. Taylor responded that this would be no problem. Motion was made by Mr. Henley and seconded by Mr. Butler to extend SP-82-73 to January 1, 1984. The 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. 10. to the drought. Request to the State to declare Albemarle County a distaster area due Mr. Bruce Hogue, President of the Albemarle County Farm Bureau, was present and addressed the Board. Mr. Hogue read a memorandum, dated September 7, 1983, from the Albemarle County Farm Bureau as foilows~ 35 2 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) "Albemarle County Farm Bureau, through its President, respectfully asks the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to request that Governor Robb declare Albemarle County a disaster area due to the extremely severe drought the County farmers have experienced. The reason we are asking that Albemarle County be declared a disaster area is so that eligible farmers could defer payment on their present Farmers Home Administration and Small Business Administration loans and could get low interest loans. This would help farmers with the enormous losses resulting from the drought and would entitle them to any other benefits that the U.S. Department of Agriculture may give to disaster areas." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hogue if he had any estimates on the amount of property damage that has occurred in Albemarle County or would this be determined by a study. Mr. Hogue replied that this would be determined by the study and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation- Service (ASCS) office would be contacted and given the figures. Mr. Henley said the Board has to ~nitiate this request, submit it to the Governor, and then a committee will investigate the situation and request information from ASCS and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). Mr. Fisher noted that the suggested resolution makes it appear that the situation is already known. Mr. Hogue said the figures will be obtained from ASCS. Mr. Fisher suggested adopting a resolu- ~..tion which contained whatever information was available in order to "speed things up." Mr. Ray Jones stated that he had received several calls from farmers in the northwest area, and on t~e south side. Mr Jones called attention to the fact that Mr. Bill Norris had spent all day researching figures on the rainfall which has occurred. These figures indicate that the prob- lems began in late June or early July. He added that the figures from January through June indicate a normal rainfall, but during the growing season in July, the figures present quite a different picture. Mr. Fisher called Mr. Norris to present the figures he had obtained. Mr. Norris said that Mr. Pat Michaels, the State Climatologist, had been requested to ascertain rainfall for areas other than at the Airport; the official recording station. The official stations reported basically normal rainfall for the period. Mr. Norris stated that Mr. Michaels has a volunteer collection system spread throughout the state (eleven stations) and these stations recorded a below average rainfall for the month of July. Mr. Norris said Mr. Michaels had written a letter (copies of which were before the Board members) saying the July precipitation was much more scattered and deficient than the June and August rainfalls. He added that June is the most critical growing month for corn and an important determinant for- final hay yield. Mr. Michaels letter went on to state that adequate moisture must be available between the fourth and twelfth of July. Ail the July recorded rains occurred during the firs~~ four days of the month; no other rainfall was recorded during the month of July. Mr. Norris said if June, July and August were averaged, the figures would indicate approximately eighty percent of the average expected rainfall had occurred, however, using just the month of July, this figure indicates only thirty to forty percent of the normal expected rainfall occurred~ Mr. Norris reported Mr. Michaels suggestion that if any kind of aid were sought for agriculture the request be based on the July figures. Mr. Michaels further suggested the condition be referred to as an agricultural disaster rather than a drought disaster. The latter suggestion,~ was posed due to Mr. Michael's feeling that Albemarle County's lack of rainfall would not come close to meeting the criteria presented in the State's drought severity index. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Norris if there is some definition which states that a drought is worse than an agricultural disaster. Mr. Norris replied in the affirmative saying that a drought is class- ified as such when there are severe water shortages; when the reservoir and streams are very low. He added that Albemarle County is not anywhere near the point of a water shortage. Mr. Henley commented that unless the Governor declares the County a disaster area because of a drought, farmers will not qualify for any of the Farmer's Home low-interest loans. Mr. Butler said in his area of the County only one-half inch of rain fell in July. He continued, by stating that during the first ten days of August, his area of the County received about four.. inches of rain, but the crops had been severely damaged by that time. Mr. Butler indicated that forty percent of the fall hay crop has been lost. Mr. Fisher said he has heard that people are feeding their cattle hay now. Mr. Butler replied that there are indeed a number of people at the present time having to feed their cattle. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hogue if he would object to requesting the Governor to declare an agricultural disaster rather than a drought disaster. Mr. Hogue replied that this would not help the farmers very much and added he is trying to help the farmers who have suffered huge financial losses because of the drought. Mr. Norris said that despite the severe agricultural loss in parts of the County due to the timing of the rainfalls, he did not think Mr. Michaels drought indicators will show the condition to be a drought disaster. Mr. Henley said the Board must ask for the County to be declared a disaster area, then the Governor's committee has to determine whether the County qualifies for disaster aid. If the County does qualify, the - · farmers will be eligible for Farmer.'s Home low-interest loans. Mr. Henley stated that each farm would be considered individually, and added that being declared a disaster area does not -- necessarily make everyone eligible for a loan. -~ Mr. Henley then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: "BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby petition the Governor of Virginia to declare the County of Albemarle a disaster area due to the severity of the July drought." Mr. Butler seconded the motion and the same was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. ; 353 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution: Appoint Acting County Executive. Mr. Fisher stated for the record that Mr. Ray B. Jones has been serving as County Executive in Mr. Agnor's absence. Mr. Fisher said he was notified on Monday morning, August 22, 1983 of Mr. Agnor's illness. The line of succession states that the Director of Finance will serve as County Executive in the Executive's absence. Mr. Fisher spoke to Mr. Jones that afternoon and after thinking the situation over, Mr. Jones had relegated most of his duties in the Finance Department to his Deputy Director. On Tuesday morning Mr. Jones had assumed the responsibility of serving the County's larger needs. Mr. Fisher indicated to the Board that it was fortunate to have someone of Mr. Jones' background, experience and broad knowledge of the County to step in and take this kind of responsibility. Mr. Fisher then commended Mr. Jones on the "fine" job he was doing. ~ Mr. Fisher said in order that there will be no question about Mr. Jones' authority to serve as a member of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board which has some substantial questions coming before it soon, he had asked the County Attorney, to draft the following resolution: "WHEREAS, Albemarle County Executive Guy B. Agnor, Jr., suffered an illness on Monday, August 22, 1983, which has incapacitated him from that date until the present, rendering him physically incapable of performing his official duties and functions; and, WHEREAS, the County Personnel Pay and Classification Plan of July 1, 1983 declares that in the absence of the County Executive the Director of Finance shall serve as County Executive; and, WHEREAS, question has been raised as to whether this provision of the Plan is or is not self-executing; THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED that Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, is hereby designated Acting County Executive for such time as Mr. Agnor shall resume his duties; and this is made retroactively to Monday, August 22, 1983; and all acts heretofore performed by Ray B. Jones from that date to the present are-hereby ratified. Ail ex officio offices held by the County Executive on various Boards and Commissions are hereby deemed to have devolved upon Ray B. Jones as Acting County Executive, including, but not limited to, the following: Membership on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Membership on the Regional Juvenile Detention Home Board Membership on the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board Membership on the Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center Board" A motion was made by Mr. Lindstrom seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the foregoing Resolu- tion, - ~ The Ro~l 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. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Jones learned at a meeting of the Juvenile Detention Home Board where twelve or thirteen local governments are represented, that Albemarle County is the only one of that group of local govern ~an~s with a policy for automatic assumption of the ~!~anager's duties in the event of a vacancy. Mr. Fisher expressed his pleasure that a special meeting of this Board did not have to be called to appoint a replacement. Mr. Fisher told the Board that Mr. Agnor had called him earlier that day saying he was feeling better than he did over the weekend. Mr. Agnor has had a substantial number of new tests and is very optimistic that he will be leaving the hospital within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Jones thanked the Board for taking this action. He referred to an upcoming meeting of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and a meeting of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board because both are discussing money matters. Agenda Item No. 12. Appropriation: Special Registration Sites. Mr. Jones noted the following memo dated September 1, 1983: "The County Registrar through the Electoral Board has added additional sites for voter registration at Esmont, Barracks Road, and two high schools. As you probably know, the Governor has requested such action this fall; however, the costs fall upon the localities. Mrs. Matthews, County Registrar, has determined that her budget allocation for 198~-84 for part-time help would need to be increased by $600.00 to provide this service plus the cost of a vehicle at Barracks Road. The Purchasing Agent, Calvin Jones, has gotten estimated prices for an 8xl6~trailer. Therefore, I respectfully request your approval of a special appropriation l! ~n the amount of $1,060.00 for this purpose. Miss Nash asked Mr. Jones how the City of Charlottesville managed to procure one of the haokmobiles fram the Library to use as its registration facility. Mr. Jones said he talked to the' City Manager about this situation and was told that Ms. Betty Kohler, Executive Director of the Library, had committed the use of the County's bookmobile to the City Registrar. Mr. Jones said he discussed the possibility of the County and the City splitting the cost of the mobile unit for the County's use, with Mr. Hendrix. '354 September 7, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adopt the following Resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,060.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to: 1-1000-13020-100300 1-1000-13020-200100 1-1000-13020-800300 Compensation-part-time FICA Expense Lease/Rent Equipment $ 600.00 $ 84.00 $ 376.00 TOTAL $1060.00 For: Part time help and lease of a mobile trailer for voter registration at Esmont, Barracks Road, and 2 high schools. Th~ Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: June 15, June 29 and July 6, 1983. Mr. Butler had read the first nine pages of the minutes of June 15, 1983 and found no errors. Miss Nash had read the remainder of the June 15, 1983 minutes and took exception with the following sentence on page 231; "Mr. Tucker said a resolution of agreement is needed to apply for'~his grant with $16,341.00 being the County's in-kind match which is basically sevent percent of AHIP's budget." Mr. Fisher agreed that this did in fact sound very strange. Mr. Fisher asked that the Clerk's confer with Mr. Tucker and insert the correct number in the appropriate line. (Note: It was discovered that this should have read "seven percent" instead of "seventy percent.") Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of June 29, 1983, and found no errors. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of July 6, 1983, and found all to be in order. Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the minutes as presented except for making the change noted above on page 231. The 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. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher referred to the meeting on September 14, 1983, and noted that there have been a number of applications received for various positions on boards and commissions. It was agreed that as many interviews as possible would be scheduled for that afternoon. Mr. Fisher noted that all Board members had been invited to a Voter's Fair sponsored by the League of Women Voters on October 8, 1983, in Jackson Park. He added that Mrs. Cooke had consented to be the County Coordinator for the balloon relay. Mrs. Cooke sai~d she would take volunteers for a team. None of the candidates can be included. Mr. Fisher referred to a letter dated August 31, 1983, which he had received from the Governor's office regarding funding for the constitutional officers. He added that some thirty ~:ounties in the State have sued the State Compensation Board because office expenses of the- constitutional officers are not being funded. Mr. Fisher stated that the Governor had author- ized the release of $1.2 million from last year's reserves to cover bills incurred as of June 30, 1983. In addition, the Governor is asking all of the Commissioner's of Revenue, Treasurer' Commonwealth Attorney's and Sheriff's to not hire anyone for forty-five days after a position has been vacated. According to the Compensation Board, there is already a thirty day average vacancy period, so this should not present any problem. Mr. Fisher said this will save approx- imately $1.4 million which will be distributed by the Compensation Board to pay office expenses of constitutional officers instead of salaries. The State Compensation Board will also re- imburse twenty cents a mile for the first 15,000 miles per car per year and eleven cents for each additional mile per car per year. Mr. Fisher continued, that this change along with subsequent actions, will permit the continued operation of these offices as set forth in their original budget requests. Mr. Jones commented he had talked with people from the Compensation Board and that there were about thirty-eight localities that had brought suit. He asked if Albemarle County would get the same treatment as those who brought ~suit if Albemarle County did not join the suit. Mr. Jones said he was assured that Albemarle County would receive the same treatment without necessitating that any legal action be taken. Mr. Fisher noted that the Clerk of the Circuit Court was not included in the above action. Agenda Item No. 15. adjourned at 9:35 P.M. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was CHAIRMAN