Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-03March 3, 1982 (R~ular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 3, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second'Ftoor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. 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. Absent: None. 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. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:36 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-81-28. William A. Lynch, Jr. Petition to rezone 3.1 acres from R-4 Residential to C-1 Commercial with proffer, including a general development plan. Property is located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Route 250 West and Route 240., County Tax Map 56, Parcel 32D. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 1982.) Mr. Fisher noted letter dated February 26, 1982, from Mr. David H. Pettit, attorney for the applicant, requesting deferral of this petition to May 5, 1982. Mr. Fisher then asked if anyone was present to speak about the request. Hearing no one, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer ZMA-8t-28 to May 5, 1982, as requested by the applicant. 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. Fisher noted that the carpentry work on the modifications to Meeting Room 7 were finished yesterday and he felt such was an improvement. He thanked those involved for their work. Mr. Lindstrom was impressed with being able to see the public. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-81-61. Monticello Memory Gardens, Inc. Petition in accordance with Section 10.2.2(34) of the Zoning Ordinance, to locate a mausoleum on 26 acres zoned RA. Property is located on the north side of Route 53, approximately one-quarter mile east of 1-64/Route 20 interchange. County Tax Map 77, Parcel 33. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, presented the following staff report: "Request: Mausoleum Acreage: 26 acres Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 33, is located on Route 53 across from Michie Tavern. History: On April 16, 1980, the Board of Supervisors denied SP-80-14 (request for cemetery and crematorium) and denied a site plan for a mausoleum and crematorium. Staff Comment: The applicant has met with property owners in the area and with the staff and other agencies in an attempt to resolve concerns expressed during prior special permit/site plan reviews: 1) 2) 3) 5) The crematorium has been deleted; The proposed mausoleum has been reduced in size from 1,800 crypts to 1,500 crypts; The facade of the structure has been redesigned; The~ structure would be located approximately 100 yards farther back from Route 53 than originally proposed; The applicant has indicated willingness to seek cooperation from City police and County Sheriff for traffic control during funeral processions. The applicant made on-site traffic counts for seven days, from January 15 through January 21, 1982 (excluding employee and funeral traffic). Because of unfavorable weather conditions during this period, staff has used the high figure of sixteen vehicle trips per day, which occured on Lee Jackson Day. Based on this information, staff has estimated that a total traffic generation with the mausoleum at capacity to be 22 vehicle trips per day (excluding employee and funeral traffic). Staff offers the following qualifying and judgmental statements: 1) 2) 3) The existing cemetery is near capacity; therefore, expansion by means of a mausoleum would prolong funeral traffic; Staff would expect, as time passes, visits to an individual grave site would diminish; Staff would expect a period of several years before the mausoleum reaches capacity. Combined with number two above, daily traffic increase may be minimal, if at all. The proposed site for the mausoleum is predominately in slopes of twenty-five percent with limited areas of fifty percent slope. The only other location within the cemetery for the mausoleum has similar slopes. Therefore, should this petition be approved, waiver/modification pursuant to 4.2.5 of the Critical Slopes provisions would be required. A septic field is proposed to accommodate restroom facilities. The Health Department anticipates no locational problems with the drainfield, since it would be of limited area (i.e., two, sixty-seven and one-half foot drain lines). The County Engineer has indicated that this area has been used for overburden from grave sites and contains unknown quantities of debris (paint cans, plastic flowers, etc.) which should be removed prior to construction. The grading plan is scheduled for review by the Soil Erosion Commission prior to public hearing by the Commission. (Mr. Tucker said the.erosion plan has been approved, but no permit has been issued.) Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions.: 1) Mausoleum shall be limited to 1,500 crypts; 2) Traffic controls shall be provided for funeral processions to the reasonable satisfa6~on of the County Sheriff." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 2, 1982, recommended approval of SP-8~6t with the above two conditions and the following four conditions: 3)Removal and appropriate disposal of existing debris on site prior to any construction; 4) Facade of mausoleum to be substantially in compliance with rendering (drawing) submitted to Planning Commission on February 2, 1982; 5) Location of mausoleum building to be as shown on plan approved by the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Advisory Committee on January 29, 1982; 6) Any future stockpile of overburden to be maintained in such manner as to prevent soil erosion. Mr. Lindstrom felt the recommendation of the staff implies that the twenty-five percent slope restriction was waived and he asked why. Mr. Tucker said the-critical slopes provision of the Zoning Ordinance has not been reviewed and will not be until a site plan is presented. He also noted that the County Engineer is the person who reviews compliance with that provision. (Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that there is basically no area outside of twenty-five percent slopes where a structure of this size can be built. Mr. Tucker said only two sites were found that could accommodate the mausoleum and both had twenty-five percent or greater slopes.) Mr. Lindstrom said in order for the special use permit to be of any benefit there will have to be a waiver and the staff report seems to indicate approval of such a waiver. Mr. Tucker reemphasized that that matter will be examined in the site plan stage. Miss Nash then noted an advertisement in the Daily Progress for a variance to be heard by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. T.ucker felt the application was filed erroneously and the Zoning Administrator is going to request the applicant to withdraw the request or to at least defer the request until the site plan has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Darryl J. Roberts, President of Monticello Memory Gardens, was present. He reviewed the history of mausoleums and noted historic structures such as the Taj Mahal, the tomb of the Unknown Solider, and Westminster Abbey. Mr. Roberts said many people prefer to be buried in a mausoleum for a variety of reasons such as clean, dry and ventilated. He also noted that burial is a commercial industry and mausoleums conserve space. There are approximately twenty-nine acres at Monticello Memory Gardens and all but six or seven have been used for underground burial. The remaining acreage is not suitable for underground burial. Mr. Roberts then noted that his company owns twenty-four cemeteries in five states and also has sixteen mausoleums. He further explained the construction of mausoleums and noted that questions have arisen pertaining to what happens to a mausoleum fifty years from now. He noted that there are perpetual care laws that preserve the mausoleum and ten percent or fifty dollars, whichever is greater is placed in a perpetual care fund from the sale of every crypt in the building for future care and maintenance of the building. Mr. Roberts said another question that has arisen is, since this company also owns Holly Memorial Gardens on Route 29 North, why the mausoleum cannot be built there. 'Mr. Roberts said Holly Memorial Gardens has twenty- five or more acres that are suitable for ground burial and Monticello Memory Gardens has none remaining. Mr. Roberts then presented aerial pictures of Monticello Memory Gardens. He said a great deal of concern has been expressed about the visibility of the building. Therefore, the pictures are to illustrate the surrounding area and the mausoleum's appearanc to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Roberts said the adjacent residences cannot be seen from the mausoleum nor can the mausoleum be seen from these homes. The pictures were taken from the steps of Monticello, and the steps of Michie Tavern looking towards the site, and from the site looking toward the Dett'or's home. (The pictures are on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Roberts then pointed out the rendering on the bulletin board which demonstrated the design of the mausoleum. In conclusion, Mr. Roberts said the mausoleum will be attr.active and has been designed to fit the land and will consist of three floors with a chapel contained within. Speaking next was Mr. J. R. Cooper, land surveyor of the proposed site. He said any permits that have been filed out of order will be corrected and also noted that the permits were applied for on the advice of the County staff. Mr. Cooper said the original topographic map was examined and found that in a number of locations, the slopes averaged twenty-seven and one-half percent. Therefore, the average is just beyond the maximum allowed. Mr. Cooper also noted that trees, ground plantings and shrubbery will be used for the landscaping. He said the Planning Commission had requested a screen be placed behind the property and such has been inCluded on the drawing of the site plan. He also noted that some white pines and popl'ars are planned for the rear of the mausoleum. This should help screen the mausoleum 'from the adj.acent property owners. Marc~ 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Ronald R. Tweel, attorney representing Monticello Memory Gardens, was present. He noted that approximately two years ago, Monticello Memory Gardens had applied for a special use permit which was denied. Mr. Tweel then reviewed the concerns of the Board ~ at that time; the design of the mausoleum, visibility of the mausoleum from Route 53, the crematorium, and the increase in traffic. Mr. Tweel noted that efforts have been made to alleviate those concerns as outlined in the foregoing staff report. As for the concern about a possible increase in traffic, Mr. Tweel said the applicant compiled information from other cemeteries having mausoleums and the information indicated that those mausoleums did not have any impact on traff±c. Mr. Tweel atso noted information has been obtained from the Highway Department and a traffic count done by the Highway Department for the current traffic to the Gardens. Mr. Tweel said the amount of traffic to the Gardens is almost negligible when compared to other facilities in the area. Mr. Tweel said every reasonable effort has been made to communicate and discuss concerns with the adjacent property owners in the community. He also noted that the applicant does accept the conditions of the Planning Commission. Mr. Tweel further pointed out that there are two small crypts currently in Monticello Memory Gardens. Seven letters were then presented to the Board from persons supporting the request and indicating a desire for the mausoleum. (Copies on file in the Clerk's Office). Mr. Tweel said a suggestion had been made for the mausoleum to be located at Holly Memorial Gardens on Route 29 North but the Planning Commission members felt that location was more dangerous. In summary, Mr. Tweel felt the request is legitimate.and totally appropriate to the existing area and will not be detrimental to the community. With that, combined with the efforts to alleviate earlier concerns, Mr. Tweel urged approval of the request. Mr. Benjamin Dick, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Conte and the Michie Tavern Corporation, was present. He said the idea of a mausoleum is not opposed but rather the facility being in this particular area. He also noted that there is not a definition for a mausoleum in the Zoning Ordinance and he felt the intent of a "multi-crypt ma~sol~',!b~img-listed in the Zoning Ordinance was for families desiring to have families buried together but not something of this nature. Mr. Dick said if this request is approved and the twenty-five percent slope requirement waived, then a~ precedent will have been established in the Rural Areas District. He also disagreed with the comment made by Mr. Tweel that this facility could be compared to such places as the Taj Mahal. Mr. Dick said there has not been any engineering data submitted on the request and he felt same should be before the special use permit is considered. Mr. Dick noted that some filling will also be necessary because what currently exists is loose and some erosion is occurring. Mr. Dick did not feel the Board was infringing on the property owner's vested rights. The request is for a new use and it is in the Board's discretion to determine approval. Mr. Dick said the proposed site is to be located on the steepest slope of the property. He said Michie Tavern had been requested to build a deceleration lane when they expanded and now the Highway Department is only recommending police escort during a funeral to Monticello Memory Gardens. Mr. Dick said every provision in the Zoning Ordinance would have to be adhered to if this .request is approved and questioned if the request could conform to all provisions. He said meetings were held with the adjacent property owners, but no one agreed with the project. He again noted that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for a multi-crypt mausoleum was family-oriented and not for a commercial venture with 1,500 bodies. Mr. Dick said he did not recollect any Planning Commission member stating that the site on Monticello Mountain is safer than Route 29 North. Speaking next was Mr. Max Kennedy, representing Mr. and Mrs. Dettor, adjoining property owners. Mr. Kennedy feIt the application is a clear abuse of this use as intended by the Zoning Ordinance. He agreed with Mr. Dick that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance for multi-crypt mausoleums was for a small family mausoleum. Mr. Kennedy did not feel the special use permit request has changed enough since the request in 1980 to reverse that decision of denial. He said this site will present damage to the surrounding properties and in particular to the Dettor's. Some of the Dettor's concerns are whether the septic fields will overrun, soil erosion on the hillside and the fact that the mausoleum can be seen from their residence. Mr. Kennedy said this area is residential and historiCal and he did not feel it should be opened to commercial endeavors. Mr. Kennedy felt when the cemetery was purchased by the owners, they were aware of the space available for burials. He also noted that there is other property adjacent to the cemetery which could be used for burial sites. Mr. Kennedy agreed with Mr. Dick that no one consented to anything at the meetings between the applicant and the property owners. Mr. Kennedy concluded by stating that there are problems with the site and he asked that Mr. W. S. Roudabush be permitted to explain those problems. Mr. Roudabush, surveyor engaged by the Dettor's to reviews the plans and application, was present. He noted that he was hired by the Dettor's to determine the impact that the permit would have on their property. Mr. Roudabush then distributed drawings of a topographic map drawn by the Highway Department. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office) Mr. Roudabush said there are five dwellings on the Dettor's property, one main residence and four cottages. Ail of these dwellings have been on the property for years. He also noted the lake and water supply system located above the lake. The drawing showed the slope of the property. Mr. Roudabush said the structure will be sixty feet high in the rear and measured from the elevation of Mr. Dettor's property line, the difference in elevation is seventy-five and one-half feet. The front of the structure will only be twenty-five feet high. Therefore, Mr. Roudabush felt it was obvious that the facility is proposed to be on the steepest slope of the property. He then presented photographs of the view the Dettor's will have of the mausoleum. (The photographs are on file in the Clerk of the Board's office.) Mr. Roudabush did not feel the application addresses the critical slope aspects in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. He said 2250 cubic yards of excavated material will have to be removed for construction of the mausoleu~m and he asked where that material would go. Even if some of the material is used adjacent to the building to create a slope, there is the possibility that some will have to be disposed of in other places. Therefore, all of that will exceed the twenty-five percent slope limitation. March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Another factor is that the Dettor's water supply, along with the lake, is located on the lowest part of their property beIow the proposed mausoleum site. He felt all of the drainage will go into the Dettor's lake if not into the water supply. A spring is also used for a portion of the water supply. As for the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, this property is in the area that will require some sort of impoundment and he questioned if such can be done on a twenty-seven percent slope. Mr. Roudabush said according to the plans, there will be a septic tank between the rear of the structure and the Dettor's property line; a distance of onlY fifty feet. Mr. Roudabush then asked how the rear of the mausoleum can be screened with young trees since the structure will be sixty feet high. He did not know of many trees grown in this area that would be that height and also noted that all major existing trees are on the Dettor's property. Therefore, the applicant is not going to be able to provide necessary screening. Mr. Roudabush said the runoff will be over 8,000 square feet of impervious area and some method will have to be devised to control same. In conclusion, Mr. Roudabush felt the Board should consider the site plan items at this point because of their relevance in the matter. He also felt it rather awkward to approve something in an area having twenty-five percent or greater slopes. Mr. Dick said it has also been brought to his attention that Section 10.41in the Zoning Ordinance relating to height regulations in the Rural Areas district will be violated because the maximum structure height is thirty-five feet. He also noted that Section 31.4.2.3 in the Zoning Ordinance provides conditions relating to traffic, slopes, landscaping, etc., that would have to be adhered to and he did not feel the request could meet those conditions. Mr. Dick said if the application is approved, he would recommend that there not be any other requests made for this property and also that the applicant demonstrate that there will be adequate screening and a condition that a commercial entrance be installed to handle the traffic on the curve of Route 53. Mr. Joseph Conte, adjacent proeprty owner and president of Michie Tavern, spoke next in opposition to the request. He said regardless of the direction in which a person would look from Michie Tavern, the mausoleum would be seen. He said Monticello Mountain has escaped commercialism for years and he requested that this remain true. Mr. Conte said Michie Tavern was required to provide a deceleration lane and he not understand why a commmercial entrance has not been required in this case. In conclusion, Mr. Conte Felt aPprOval of the request would be "opening an entire can of worms". Mr. Cooper said there will be some excavation on the site. He then presented a revised site plan and noted a double row of white pine trees in the rear of the structure which will completely screen the mausoleum in a few years from being seen from the Dettor's property. Mr. Cooper said a detention structure was discussed with the Soil Erosion Advisory Board and they felt that since this is such a small area, nothing is needed. However, an earth berm and a gravel filtering system was requested to protect the adjoining property owners during construction. Mr. Cooper said requirements were also imposed for s~dingc~h~ p~Opert~_H~?~d~here~is a~e~isting entrance into the Gardens and he did not known of any jurisdiction that the Highway Department has to require a commercial entrance in this instance. As for a deceleration lane, ninety-nine percent of the traffic comes up Route 53 and therefore, a deceleration lane would be of no value. Mr. Fisher asked the location of the septic tank and drainfield. Mr. Cooper said the septic system will be off in one corner and there are two 60 foot drain lines. The Health Department has noted that there is no problem with that. Mr. Fisher said if the runoff during and after construction is not impounded, then the Dettor's lake appears to be the detention basin. Mr. Cooper said there is a two foot detention facility proposed. He also noted that the wooded area on the property will be left intact during the construction in order to act as an impoundment. Mr. Tweel said the Highway Department, Health Department, County Staff and Soil Erosion Advisory Board have given approval and he was hopeful that the Board had confidence in all of those staffs to approve this request likewise. Mr. Tweel said the comments tonight were inappropriate for this permit and should be discussed at the site plan stage. He also felt that the amount of traffic entering the Gardens verus Michie Tavern is much less and could not be compared. He also noted that it was the Chairman of the Planning Commission, Mrs. Norma Diehl, who had commented about the Holly Memorial Gardens not being adequate. In summary, Mr. Tweel felt the four concerns expressed two years ago on the special use permit have.been addressed and alleviated. Therefore, he urged approval of the special use permit. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. The Board recessed at 9:16 P.M. and r.econvened at 9:25 P.M. Mr. Fisher said the thirty-five foot height regulation in the Zoning Ordinance is for the Zoning Administrator to interpret and asked Mr. Vaughn to comment. Mr. Vaughn said Section 10.4 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses the· regulations for developments by right and that is for residential uses. Under the special use permit, the general provisions or regulations are referred to state that if the height exceeds thirty-five feet then a certificate has to be obtained from the Fire Official that the building as proposed can be protected. Mr. Lindstrom felt it was accurate to state that there is no other location on this particular site suitable for the mausoleum. Howe~er, he was concerned about the appropriate~ ness of this kind of use without regard to how the str.ucture will look, screening and similar matters even if they are site plan items. The slope has to be considered because if the special use permit is approved~ a variance will have to be obtained regarding the slopes. Mr. Lindstrom said that there are presently 3~500 ~grave sites and this approval will mean a fifty percent expansion of the existing use which is already nonconforming. He did not feel adequate information has been submitted to make him believe that there is a good reason to waive the sloPe requirements and he did not feel there is a hardship in this case. In other words, he did not feel .economics necessitated a waiver of the slope requirements. He was concerned about the road because it is hazardous and said that if Michie Tavern were making the request they made several years ago, he would have difficulty approving same. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not support the request because no reasons had been given for waiver of the slope requirements particularly when adjacent property owners will suffer and with.the dangerous condition of the road. Miss Nash felt approval of the application would be a grave injustice for the rural and historical area. She felt if the applicant wanted to commercialize, such could be done on Route 29 North. She also felt that if the twenty-five percent slope requirement was waived a precedent would be established. For these reasons, along with Mr. Lindstrom's comments, Miss Nash said she could not support the request. Mr. Henley felt the application was a big improvement over the special use permit requested in 1980. He did not have any problem with waiving the slope requirements and did not feel the structure would increase traffic. He also noted that the County had approved a self-help housing development on the other ~i~e of Monticello Mountain and felt that would definitely use more traffic than this request. He did have some problem with the fact that the land on Route 29 North could be used but felt if this property can be used for the structure, then there would be no problem. Therefore, Mr. Henley supported the request. Mr. Butler appreciated the concern of the applicant for making use of the property in the most profitable way and felt the planning was good for the development. However, he felt the Board had to be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. He also felt there were other possible uses of the land even if they were not as profitable. In conclusion, Mr. Butler said he could not support the request due to the request being inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Cooke said her main concern is the detriment to the Dettor's water supply. She felt the traffic problem was created by another commercial concern and was weighing in her mind whether it was fair to deny one commercial request an opportunity to continue their business because of traffic created by another. She also questioned how much more expansion Michie Tavern anticipated and noted that a decision on this request was difficult to make. Mr. Fisher said he had previously stated that whenever applications for this area are presented, the Board has the responsibility to examine each and every one with extreme care basically because of the international treasure, Monticello. He agreed that the proposal tonight is better than the one two years ago but still felt the request is an intensive use of the site and an expansion of the already nonconforming use. Therefore, Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that he could not support the request. Motion was then offered by Miss. Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to deny SP-81~61. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-81-67. Woodbriar Associates. Petition in accordance with Section 30.3.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit fill in the flood plain, on property consisting of 16,000+ cubic yards. Property located on the west side of Route 606, bound on the south by the ~orth Fork Rivanna River in North Pines Subdivision. County Tax Map 20, Parcel 19 (part thereof). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progrss on February 17 and February 24, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Landfill permit to authorize fill operation in the flood plain of the North Fork Rivanna River. Acreage: Approximately 10 acres of earth disturbance; 1.5 acres of trench area. Zoning: RA Location: Property, described as Tax Map 20, Parcel 19 (part), consists of portions of Lots 49, 60, 61 and 103 in North Pines Subdivision. Staff Comment: This project consisted of two trenches with a combined volume of about 16,000 cubic yards. The County Engineer's De~ment has reviewed the project for compliance with the requirements of Section 30.3.6 of the Flood Hazard Overlay District." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9, 1982 recommended ~pprovat of SP-81-67 with the following condition: 1) Landfill to be limited to the existing material with no additional material to be added. Mr. Tucker then read the following memorandum dated January 21, 1982, from Mr. J. ishley Williams, Acting County Engineer, regarding SP-81-67, Landfill Permits for Flood ~lteration: "Submitted for review by this office is a plan for landfitling on lots 49, 60, 61 and 103 of North Pines in the flood plain. This plan was delivered to our office on December 17, 1981, by Cox, McKee and 0kerlund Engineers. My review was in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the County's Zoning Ordinance which requires a permit approval by the County Engineer for filling of land in the floodway fringe. The plan shows two landfill trenches together that total 54,000 square feet of which approximately 30,000 square feet is within the flood plain limit. At the eight foot depth of trench, the total volume of both trenches is approximately 16,000 cubic yards. The outlined disturbed area is shown as ten acres, plus or minus~ March 3~_ !982 (R~ular Night Me~ting) The trench excavation for the disposal of the debris did not alter the topography of the area from the original ground. After filling the trenches, the land was dressed to the same contour and seeded. This operation had no obstruction to or effect upon the flow of water in the North Fork of the Rivanna River. This also would not result in any increase in flood levels during the one hundred year flood or alter the carrying capacity of the river basin. It appears that there was no significant change in ground surface to make any difference in the one hundred year flood plain limits. Final cover over the trenches appear to be properly compacted so as not to allow any infiltration or sinking of the ground. A stand of grass is visible with a good bed of mulch to protect against erosion. This vegetative cover will provide the best means of erosion protection available for this area. The composition of the fill material in the two trenches has been an item of concern. From what the developer and builders say, there were already junk car parts, tires and other debris on the site. This was buried in the trench as a common clean-up practice. Also, as was witnessed by the county inspectors, tree stumps, building debris (sheetrock, wood scraps, etc.), paint cans and tar cans were buried with what was already on the site. This is a common practice within the building trade to dispose of the building debris on site. In this particular case, there is no problem created by the burial of this material. There is positive drainage across these trenches so as not to allow water to pond on them. There is also a good compacted ground cover over the area so as not to allow seepage. I do not believe the fill material will pollute any surface or groundwater. The findings of the County Engineer are that this plan, although an 'after-the-fact' review, is an approved application for landfilling in the flood plain. There appears to be no obstruction to the carrying capacity of the North Rivanna River and no pollution of the groundwater by these two trenches." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission members voting in favor of the request felt more destruction would occur if the contractor were required to dig up the fill material, remove it and reseed, than would occur if the area were left as it exists. Mr. Tucker said the following letter dated January 5, 1982, was also rece±ved from Mr. Randolph Wade and Mr. Wendell Wood regarding this matter: "Mr. Ron Keeler Albemarle County Planning Department 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901-4596 Dear Ron: Ms. Riddle of Cox McKee Okerland requested we write you a letter explaining why construction clearing debris from 'North Pines' was placed on the rear of several of the large lots in 'North Pines' in the process of disposal. With the current burning laws and the distance of the County landfill site, economics and schedule time caused our field constuction employees to seek another way to deal with the unusually large volume of wood material produced by these large, heavily wooded lots. They tell me they found an existing service or farm road running along the bottom of the steep slopes, well below and away from the improvement portion of the lots and that an area along this road was already being used to deposit old tires, car parts and miscellaneous junk. So, in keeping with fairly common clearing practices, they began hauling to the site with the intent to burn as it accumulated and dried. Our sales, therefore building, were much more rapid in 'North Pines' than we had expected. As a result, the perpetual maintenance and control of accumulation sort of got out of control and when we finally came to grips with the problem, none of our employees thought about the fact that the area was officially designated as 100-year flood plain. We regret the concern and administrative trouble this has caused everyone however, we assure you it was innocently done in an attempt to expeditiously and economically meet the demands for shelter. Having now recognized the reason for concern, we have done everything requested and in the best way we know how to lessen the chance of any repercussions resulting from this act. We hope it is acceptable." Mr. Fisher noted concern about the statement in Mr. Williams' memorandum regarding the burial of tree stumps, building debris, paint cans and tar cans being a common practice in the building trade and asked the quantity of paint cans buried. Mr. Tucker said some burial does occur but he is not an expert on the matter and noted that Mr. Wade, local builder for Woodbriar, was present and could comment. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone had any idea of how much of that type of material is now in the covered trenches. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Wade has, to his understanding, made some estimate and Mr. Vaughn, Zoning Administrator is also present because he is involved in this process. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Wade is a co- applicant of this request and asked if there has been any staff investigation to determine what is actually in the trenches. Mr. Tucker said this was a violation that was in progress and eighty percent of the area had been filled when the violation was' discovered. Therefore, without digging the fill up, he was not sure if anyone could give a definitive answer. March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted a memorandum dated February 2, 1982, from Mr. Andrew D. Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator, giving a chronology of the matter: "10/23/81-Zoning Office received a complaint about heavy equipment working next to Rivanna River near North Pines. R. Shaw, inspector for the County, investigated the complaint. Telephone call made to R. D. Wade, Building Contractor's office, and spoke with Richard Slosson. Talked to him about dumping of debris and stumps on North Pines property at river. Mr. Stosson said to talk to Peter Eades,. Superintendent. 10/26/81-Telephone call to County Office. Peter Eades was told that it was not approved for dumping of debris and stumps at that location, and not to dump any more. Told him that I would notify Woodbriar Associates and R. D. Wade by writing. 11/2/81-R. Shaw, inspector and A. Evans made inspection of site at the river location. Eighty percent (80%) of the area in question had already been worked (stumps and debris buried). Met with Scot Thomas, representative from R. D. Wade and told him not to bury any more. Richard Slosson called the office about what they had to do in North Pines. 11/3/81-R. Shaw, inspector, made inspection of the site for any activity. ll/5/81-Wrote certified letter to R. D. Wade about approvals needed. ll/20/81-Telephone call Bob McGee, Engineer, called Zoning Office inquiring on requirements of plans. He asked about information in the Flood Plain. I told him to contact the County Engineer about the requirements, 12/t/81-Telephone call - Bob McGee called office asking about when they could get on schedule for special permit. 12/21/81-Application for special permit filed on this date." Mr. Fisher said he was trying to determine how long this activity continued after the staff received the complaint, but he could not determine that from the above information. Mr. Agnor said the dumping was ceased but the cover and seeding operation was completed rather than letting the land stand still while this process took place. Mr. Fisher asked what the staff will do to enforce the County's ordinance if this special permit is not approved. Mr. Agnor said the material has been buried, and as indicated in the engineering report there is no conflict with the flow of the river or the operation of the floodplain itself. He was not sure where the County stands on this matter. Mr. St. John said the only thing that 'could be done would be to order a proceeding to enjoin or mandate the owner of the property to remove the trash buried there and take such to a landfill. However, that would be up to a court. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this violation is a misdemeanor. Mr. St. John said under the County Code it is. He felt what has happened constitutes the dumping of refuse, trash or rubbish and he was not speaking of the stumps but rather the paint cans. They are refuse and the Code requires that such be dumped designated areas of public landfills. Mr. Fisher asked if there is an approved site plan for this development. Mr. Tucker said there is a subdivision plat for North Pines. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any note on the plat which refers to the flood plain. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Tucker had~ a copy of the actual subdivision plat with him tonight'. Mr. Tucker said he did not. Mr. Fisher said a person has reported to him that the plat specifically contained a condition that there shall not be any disturbance of the flood plain. Miss Nash asked the significance of the letter from Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, to Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, dated January 6, 1982: "Woodbriar Associates has filed a special use permit application for a landfill permit in accordance with Section 30.3.6 of the Flood Hazard~0verlay District. As yoYknow, this is a 'post facto' application, since the landfill operation has been completed. The operation consisted of two trenches with a combined estimated volume of 16,000 cubic yards. Your staff observed building materials including paint cans, roofing tar cans, sheetrock and other materials deposited in the larger of these trenches along with a greater quantity of stumpage. Therefore, the purpose of this landfill operation was not for the reclamation of land from flood prone areas, but for the disposal of solid wastes. Should Woodbriar Associates also apply for a 'sanitary landfill' in accordance with Section 10.2.2#21 of the Rural Areas District? The sanitary landfill provisions of the Zoning Ordinance do not specify that a landfill must be public, but Section 16-9 of'the County Code states that 'trash and garbage shall be dumped only at designated areas of public sanitary landfills'. While the supplementary regulations for sanitary landfill (5.1.14) require approval of the State Water CoNtrol Bo~ard prior to issuance of a special use permit, I believe a-locality by State regulation is required to notify the State Water Control Board any time the locality is aware of the unauthorized disposal of hazardous wastes. While quan~es are unknown, immediate notification of SWCB may be warranted, since paint residues, solvents and some petrochemicals are considered hazardous wastes by that agency. You may wish to consult with the County Attorney's office in regard to state regulations. Should you determine that a special permit is required under 'sanitary landfill' I think the applicant should be made aware of the extensive'study and approval requirements of Section 5.1.14 prior to filing such application." March 3, 19~2 [Regular ~g~ ~ee~lng~ Mr. Lindstrom said from reading that memorandum it appears that in order for this request to be approved the request would have to be approved as a sanitary landfill due to the nature of the refuse dumped. Mr. Lindstrom then asked why this is not a sanitary landfill. Mr. Vaughn said he had called the State Water Control Board and was informed that this request should go to the Solid Waste Commission. Mr. Vaughn then contacted the Solid Waste Commission and was told that disposal of stumps and construction debris is not regulated and that most localities do not allow stumps and construction debris in their landfills. However, Albemarle County does take these materials. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines recommend that debris be placed in an approved landfill. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Solid Waste Commission was aware that paint and tar cans were dumped; these are considered under Federal law to be hazardous. Mr. Vaughn said the Solid Waste Commission knew about the empty cans, but such small quantities are not regulated. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the number of cans dumped are known. Mr. Vaughn said from the witnesses he had questioned, there was probably just one truck load. Most of the construction debris was hauled to the landfill. In every ~uction site in the County, a few pieces of debris are pushed under the backfill. Mr. Vaughn said he would estimate that of the total 8,000 cubic yards, only ten cubic yards was buried. Mr. Randolph Wade, co-applicant for the request, was present. He noted regret for the Board to have to consider this matter. He said when building started in North Pines and Briarwood, there was more demand for housing than expected. The County landfill is a., considerable distance from the area and houses were being started one a day and being finished at a rate of one a day. This is a heavy demand on production capability. Therefore, the people in the field decided that since it was a long distance to the landfill and since there was a demand on production, the stumps would be deposited in an area on the site and burned later. The demand continued so this process continued for longer than anticipated. Mr. Wade said when looking at how many stumps had been deposited, it seemed impractical to transfer them to the landfill which is normally done. Mr. Wade said his people in the field made arrangements with Mr. Dillard, a contractor, to bury the stumps as they had seen done on other construction sites. He again noted that this is not normally done by his company. He also noted that his field people were not aware of the flood plain because they had never seen a site plan. He also noted that there were other items already deposited on the site before the building began. Mr. Wade said the County inspectors came out and requested that this activity be stopped and such was done. He was then informed of what steps to take. Mr. Wade said as far as the paint cans are concerned, the quantity is very small. Mr. Wade said the only thing that can be done is to dig the area up and take everything to the landfill. However, he did not feel that is reasonable because that would be doing something wrong twice. He then recognized two superintendents from his firm who are famil±ar with the process. Mr. Peter Eades, construction manager for Mr. Wade, was present and said construction stumps from the lots cleared, a few paint cans, some sheetrock thrown out of houses when clean-up was being done, a little metal flashing from roofs, a few bricks and things of that nature which could not be easily scooped up ~by a tractor, were buried. Mr. Eades said all the paint cans were empty and contained latex paint which is not as hazardous as oil paint. He also noted that it was not big truck loads of materials and at least ninety percent of the debris was-stumps with large volumes of dirt around the bases. Mr. Fisher asked if this was Mr. Eades first construction job in the County. Mr. Eades said no and noted that .he had been with the R.D. Wade firm for fifteen years. Mr. Fisher then asked if this was a .normal operation. Mr. Eades said the burying of stumps is a normal operation. He said he made the mistake of taking the other items there with the intent of hauling them to the dump at a later date. Mr. Fisher said his concern is whether this type of thing is occurring on other sites with varying items other than stumps and rocks. Mr. Eades said this is the first time something like this has been done on one of his jobs because generally the debris is hauled to the landfill. He noted that it was done this time due t~o the urgency and demand for the housing. Mr. Lindstrom then asked how much fill was placed over the debris. Mr. Eades said approximately six feet of compacted dirt. Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Wade agreed with Mr. Eades statement. Mr. ~ade said yes. Next to speak was Mrs. Elizabeth Samuels, County Vice President for the League of Women Voters, who read the following statement: "The League of Women Voters' long-term involvement in water resources, which dates from the mid-1950's, has been in large part the result of members' interest in protecting the country's inland streams. The League saw the result of indiscriminate dredging and filling, of drainage and development that resulted in lower water quality, floods, and the destruction of flood plains. (We recognize the~.'role of the flood plain as a natural flood storage--a part of the river bottom.) Because we recogn±zed that a flood plain is a stream's safety or relief channel, we were concerned that the Zoning Ordinance should prohibit or control practices which 'would adversely affect the flood-carrying capacity of the waterway or the quality of its waters. Therefore, the request for a special permit for a landfill from Woodbriar Associates troubles us for several reasons. 1. The request is another example of an applicant seeking a permit for action already taken. It seems inconceivable to us that contractors do not know what they are supposed to do with demolition debris--especially, in this case, where many loads were. taken, to the sanitary landfill before the decision was made 'to bury the~ remainder. 2. According to'the inspector's report, the fill included logs, and junk cars, the stockpiling of which is prohibited in Section 30.3.4. It also included tires, which are notorious for working their way to the surface even in a real sanitary landfill. The debris included petroleum products (tars, paint, etc.)~which are prohibited in Section 30.3.4. The leachate from those over a period of time Could cause groundwater pollution. Section 30.3.6.1 states that 'Fill shall be of a material that will not pollute surface or groundwater.' To what extent was an effort made to insure that the fill would not pollute the groundwater? March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 3. This Operation is not a filling of land for reclamation. It is a dump for the disposal of solid wastes, the like of which EPA has been trying to close for over ten years. It is not constructed according to accepted practices for the disposal of solid wastes. In fact, by putting the material in eight foot deep trenches, the problem may have been compounded by placing the wastes deep enough that a high seasonal water table will insure the possibility of ground water pollution. Leaching is enhanced when sites are used that have direct hydrologic connection to underlying groundwater. Therefore, sites should be a safe distance from water sources (ground and surface) in a fill tightly compacted to its smallest possible volume. Solid waste should never be deposited where it can come in direct contact with surface or groundwater. 4. The Ordinance places responsibility for approving plans upon the County Engineer. We would like to know what state agencies were consulted regarding this matter. For instance, was the State Health Department or the State Water Control Board consulted? By definition, in the Zoning Ordinance, a 'sanitary landfill is a place for the disposal of solid wastes approved in accordance with the regulations of the State Board of Health'. 5. Would not Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, referred to in Section 30.3.2 of the County Zoning Ordinance apply because the operation involved grading? Section 404 provides for the protection of small streams--as well as wetlands-- from dredging and filling. 6. Since the purpose of this fill was to dispose of solid wastes, Section 16-9 of the County Code should apply, trash and garbage shall be dumped only at designated areas of the public landfill. 7. Has the determination ever been made whether this operation was in the floodway or floodway fringe? Under Section 30.3.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, the determination should be made prior to the County approval of any permits at the developer's cost. If it is the floodway, it is a moot question--it is prohibited. We believe the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department should be consulted to recommend a solution. However, the larger issue here is how much longer will our ordinances be flouted with impunity?" Mr. Fisher asked if the League's position was that the special use permit should be denied and the trench dug up and the debris transported. Mrs. Babs Huckle also representing the League of Women Voters was present and said the League is not sure what a'ction should be taken. Mr. St. John did not feel the only alternatives are to either grant the special use permit or to require that the trench be dug up. As he understands the matter, it would be foolish and futile to grant a permit that the applicant will never be able to use again. He also did not feel the other alternative is to have the debris dug up. Mr. St. John then suggested that the Board state that this is a violation, a misdemeanor, and noted that it has been suppressed and it would be counterproductive to dig up the debris. Having done that, the best thing to do is to leave the debris there. He was not implying that the Board should forget the request, but it is over, it was a violation, and the builder has stated that he will not do it again. In other words, Mr. St. John suggested that nothing be done. Mr. Fisher then asked what the Zoning Administrator should do. Mr. St. John did not feel the Zoning Administrator was bound to do anything because a cease and desist order has been issued and is one of the measures the Zoning Administrator is authorized to take. Mr. Fisher said the applicant is present because a staff person advised him to apply for this permit. Mr. St. John said his remarks do not relate to what should have been done at staff level, but rather what should be done legally. Mr. St. John did not feel a permit being issued just to legalize what has happened is necessary. He did not feel the Board wanted to legalize what has been done but rather treat this as a violation. Mr. Fisher said he was reluctant to vote to permit a landfill in the flood plain and besides, the request is after the fact. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom said he is embarrassed for the applicant, the staff and the Board and did not see any purpose to granting the special use permit. Although the applicant knew what he was doing was not right, this is not that unusual in the construction business. Mr. Lindstrom said the real responsibility falls on the Board because he has heard for several years that the County does not have the resources to enforce County ordinances. He will not vote to approve the special use permit because he does not feel the Board should establish a precedent of approving things after the~ fact that otherwise would not have been approved. He said this type of 'problem needs to be dealt with and he suggested that the staff present reports as to the number of zoning violations during the past years; particularly site plan violations. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel an adequate staff has been funded by the Board to deal with the amount of growth that has occurred in the County. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to deny SP-81-67. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Vaughn what he would do about a landfill with the testimony that has been given tonight. Mr. Vaughn read the section in the Zoning Ordinance dealing with violations. He noted that'he has always taken the position that if a special use · permit is sought after the fact, a permit still has to be obtained, and if a permit is denied, the violation must be removed. Mr. Vaughn said if it is determined that a site plan is required, the permit is revoked and the person is required to submit a site plan. He also noted that quite often violations are found after the fact but the person is required to apply for a special use permit. He said that a special p.ermit after the fact with a condition that no more fill be placed would be appropriate in this situation. March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Wade has been one of the most responsible builders in the County. However, if this permit is approved then it would be setting a precedent for other builders that are not so responsible. If the Board does not approve the permit, then an example is being made of a corporation that has tried to do a good job. .Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that denial of the special use permit does not mean the debris must be removed. Mr. St. John said according to state law, what has been done here does not constitute their definition of a landfill. The Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control has stated they are not going to approve this as a landfill. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator should not suppress this activity as being a landfill. Mr. St. John said the violation is under the health 'and sanitation section of the County Code and not of a section of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Administrator does.not enforce that part of the County Code. Mr. St. John then reviewed the three alternatives that the Board has. One alternative is to have his office obtain a Warrant against the applicant. The second alternative is to seek an injunction for the applicant to remove the landfill and the last alternative is to do nothing about the request. Mr. Henley asked if the applicant could withdraw the special use permit request and then a vote would not be necessary. Mr. St. John said the applicant can. Mr. Lindstrom could not see any benefit to that suggestion. A brief discussion followed on the earlier comments of Mr.. St. John noting that this is not within the state definition of a landfill. Mr. Agnor said this activity became a zoning violation because it was taking place within the flood plain; an earth-disturbing activity in the flood plain. Mr. St. John said an activity is different from a structure because an activity is stopped and cannot be removed. Therefore, there is no violation for an activity and the activity has ceased. Mr. Agnor said if this same type of activity had occured on land not in the flood plain it would not have come before the Zoning Office. Mr. Agnor said the concern of the Zoning Administrator is that the applicant violated the Zoning Ordinance and he is in the position to have to do something if the Board does not. Mr. St. John agreed, but in the past, after the fact, persons have sought erosion control permits, etc. An erosion control plan had to be provided to show how the problem was going to be handled. However, that is not the type of activity in this case and there is no way that this activity can be made legal after the fact. Even if the permit were to be approved, the activity would still be illegal. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Vaughn is being advised that there is ~nothing he can do to follow up on this matter. Mr. St. John said he did not th±nk so. Mr. Henley felt that if the activity was wrong initially, then digging the landfill up would be wrong again. Mr. Agnor brought to the Board's attention that it was not wise to leave the trench open while this public hearing process was occuring so Mr. Wade filled and compacted the trench under the review of his engineer and the County Engineer. Mr. St. John felt the staff had done what it should have done when the activity was stopped and the trench was closed. Mr, Vaughn noted agreement with Mr. St. John. At this moment there is no violation. Mr. Fisher said he felt a staff meeting is necessary with the County Executive, County Attorney, Zoning Administrator, County Planner and County Engineer to consider what action the County will take if the special permit request is denied. He then suggested that the motion to deny SP-81-67 be tabled until March 10, 1982. Motion to this effect was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. S?-81-68. Town of Scottsville. Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(1) of the Zoning Ordinance, to locate a termporary holding pond as part of flood control facility and to construct a flood control levee on property located west of Town of Scottsville. County Tax Map 131, Parcel 8lA, 1.14. acres (portion to be conveyed), zoned Village Residential; County Tax Map 130, Parcel 44, 1.53 acres (portion to be conveyed), zoned Village Residential and 0'.093 acres (easement to be granted), zoned Village Residential; County Tax Map 130, Parcel 43, 2.42 acres (portion to be conveyed), zoned Heavy Industry; andl 0.i66 acres (easement to be granted), zoned Heavy Industry; additionally two acres zoned Rural Areas south of .Scottsville for construction easement. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff rePort: "Request: Flood control levee Properties subject to this application are located west of the Town of Scottsville and are more specifically described as follows: Tax Map 130, Parcel 43 (U.S. Rubber Company): The Town proposes acquisition of 2.42 acres and easement on 0.166 acres of a 60.96 acre tract zoned HI. Tax Map 131, Parcel 8lA (Albemarle County School Board): The Town proposes acquisition of 1.14 acres of a three ~cre ~tr~act zoned VR. Tax Map 130, Parcel 44 (Albemarle County Service Authority): The Town proposes acquisition of l~53'acres and easement on 0.093 acres of an 8.04 acre tract zoned VR. RailroadvRight-of-Way (Chesapeake & Ohio Railway): The Town proposes usage of approximately two acres of railroad right-of-way zoned RA. Portions for acquisition to be determined at a later date. March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) OVERALL FLOOD CONTROL PROGRAM For several years Scottsville has been working toward implementation of a program for flood control and subsequent revitalization/development: Project I - Mink Creek Flood Control Impoundment: Flooding in Scottsville has been caused by both the James River and Mink Creek. In April, 1977 the Board of Supervisors approved a special use permit authorizing the establishment of a flood control impoundment on Mink Creek northeast of the Town. Later the Town obtained additional approvals from the Board for public recreation usage and the location of emergency communications equipment on this site. Project II - ~ames River Flood Control Levee: This current project, the subject of this petition, would provide prot.ection against floods slightly higher than the flood of June, 1972. Upon completion of the flood levee project, reevaluation of Flood Hazard zoning would be appropriate in order to permit development/redevelopment of previously flood prone areas. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Flood protection from the James River would be provided by an earthen levee approximately 3,260 feet in length with a 250 foot long concrete flood wall at the eastern end. While the levee would vary along its length in design, typically the levee would be 20 feet in height with a width at the top of ten feet and 75 feet at the toe of slope. The levee would consist of 100,000 cubic yards of fill, which is to be obtained from a borrow site in the County. The river side of the levee would be faced with two feet of stone rip-rap. Construction would require relocation/discontinuance of various utilities, roads, and buildings, primarily within the Town. In the County, properties directly affected would be the UniRoyal property, the Albemarle County Service Authority sewage lagoon/treatment facilities property and the Scottsville High School property. Other features of the project are as follows: Floodgate: Stormwater on the inboard Side would be directed to a floodgate structure in the levee at Mink Creek. While the James rises to elevation 265 feet, the floodgate will be closed and it will be necessary to detain stormwater runoff on the north side of the levee, Flooding in such a case would be of uncontrolled depth. Inboard flooding could occur in a storm of long duration or if the James rises prior to a local storm event. Generally, it is anticipated that stormwater could be discharged through the floodgate before the James rises, since flood response of the river is not immediate. (Low water elevation of the James is 257.5 feet, while the floodgate outfall would be at 265 feet. During the June, 1972 storm, it took the James twelve hours to rise to elevation 265. The river was above this elevation for 83 hours.) Stormwater Pumping Station: A stormwater pump station to control inboard flooding when the floodgate is closed wOuld be provided in a future phase of the project. The pump station, equipped with· · ~ five, 100 horsepower diesel engines, would have the capability of pumping 50,000 gallons per minute of stormwater over the top of the levee. Under this plan, ponding would be expected to an elevation of 273 feet or about five feet in depth in some ~areas. The Town proposes to reconstruct the parking area at the school building to an elevation of 275 feet so the parking area would not be flooded. In addition, the Town would fill other areas to raise properties above the design flood level and limit the inboard area subject to flooding. The Albemarle County Service Authority chlorinator building would be relocated to higher elevation, the sewage pump station would be bermed against inboard flooding, and other Albemarle County Service Authority facilities would be relocated and/or floodproofed. Roadway Closures: Ferry Street and Route 6: The flood levee would have an opening at Ferry Street and the flood wall would-have an.opening at Route 6. At time of flooding, closure at Ferry Street would be accomplished by manual installation of a sectional aluminum stop log structure. Closure of Route 6 would be accomplished by manual, placement of a sandbag barrier about five feet in height. (Route 6 would be reconstructed in this area from an elevation of 282 feet to 283.4 feet.) ~ PROJECT PHASING · Due to Federal funding procedures, this proj.ect would be developed in several phases. Phase I funding would permit, among other improvements, construction of the flood levee to one-half its design height (elevation 281)which would provide protection from a twenty-five year frequency storm. No funds have been committed beyond Phase I. Phase I (Preliminary Estimate - $450~000) - Right-of-way acquisition - Relocation of all utilities - Construction of storm drains, culverts and floodgates - Construction of levee to elevation 281 (25-year storm protection) - Construction of roadway closures - Filling of designated low areas to a minimum elevation of 273.5 feet to reduce ponding of stormwater within the levee. March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Future Phases (Preliminary estimate - $1,050~000) - Completion of levee construction to design elevation of 291 feet (100-year storm protection - Construction of stormwater pumping station STAFF COMMENT Review under this application is to insure that the requirements of the Flood Hazard Overlay District are satisfied, most notably in regard to increased flood levels elsewhere as may be occasioned by this project. The County Engineer's Department, after review of the consultant's calculations and correspondence with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has recommended that the ultimate project would satisfy the requirements of 30.3.6 of the Flood Hazard Overlay District. That is to say, that flood level increase due to the presence of the levee would be within one foot freeboard which is permissible. Calculations by the County Engineer's Department of effect of Phase I construction (25-year storm) were not undertaken; however, since the twenty-five year design would be overtopped by a one hundred year storm, the anticipated increase in flood level would result from displacement approximately equivalent to the volume of the levee. Since the cross-section of the James is not restricted to the same extent as in the case of the one hundred year levee, flood level increase is anticipated to be negligible (i.e., less than 0.2 feet). Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: Grading permit for levee construction and associated earth-disturbing activity within the County; Grading permit for borrow area. ADDITIONAL STAFF .COMMENT As proposed, the effectiveness of the flood levee would depend in large measure on mechanical devices and manual labor. These factors should be vigorously evaluated at time of reconsideration of Flood Hazard zoning in the area. Proper functioning of the floodgate, stormwater pumping station and roadway closures would be critical. In regard to roadway closures, staff would recommend that the method of closure of Route 6 be reconsidered, since the 'proposed method is extremely labor intensive and time-consuming. Staff has estimated that the current closure design would require manual placement of about~ 4,200 sandbags.with a total weight of 73 to 100 tons. Staff offers the following comments: 1) 3) The sandbags are proposed to be laid in a specific pattern and design which would require supervision; The June, 1972 storm caused the river to rise to elevation 283 in twenty-one hours. Given this rate of rise, sandbags would have to be laid at 200 bags/hour to have the closure in place when floodwaters reached Route 6. Route 6 would be closed to traffic during this period; Once the floodwaters recede, Route 6 would remain closed until the sandbag closure was removed. Removal would likely take longer than placement, since the sandbags would be heavier. Staff opinion is that closure by an aluminum stop-lag device as proposed at Ferry Street could alleviate these problems. Less manpower would be required and Route 6 could remain open a much longer time and be reopened in a much shorter time. In either case, staff would recommend conSideration be given to posting of alternate emergency routes when Route 6 is closed." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on February 9, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of SP-81-68 with ~the two conditions recommended by the staff and the addition of the following: 3) 4) Compliance with procedural and substantive requirements of Section 30.4 of the Zoning Ordinance; Sectional aluminum stop-log closure, similar to Ferry Street ctosure, to be provided for Route' 6. Mr. Tucker also noted that the Planning Commission on February 9, 1982, determined that the request is in compliance With the'County's Comprehensive Plan; such review was done prior to the consideration of the special use Permit. (See staff report on file in Clerk's office.) The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Sam McGee from the firm of Mattern and Craig, consulting engineers, was present. He said Mattern and Craig is working for the Town of Scottsville on this project. Mr. McGee 'also noted that Mr. Craig is present. He then explained the plan for the flood control levee, a copy of which had been placed on the bulletin board. Mr. McGee said the levee is located in three separate political jurisdictions; part in Albemarle County, part in the Town of Scottsville, and Part in Fluvanna County. Mr. McGee said there is an at~'grade~closure on the access road into UniRoyal. The road grade at that point is being adjusted in order to bring the leYee into the existing grade on the other side of the road. March 3, 1982 (Regular ~ight Meeting) Mr. McGee then explained the plan entitled "Proposed Scottsville Levee". He also noted that there will not be a closure at Ferry Street in Phase I, nor will there be a stormwater pumping station. There will, however, be ponding areas within the levee where the flow from Mink Creek will be retained and pumped over to the levee and to the river in the ultimate phase. Mr. McGee also noted that there have been extensive discussions with the C & 0 Railway because a lot of construction is on railroad property. The Railway Company is in generalaE?~ent with the plans. Mr. McGee noted that the existing sanitary sewers are to be rebuilt and some manholes raised or water tank covers installed. The chlorinator building and chamber at the lagoon are to be adjusted to prevent any of the water ponding within the protected area of the levee from getting into the structure. Mr. McGee said the ultimate construction of the levee will actually provide significant protection of the sewerage treatment facility. Mr. McGee said the specifications, as they are written, require that the contractor comply with all Federal, State and local laws and ordinances. Mr. McGee also noted that specific requirements, such as the contractor obtaining the necessary permits for grading and soil erosion will be written into the specifications. Mr. Fisher asked how many floods there have been in Sc0ttsville since 1969 which were below the twenty-five year flood level. Mr. Thomas Bruce from the Scottsville Town Council said all the floods except 1969 and 1972 have been below the twenty-five year flood level. The 1969 and 1972 floods were two hundred year floods. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any assurance of funding for the second phase. Mayor Raymon Thacker, Town of Scottsville, said he has been working with a number of federal agencies since 1972 to get this project going. One million five hundred thousand dollars has been secured and it will take another one million dollars to complete the project to get the desired results. Mayor Thacker said he has also worked with the Army Corps of Engineers. Recently a set of plans was sent to the Corps in Norfolk and a person contacted him and indicated optimism about the project. Mayor Thacker said the person from the Corps informed him that if the Town was being funded by a Federal program and the project could not be completed due to the lack of funds (not more than one million dollars), then the Army Corps of Engineers could become involved in the project. He was later informed that the figure had been increased to two million dollars if additional funds are needed. Mr. Fisher asked where the dirt for the levee will come from. Mr. McGee said there will be a borrow pit on Mr. Spangler's property located off of Route 737. Mr. Fisher asked how many truck loads of soil will be necessary. Mr. McGee said for the ultimate construction, approximately 100,000 cubic yards is needed. Miss Nash asked if the contractor would be required to upgrade Route 737. Mr. McGee said the contractor will be required to upgrade Route 737 north into Route 6. Mr. Fisher asked if the property is in the Totier Creek Watershed. Mr. McGee was not sure but felt the site drained toward Route 737. Mr. Tucker felt it was in the watershed. Miss Nash asked who owns the property around the project. Mayor Thacker said there are a number of property owners. Miss Nash asked if they will be affected in any way. Mayor Thacker said no. · Mr. Fisher said a question has been asked since the Planning Commission action about the impact and the location of the borrow pit site. A letter dated February 22, 1982, has now been received from the Zoning Administrator (Copy on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors office.) in which he states that any property that will have that much fill taken from it will have to be rezoned to a Natural Resource Overlay District because it will essentially be a mining operation. Mr. Fisher felt there are some problems that need to be dealt with particularly where the earth comes from and how it is transported to the levee. Mr. McGee said the Town applied for a special use permit to construct a flood protection levee within the Flood Hazard Overlay District. At this time, the Town has not requested any action with respect to any existing or proposed borrow pit site. Mr. Lindstrom felt a condition should be placed on the special use permit that a grading permit for the borrow area will be required. Mr. Fisher then read the following statement contained in the letter from Mr. Vaughn: "I have determined that the borrow pit site must be zoned NR (Natural Resource. Extraction Overlay District) and the applicant (operator) of ~he borrow pit must comply with all provisions of Section 30.4 of the Zoning Ordinance including approval and permits required by Chapter 16, Section 45.1-182.1 of the Code of Virginia." Mr McGee said the first phase is only about sixteen acres and a minimum of twenty acres is required for a Natural Resource rezoning. He was surprised that a borrow pit of this type would come under a mining designation and a rezoning required because other than soil being borrowed, this is done in other places day in and day out, without any rezoning. Mr. Fisher 'felt the quantity, 100,000 cubic yards, creates a different situation. Discussion then continued about the borrow pit. Mr. McGee noted that the borrow operation will cease with completion of the levee. Speaking next was Mr. Jim Landreth, plant manager at the Uniroyal Plant, who asked for a clarification on the movement of a boundary line and noted that the road is very important to the UniRoyal plant. Mr. Landreth noted that the Plant is in favor of the request, but would like more definite information on the road. Mr. McGee said as soon as the plans are ready Uniroyal will be sent a copy. Mr. W. S. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present and noted that the Service~Authority Board of Directors unanimously endorsed on February 8, 1982 the concept of tha levee~'as shown. The Authority did not condition the endorsement but did request that the westernmost side. of the wall be shifted slightly~ west of the present alignment, if possible. Mr. Fisher asked the purpose of the request. Mr. Brent said if the Service Authority needs additional sewage treatment facilities in Scottsville there will then be more area available to expand the flood wall. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. 8'9 March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Miss Nash felt the request should be approved without any designated borrow site because there is more than one possible location. Mr. McGee said no agreement has been finalized with Mr. Spangler. Other sites have been identified but this is the most satisfactory in terms of economics. Miss Nash then asked if the project could be approved with the exception of the plan for the borrow area. Mr. Fisher questioned if some change was needed to Planning Commission condition #2. Mr. Tucker said condition #2. does not specif~~ anY particular site. Mr. Agnor then suggested the condition be changed~be read "Appropriate permits for borrow area" in order that whatever is necessary can be applied. Mr. Agnor also noted that this being in the Totier Creek Watershed, it will come under very strict Runoff Control Ordinance provisions. Miss Nash then offered motion to approve SP-81-68 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but changing condition 2 to read "Appropriate permits for borrow area". Mrs. Cooke 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. 6. SP-82-1. Centel. Petition in accordance with Section 19.3.2(4) of the Zoning Ordinance.to locate an unmanned telphone exchange center in the open space of Briarwood ?RD on property consisting of 1,200 square feet zoned PRD/R-4. Property located adjacent to Camelot Subdivision on the west side of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part thereof). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 17 and February 24, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Unmanned telephone exchange center Acreage: 1,200 square feet Zoning: PRD (Open Space) Location: Property, described as Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part) is located in Briarwood PRD. Character of the Area: A small, cabinet type switching station has been located on this site. The site is located in an open space area which is designated to contain a 'tot lot'. Access is to Austin Drive, the connecting road to Routes 29 North and 606. Comprehensive Plan: Review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is required by 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. Centel proposes to replace the small switching station with a larger station called a 'Remote Line Module (RLM)'. While the RLM would initially serve the same areas as the existing station (Briarwood, North Pines, Camelot), it would have capability to serve a much larger area extending northward to the County line. Staff opinion is that telphone service is not as extensive a growth-generating utility as are water, sewer and electricity and would not have significant effect in regard to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff Comment: In addition to normal review, staff has reviewed this application for compliance with the supplementary regulations (Section 5.1.12, Public Utility Structures/Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff opinion is that the site is of inadequate area to permit the on-site turnaround of service vehicles. Staff is opposed to service vehicles backing out of the site and recommends site area be increased to permit turnaround for the following reasons: 1) This facility would be located in an open space area which is to be developed with a 'tot lot' and would therefore be frequented by small children; 2) As opposed to residential traffic backing out directly onto roadways, backing distance from this site would be about 150 feet. Staff recommends approval, subject to the following conditions: 1) County Attorney approval of homeowners' maintenance agreements to insure Cente! bears sole responsibility for site and access road maintenance and that such areas shall be maintained to a degree consistent with other open space areas within Briarwood PRD; 2) County Engineer approval of pavement specifications; 3) Adequate site area shall be provided to the reasonble satisfaction of the PlanningDepartment to permit on-site turnaround of the largest anticipated service vehicle; 4) Should restroom facilities be provided for employees, the same shall be served by public water and sewer; 5) Staff approval of site plan to include landscaping around the site; 6) Landscaping which dies shall be replaced. Note: Should the Commission and Board approve this application and permit staff approval of the site plan, waiver of the' requirement that ~access be 20 feet in width would be in order. The current landscaping plan is by agreement between Centel and the property owner. This plan shows five to six feet white pines to be planted five feet off center, which in staff opinion could result in high mortality. Staff would recommend spacing of ten feet." March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 9.0 Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on February 9, 1982, recommended approval of SP-82-1 with the six conditions recommended by the staff and the addition of the following two: ,,?) 8) Ail equipment, maintenance gear, and the like to be confined within building; Waiver of requirement that access be twenty feet in width." Mr. Fisher asked if this facility would be in the middle of the playground. Mr. Tucker said the area contains a large open space which has been designated as a tot lot but the area is adequate for the tot lot even with this facility. Mr. Fisher asked who owns the property. Mr. Tucker said the developer at this time, but the property will be part of the common open space and Centel will be leasing the site. A representative, Mr. A. C. Ryalls, was present from Centel and said Centel will be granted an easement. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Ryalls said the building is to provide telephone service in the Route 29 North area and Briarwood Subdivision. The area is now served by a metal box which contains the equivalent of two hundred and fifty lines. This proposed building will have 1200 lines and the ultimate capacity of Centel will be 3600 lines. Centel projects that number will allow service to the year 2000. Mr. Ryalls said Centel went to Woodbriar Associates in 1981 and received a thirty foot by forty foot easement. Mr. Ryalls said "remote" means that the only time a person will have to go to this facility will be to install a new phone and connect new wires in the main frame or an equipment addition. Therefore, it would not be manned during the eight-hour work day. Mr. Ryalls also noted that the building will be equipped with a portable generator plug in case service is out three or four hours then a generator will be brought in to maintain service. Mr. Ryalls said the owner of Woodbriar Associates has agreed to give Centel an additional ten foot easement in order to turn vehicles around. Mr. Fisher asked if the building will be secured. Mr. Ryalls said yes, there will be an alarm switch at the door. He also noted that this is the first remote building that Centel has had in the State. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Miss Nash then offered motion to approve SP-82-1 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Henley 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. Route 29 North Bus Service Agreement. Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum regarding the Route 29 North Transit Service Agreement, dated February 25, 1982: "The Board was recently advised verbally that the City was considering reductions in level of service in their transit operation due to changes in Federal subsidies, and that the reductions would affect the transit service on 29 North. The agreement between the County and City to provide this service requires a thirty day written notice of change or cancellation, and that notice has been given to the County by the City eff. ective March 31. The proposed change in service is to decrease the frequency of buses on the route during commuter travel times from one-half hour to one hour intervals. Commuter times are 6:30 a.m. through 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m. through 5:30 p.m. The changes in costs to the County are from $1216 per month to $1149. The County costs represent a local subsidy for the part of the bus system which operates between Hydraulic and Rio Roads, calculated by estimating costs of operations less fare box revenues and Federal/State subsidies. The reduction in the County's monthly cost is calculated to continue for six months (April 1 - October 1, 1982) at which time the Federal subsidy reduces again, resulting in the local cost increasing to $1644 per month without a further change in levels of service or routes. The revised agreement proposed by the City is to change the term of the agreement from its current one year cycle (August 1 - July 31) to a fiscal year cycle (July 1 - June 30). Therefore a fifteen month revised agreement is proposed (April 1, 1982 - July 31, 1983).with 'the first six months (April 1 - October 1) costs of $1149 per month and the last nine months (October 1 - June 30) at $1644 per month, a total cost of $21,688 for the fifteen months. In addition to the changes in costs and time of the agreement, the final change proposed provides that if the Federal subsidies do not decrease as much as anticipated on October 1, the' additional federal funds will reduce the County's cost an equivalent percentage. The Federal subsidy is expected to change on October 1 from fifty percent of the operating deficit to twenty-five percent. The proposed agreement is calculated on the twenty-five percent Federal subsidy and states that 'if the federal, contribution for the nine month period exceeds twenty-five percent, an equivalent percentage decrease will be made in the County's share.' March 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) The City needs to advertise bus schedule changes beginning March 8 for the April 1 schedule. They are therefore 'seeking approval of the changes in the agreement prior to March 8. The change to a fifteen month agreement could be considered to be a decision ahead of other budget reviews and approvals. I have explained to .City officials that that would be a problem. The agreement has a thirty day termination clause, and therefore it is recommended that the revised agreement be approved without an additional appropriation, subject to it being cancelled or amended if the budget process results in a decision to discontinue or change the funding, of the service beyond the current appropriation. The balance remaining of the current, appropriation will carry the project through August 8, 1982, which will be ample time for notification to the City following the April 28 target date for adoption of the FY 82-83 budget." Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to authorize Mr. Agnor to execute the following agreement for the Route 29 North Bus Service as recommended in the foregoing memorandum. 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. THIS AGREEMENT made this 4th day of March, 1982, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia (the "City"). WI TNE S SE TH WHEREAS, Albemarle County desires to enter into an agreement with the City of Charlottesville to provide mass transit service for that portion of U. S. Route 29 between the City limits and Albemarle Squar~ Shopping Center; subject to certain terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, the County Executive of Albemarle has been authorized to enter into this Agreement by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Charlottesville has authorized the City Manager to enter into this Agreement, NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of each as hereinafter set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows:. 1) The City, through Charlottesville Transit Service, shall provide bus service between the doWntown area of the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle-Square via the extension of the CTS Trunk Route. The service will operate on sixty (60) minute headways six (6) days per week Monday through Saturday between the hours of 6:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 2) Subject to the City's other equipment and manpower commitments, upon seven days prior written notice to Albemarle County, reasonable modifications may be made in the proposed bus schedules which are shown in the attached exhibit which vary the times of service and/or routes. 3) In order to prOvide satisfactory services, the City shall provide, operate and maintain buses suitable for such operation. The City shall also provide the personnel to operate and maintain the buses, and the City shall have full control over and be responsible for the hiring and. supervision of such personnel, as well as for the payment of all salaries and wages, and all other employee benefits of such personnel. 4) The City shall provide liability insurance coverage in the same amount as it provides for operations within the City limits. The City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County against and from any and all claims, damages, costs and expenses because of bodily injury or death of persons or damage to or destruction of property, or for any other cause, resulting from or arising out of the City's negligence in connection with its performance 'under'this agreement, provided such indemnification is limited to the extent of the aforesaid liability insurance coverage. 5) The City shall have no responsibility for the creation, maintenance or upkeep of any parking facilities related to this service. 6) The City shall be compensated for the service to the County as follows: a) Fares The City shall charge the following fares for the transportation service provided during the term of this agreement: (1) Forty cents (405) regular fare. (2) Twenty cents (205) elderly and handicapped fare. The City shall be entitled to keep all fares collected. March 3, 1~82 (Regular Night Meeting) b) Payment by County The County will pay the City a total of $21,688 for the term of the contractural agreement. For the first six (6) months of the contract period, payment is to be made in monthly increments of $1,149.08. Monthly payments of $1]643.73 shall be made in the final nine (9) months of the contract period. The payments are to be made on the first day of each month, without demand. Th$ amount of the payment is based on the County's paying the local share of the estimated cost of that portion of the route that operates in Albemarle County. The City expects to receive federal reimbursement for fifty percent (50%) of the operating deficit during the first six months of the contract period. It is estimated that the City will receive twenty-fiver percent (25%) of the operating deficit from the federal government during the last nine months of the contract period. If the federal contribution for the nine month period exceeds twenty-five percent (25%), an equivalent percentage decrease will be made' in the County's share. 7) If the city shall fail to comply with its undertakings herein and such failure shall continue for ten days after written notice from Albemarle County specifying such failure, then the County may terminate this Agreement, provided however that the City shall incur no financial liability of any kind arising out of such termination or any termination or in any event under any provision of the entire Agreement. 8) In addition to the rights of termination provided herein, either party shall have the right to terminate or suspend service by giving 30 days' written notice to the other party of its intentions to do so,~provided, however, that the City may suspend such service immediately upon written notice to the County that the. City does not have sufficient fuel to perform its obligations herein. The City's determination as to whether it has sufficient fuel shall be prima facie evidence of the sufficiency of fuel. 9) The failure of either party to observe and perform its obligation hereunder shall not be deemed a default or breach hereof if such failure is the result of fire,.explosion, flood, work stoppage, riot, communications or power supply failure, failure or malfunction of equipment or other cause beyond the party's control. But written notice of such cause shall promptly be given by it to the other. Nevertheless, if any failure so caused has continued or clearly will continue, for a period of at least 30 days, the party entitled to notice hereof may, by written notice to the other, promptly given, terminate this Agreement as of the date specified therein. 10) No waiver, alteration, or modification of any of the provisions hereof shall be binding unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the parties hereto. Except. as herein expressly provided to the contrary, the provisions of this Agreement are for the benefit of the parties hereto and are not for the benefit of any other person and any assignment of this Agreement by either party without written consent to the other shall be void. 11) The term of this Agreement shall be for fifteen (15) months, commencing April 1, 1982 and ending June 30, 1983. 12) This Agreement shall be governed by laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. The undersigned represent that they have authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective parties. Agenda Item No. 8. 13, 1981. Approval of Minutes: October 28 and November 19, 1980 and May Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of November 19, 1980, and found no errors and offered motion to approve same. Miss Nash s.econded the mOtion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. The minutes of October 28, 1980 and May 13, 1981 had not been read and were deferred. Agenda Item No. 9. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated February 22, 1982 from Mr. Donald N. Johnston, County Administrator for Campbell County recommending the appointment of Mr. William R. Moore to the State Highway Commission. Mr. Fisher was familiar with Mr. Moore and highly recommended him for the appointment as the Commissioner for Rural representation. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Moore served on the Campbell County Board of Supervisors for ten years and has a thorough knowledge of local government. Therefore, he felt the Board should endorse Mr. Moore. Mr. Fisher said the letter of endorsement is to be sent to the Governor. Even though his appointment as representative will not be for this district, Mr. Fisher felt it helpful to have someone on the Commission familiar with local government. ~egumar l~ight Meeting) lviarc~ Miss Nash then offered motion to authorize the Chairman to write a letter to the Governor recommending that Mr. William R. Moore from Campbell County be appointed to the State Highway Commission as the Commissioner for Rural representation. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher said some appointments are still needed on Boards and Commissions and suggested that interviews for such be scheduled for March 10, 1982. The Board concurred. Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. Agnor to coordinate a meeting with the other members of the Crozet Interceptor Committee in the immediate future. Not Docketed. At 12:00 A.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session to discuss legal matters. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to that effect, which was seconded by .Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke,-Messrs. Fisher, Hen'ley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 12:10 A.M. Agenda Item No. 10. With no further business, the meeting immediately adjourned. March 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 10, 1982, 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. ?atricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom, and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting of four items for the Board's consideration. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butl'er, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Item No. 2.1. Statements of expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth' Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of February, 1982, were presented; said statements were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of February, 1982, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer; said statements being approved as presented. Item No. 2.3. Report of the County Executive for the month of February, 1982, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602.