Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-02June 2, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Sueprvisors of Albemarle county, virginia, was held on June 2, 1982, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia. ~Present: Mrs..Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. FiSher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. James R. Butler. Officers present: County Executive, Guy G. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that the June 9 agenda would carry an item for discussion of the flood damage which occurred in the County on May 27. Any interested citizen who may wish to appear will be allowed to make brief comments at that time. Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: 1982-83 Highway Budget. Mr. Fisher made some opening remarks and then turned the meeting over to Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Roosevelt explained the list of projects which had been tentatively agreed to by the Board and which were ordered advertised for this hearing. (i) Route 717 from Route 712 to Route 719 ($200,000) is to complete financing on a project which will hopefully be finished by November, 1982. (2) Route 601 from Route 810 to the Greene County line ($50,000) is for~an allocation to a project which is under construction and which should be completed before the end of 1982. (3) Erosion Control Projects, County-wide ($13,000). $8,000 of this amount is the Highway Department's share of a joint project with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to improve river crossings in the Mechum River Basin. The remaining amount will be used to improve general erosion problems. (4) New Additions, County-wide ($20,000). An amount may be set aside eachjyear to bring older roads to a standard where they may be accepted into the State System. (5) New Pipe Installations, County-wide ($5,000~). (6) New Sign Installations, County-wide ($4,000). (7) Route 631 - Park Street Bridge ($269,000). Hopefully this allocation will complete monies needed for this project which was advertised for bids last month. If the project starts this month, it should be completed by July, 1983. (8) Route 625 - Hatton Ferry ($20,000). After two hearings on this subject, the Board agreed to finance the operation of the Ferry out of Secondary improvement funds for one year. (9) Route 618 fromRoute 729 to Fluvanna County~line ($193,000). There has already been an allocation to this project and hopefully this amount will complete the allocation needed. If the project goes to bid in August, construction will be completed~by June, 1983. (10) Route 743 - Hydraulic Road ($558,100). This amount will be added to the $1.7 million which has been sst aside over the past few years and will give about 80% of the financing needed. This allocation will makemit possiblefor the project to be bid in August, with the additional funds being allocated out of the 1983-84 budget. Mr. Roosevelt said the total of the 1982-83 Albemarle County Highway budget is $1,332,100. Miss Nash asked if Rural Addition funds can be used to take Lakeside Road into the State System, Mr. Roosevelt said he believes the road is eligible for use of those funds, the only flaw might be that there are still properties in the subdivision which are owned by the original developer. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr, Daniel Lows was Present to request, that~ Lakeside Drive be taken into the sYstem: He noted that there were four property owners present in favor of the project. Mr. E. B. Snoddy said that the project on Route 6i8 is much. needed. The~road is dirty and dusty in the summer and muddy and miry in the winter;.' He said the~ residents in the area thought this project was approved in 1979, but evidently it was not. He noted that the Spencer family, the Harmon's, the' Snoddy's and Mr, Harris were all present~ ~tonight in favor of the pro~Ject. ~. ~ ~ . Mr. David Wood came forward to.mention a problem at,the intersection of~Route~29 North and Dominion Drive, He, said that'the culvert under~RoUte~29~is~.not~large~enough and~ dUring the flooding last week, the water was five feet deep over Route 29, the water was~eight. inches deep in the Pizza Inn and the mud created a terrible situation. He, asked that the Board address the problem of the culvert under Route 29. Mr. Fisher said the last time this problem was addressed., the County Engineer and Mr. Roosevelt did some work on the financing of such a project~ Mr. RooseVelt said that money has been allocated for planning on the section of~RoUte~29Lbetween~Rio Road~.and Hydraulic~ Road. The~proJect is-in ths~Highway Department's critical improvement plan and funds have been allocated over~thenext~six, years for improvements to this section. A cost estimate was made for improvement of this entire section including replacement~of~the culvert, but no cost estimate has been made for just improvement at the culvert location. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought it was estimated to cost between $500,000 and $700,000 to enlarge that culvert. Mr. Roosevelt that~that~may~.be correct, but it would be up to the Board of Supervisors to convince the Highway Department to replace just the culvert rather than waiting until the entire project can be undertaken in a few years. June 2, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at this time. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the 1982-83 Highway Budget as presented and recommended by Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Henley said he was not present when the Board discussed funding of the Hatton Ferry and he feels that it should be funded through other than highway funds, but he will vote to support it for one year only. Roll was ~called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Mr. Fisher said the Board will need to. appoint Road Viewers at the June 9 meeting. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS- None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. B. SP-82-20. Margaret C. Carson. To subdivide 16 acres (out of 31.94B) zoned RA into three residential lots with an average lot size of 5~BB acres and 15.94B acres in residue to be added to adjoining tracts. Located off Route 29 South onto Route 708 southeast near Red Hill. County Tax Map 100, Parcel 27F (part thereof), Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May~ 26, 198~.) Mr. Tucker gave the Planning Staff's report, as follows: Request: AcreaEe: Zoning: Location': southeast side of Route 706 about 2s000 feet from Route 708 near Red Hill. Character of the Area: Residential development in the area is sparse. Red Hill quarry is to the east. This site is wooded and open pasture. Comprehensive Plan recommends this area as rural land having no distinctive environmental characteristics. A residential density of one dwelling unit per two acres is recommended in the Plan. Applicanb's Proposal: In late 1980 and early 1981, the applicnat divided a 197.47 acre tract according to the following: Three residential lots (Section 10.5.2) 21 acres RA, Rural Areas . Property, described as Tax Map 100, Parcel 27F, is located on the - Five, five acre tracts - Three, 21 acre tracts - One, 36.985 acre tract - 0ne,..31.943 acre tract - One, B7,726 acre tract Under this petition, the applicant proposes to divide one of the 21 acre tracts into twos five-acre .10ts and one, six-acre lot and to add the residue acreage to adjoining land. Land Use Summary: follows: Existing land use within a mile radius of the property is as Developed land (parcels of' five acres or less) Undeveloped land (five acres and greater) Agriculture/forestry preferential tax Acres Total Percentage 1--~-5 6.7% 898 41.6% 1.118 51~7'% lOO.O special Use permit criteria: section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance requires extensive review of this subdivision proposal under eight criteria. The following is summary and comment reEarding the eight criteria. Criteria l~ 2. and B deal with the suitability of the site for agricultural/ forestal usage and the history of agricultural/forestal usage. Soils on the property consist of Fauquier silt loams Cullen loam, Orange silt loam-and Myersville silt loam in slopes of two to 15%. Generally, erosion is a slight limitation to agriculture. Soils range from moderate to very high productivity for woodlands with only slight limitations~to usage. The parent tract (197 acres) has been under use value taxation for agricutlure since 1977. In 1980, the property (excluding dwellings) was appraised at a fair market value of $123,900 while taxes were based on a use value of $48,900 or about 40% of the fair market value. Actual agricultural activity, on the property has been conducted by an adjoining landowner who leased the property for income in-kind (i.e., maintenance of fences, land, etc.). Usage has been primarily livestock and pasture. Criteria 4~ 5 and 6 deal with the location of the property in regard to developed and agricultural areas. More than 50% of the property in the area is under use value taxation for agriculture or forestryQ Less than seven percent of the land in the area is developed. The property is within an agricultural/forestal area. Residential development' has been slight. The property is remote from designated growth areas and from commercial services. 225 June 2~ 1982 (Re_~ul~ar Night Meeting) Criteria ? and 8 address the probable effect of the development on capital improvements programming and the impact on roads. Staff opinion is that the effects would be slight. ~ ..... Staff Comment: Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons: Staff ~opinion is that the applicant's proposal does not satisfy the RA criteria for granting a special use permit; Approval of this petition would set precedent for similar requests in the area and open an agricultural/forestal area to residential development; Staff is reluctant to endorse residential development in the vicinity of an active quarry although at this time we feel the quarry would have little o~ no impact on this area~ The applicant has voluntarily demonstrated to the County's Real Estate Department that this. property is suited to agricultural/ forestal usage and has enjoyed preferential taxation as a result.- Additionally, the applicant has maximized development under existing zoning. Staff opinion is that reasonable usage of the property has been made available under existing zoning and tax laws. Additional Staff Comment: In regard to the 21 acre tract under this petition, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated in a letter of April 27, 1982, that "the property in question appears to have serious access problems. We would recommend access be limited to those locations where an entrance road can be properly situated. Further study may be reqUired prior to proceeding with this request." Additionally, soils on the property range from moderate to severe limitations For development. Soil limitations inclUde shrink- swell, frost action, low strength, depth to rock, slow percolation, wetness and high Seasonal water table. As proposed, the division of the 21 acre tract would be exempt from~full review under the Subdivision Ordinance. Given the problems outlined above, should the Commission and Board choose to approve this petition, Staff.would recommend full application of the Subdivision Ordinance, subject to'Commission review and ~approval. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May ll, 1982,-by a vote of 5/1, voted to recommend approval of SP-82-20, subject to the following conditions: l. Full subdivision review by the Planning Commission; ~ 2. Approval of entrances by the Planning Commission, subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation recommendations. Mr. Fisher asked why the Planning Commission~had not folloWed the staff's recommendation on this petition. Mr. Tucker referred to a letter from Mrs. Carson dated April l, 1982, and said he felt the Planning Commission had relied on'Mrs. Carson's reasons for recommending approval of the permit, however, Mrs. Carsonts reasons fall outside of the Staff's purview. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Huff was present to represent Mrs. Carson. Mr. Huff referred to a plat attached to the Staff report and said that Mrs. Carso wants to sell Lot. D to her neighbor; she would also sell Lots. B and C, but would retain Lot A for herself. He noted that this land was purchased in 1957 by Mr. and Mrs, Carson and was retained as a 227 acre tract until Mr. Carson died in 1979. Just prior to his death, the Carson's had deeded 30 acres to one of their children. They had planned to deed most of their land to their children. Subsequent to Mr. Carson's death, Mrs. Carson sustained a substantial financial loss and had to sell'off several lots. SinCe~1979, Mrs~Carson has sold a 37 acre tract, a 21 acre tract, several five acre tracts, retains one 21 acre tract on which her house is situated, and is requesting that another 2t acre tract be subdivided at this time to help provide for her. financial security. In view of~Mrs. Carson's special circumstances, the Planning Comm~ission Felt'that with the condition~that the Highway Department approve the entrance into these new lots, and with £ull subdivision review, it would be proper for the Board to grant this special use permit. ~He~urged the Board's favorable consideration of the petition. Mrs. Carson was present and said she resented this Whole process. Her letter was not written to arouse sympathy, but to state the facts~ At one end of this road is a quarry and at the other end are trailers, so no matter what is done With this land, it will be an improvement to the area. With mno one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.~ Mr.~Lindstrom said he had read Mrs. Carson's letter, the staff report,~and the Planning CommissiOn~recommendation, but his concern about this petition is the same as usual. If the Board grants this request, he did not see how the Board would be~able to deny similar requests. He also was not sure what reasons could be used to refUte the land use concerns which are the primary concerns of the Zoning ~rdinance. Miss Nash said she also had read the letter, but did not see why this request should be granted in light of the past history of divisions. Mr. Lindstrom said that when someone comes in with an application, the Board~must rely on the staff for review. Almost all of the RA criteria in the Zoning Ordinance are against the granting of this~special usepermit because it is inconsistent. Mrs. Cooke~said she feels the staff has done a thorough ~ob of reviewing the~application, and she will have to support the Staff's recommendation. Mr. Henley said~he feels the property hasbeen divided in an effort to .give the children some of the property and Whether or not they hold onto the property iz up to them. As far as further dividing the parcels'~ he'Will not support~the~reGuest. · June 2, 1982 (Regular Night.Meeting) Mr. Fisher said the original tract has already been divided into eleven parcels and approval of this request would create three additional lots. Mr. Fisher said this land lies in his district and if the people could be separated from the land issue he would agree completely with the Staff recommendation, however, that is very hard. He has tried to find some way he .could support the Planning Commission's recommendation, but has not fOund a way. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr° Henley, to deny SP-82-2 Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES- NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, ~Lindsltromand Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-82-21. Jehovah's Witnesses. To locate a church On two acres zoned VR. Locatedvnorth side of Route 6 west of ScOttsville~ County Tax Map 130, Parcel 25 (part thereof). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1982.) Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows:~ Request: Church Acreage: 2.0 acres · ~onin~: VR, Village Residential Location: Property,_described as Tax Map 130, Parcel 25 (part), is located on the north side of Route 6 acr~oss from St. Anne's Rectory. Character-of the Area: This site is currently wooded. Obtaining access with adequate sight distance would require a substantial cut .near Route 6. However, once the entrance road has reached existing grade on site, it appears the property could be developed with minimal additional grading. The church is proposed to be located near the rear of the property remote from dwellings and from Route 6, a designated Scenic highway. This site is in the ~Totier Creek Reservoir watershed. Comprehensive Plan: This site is within the town o~f Scottsville growth area as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan and is accordingly zoned VR, Village Resi- dential. Staff Comment: Jehovah's Witnesses propose to construct a church of less than 2,000 square feet in building area with a seating capacity for 96 people. Staff opinion is that the use would not be of substantial detriment to adjoining properties or change the Character of the area. Since the site is within a reservoir watershed, Staff would recommend particular care in the deVelopment of the site. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Only those areas required for the construction of an access road and parking area, installation-of a septic system and well and construction of the church building shall be cleared. All other areas shall remain in a natural state; In review of grading plans and runoff control plans, if required, the Soil Erosion Committee and County Engineer shall be particularly mindful of the Watershed Management Official's~memorandum of April 28,~1982. "The area under consideration for the location of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church is in the Totier Creek.watershed. A small tributary to Miller Creek flows through a portion of the property to an existing pond onthe opposite side of Route 6. As any runoff from the site eventually enters the Totier Creek~reservoir, the appropriate erosion control measures as required by the Erosionand Sedimentation Control Ordinance sho~uld be properly installed and maintained to prevent runoff from entering the stream or the~adjacent pond. If the impervious area created by the construction activities exceeds five percent, then the Runoff Control Ordinance regulations will also have to be adhered to. Only the minimal areas required for the construction of an access road, parking areas, septic system and the Church should be cleared in order to maintain the natural integrity of the site. Care should be taken to control the runoff that could be generated by the breaching of the steep.bank-to gain access from Route 6 to the property as this activity will occur directly opposite~the existing pond, Every effort should be taken to maintain the existing vegetation along the portion of the property adjacent to Route 6 and on the remainder o£ the property not needed for the construction activities. If the requirements are strictly adhered to, this site should accommodate this use with no detrimental effects on the quality of the water entering the Totier Creek water supply reservoir." Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meetinE on May ll, 1982, voted to recommend approval of this petition with the conditions of the staff, plus a third condition reading: "Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission review of site plan." Mr. Kenneth Smith, a member of the Board of Trustees for Jehovah's Witnesses, was present in support of the petition~ Mr. Fisher said the Board is concerned ~about what will happen to the water leaving this site because the site is in the Totier~Creek watershed. The Watershed Official indicates that thenatural vegetation should be left on the property to help collect the water. Mr. Lindstrom said he is very familiar with the difficulty of trying to meet Planning Commission conditions. He said that the Church of which he is a member recently constructed a building and things were done in terms of soil erosion which were inexcusable. This occurred because no member of the church was present while the contractor was grading the site. In the long run, his Church will spend many thousands of dollars in landscaping which would not have been necessary and the land has lain open to the elements for longer than a year. Mr. Smith said he understood the problem. June 2, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) There was no one from the public present to speak about this petition. Motion was then offered-by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve SP-82-2t with the conditions recommended by the-Planning Commission. Roll was called'and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs~ Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. .Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-82-6. Hop-In Food Store, inc. To rezone 1.27 acres currently zoned C-1 with proffer to C-1 with amended proffer to show size of propOsed building to be 2,579 square feet measuring 42x61.4. Located in northeast quadrant of intersection of Route and Route 656. County Tax Map 60F, Parcel ~, Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1982.~) ~ Mr. Tucker gave the Staff's report as follows: Applicant's Proffer: Under ZMA-S1-7, among other things the applicant proffered that "thg new store shall not cover more than a 2,300 square foot land area and is expected to be 41 x 51.4 feet, more or less." From the applicant's current proffer: "Hop-In is now reapplying for the same C-1 Commercial zoning with the same proffered conditions except that the size of the building will now be 2,579 square feet measuring 42 x 61.4~.'' Staff Comment: On March 18, 1981, the Board of Supervisors approved ZMA-S1-7, which was a proffered rezoning from RA to C-1. Subsequent actions by Hop'in are as follOws: 1. VA-81-67: Hop-In sought, among other things, variance from parking space requirements for the conversion of the existing store to offices which appeared to the Staff to be consistent with prior representations made by Hop-in. The variance was denied? 2. In the current proffer, the applicant states that "at the Board's hearing it was the applicant's intention, and I believe, the Board's understanding that a building identical to the existing Hop-In store~ would be built on the new tot." Staff has provided this history because it appears that clarification of the zoning on this property may be appropriate at this time. It is staff's opinion that: 1. ZMA-S1-7 was approved primarily to permit the continuabion of Hop-in in this location through the provision of zoned land in an amount adequate to replace features to be lost by widening of Hydraulic Road including adequate parking ~for the existing building. It may be appropriate to insure the availability of this parking in the future through a cooperative parking agree- ment or some other perpetUal mechanism. Re Staff has reviewed the minutes of the Commission and Board hearings, the applicant's proffer, and the proffered site plan, and finds no basis for the applicant's contention that the Board authorized a building identical to the existing building (i.e., two stories or one-story with basement). In regard to~rthe substance of this petition, it is Staff opinion that the increased size from 2,300 square feet to 2,579 square feet would not_adversely affect the area and woUld be in keeping with the intent of ZMA-S1-7. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May ll, 1982, voted to recommend approval of this petition subject to the proffer contained in a letter from Mr. David J. Wood, Jr., dated April 2, i982, addressed to the Department of Planning: "Hop-In is now reapplying for the same C-1 commercial zoning with the same proffered conditions except that the size of the building will now be 2,579 square feet measuring 42x61.4." The public hearing was opened. Mr. David Wood said the existing building on Hydraulic Road measures 61.4 feet. The application made earlier in the winter was for a building 51.4 feet. It was the intention to request a building of identical size as that one presently in existence so this application is simply to correct the other application. Mr. Fisher said the drawings with the Board's papers refer to 61 feet, 4 inches~and fifty-on~ feet, four inches The text refers to 61.4 feet. He asked which is correct. Mr-. Wood said four inches is correct Mrs. Ann Thomas, President, Georgetown Green Homeowners Association, was present and mentioned letter dated May 26, 1982, addressed to the Board of Supervisors in which the homeowners state their concerns about providing a visual barrier 'between the store and the neighborhood. Mr. Fisher'said he thought the concerns raised in the letter are matters which are appropriate for site plan review, instead of a general rezoning request, and suggested that Mrs. Thomas attend that meeting so that these concerns will not be lost during approval of the site plan. Mr. Tom Lincoln was present. He said that his firm had drawn the site plan and-he then went over the original proffer. Mr. Fisher asked if all of the original proffers still applied and the only change is' that the 51 foot dimension is being changed to 61 feet. Mr. Lincoln said that was correct. Mr. Fisher said the proffer letter shows the size of the building in decimal form, but the later letter talks about 42x61.4 with no dimensions. Mr. Lincoln said the request is definitely for a building 42 feet by 61 feet, four inches. 228 June 2, 1982-(Regular.Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if the applicant will provide some type of opaque fencing as requested by the adjacent property owners. Mr. Lincoln said this can be negotiated with the Staff at the time of site plan re-view° Because of a grade separation at the bottom of the property, a fence would not block the view and the grade is so steep that he did not believe anyone will run down the hill to throw trash over the fence. With no one rising to speak about this request, the public hearing was Closed. Mr. Lindstrom said his primary concern is that of fencing along the back of the property, but since this is a straight rezoning with a proffer, he wil~ support the requested amendment because it does not expand the commercial area, but rather just corrects the dimensions on the site plan itself. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve-ZMA-82-6 with the proffer recommended by the Planning Commission, ShoWing the dimensions of ~the building as 42 feet by 61 feet, four inches. The ~motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and.carried by the following recorded~vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr, Butler. At 8:.55 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:~05 P.1M. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: 1982-83 County Budget. Progress on May 25, 1982.) (Advertised in the Daily Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum to the Board of May 26, 1982: "The following changes have been made to 'the 1982,83 County budget which was approved by the Board on April 28, 1982: 1) Funds for the County/City Revenue Sharing agreement have been added ($1,293,552). 2) The School operating budget has been increased $16,786 as adopted by the School~Board, reflecting several changes in adjusting the total budget from the original request of $2.3,320,602 to-the approved amount of $23,160,134. The changes include revisions in the levels of State funding, some for reimbursable expenses, which resulb in bhe $16,786 being funded entirely from State funds; the local funds remaining at the $13,260,083 originally approved. _ i 3) $6,242 has been added for the Youth Services Center. 5) The addition of $60.0 to.the budget for the Commonwealth's Attorney,. because the annual rent of. his office is ohanging from~$4,200~to $4,800 and this was determined after the original budget was balanced. The addition of Self-Sustaining Funds.as follows: Cafeteria FUnd Textbook Fund McIntire Trust Fund Federal School Programs Regional Jail Fund Total 500,000 135,000 5,000~ 982,182_ !~065~537 $2,687,719 6) The adjustment of the category called "Refunds" for land use deferrals from $1,541,000 to $1,761,-460,~an.increase of $220,460, and for tax relief for the elderly and handicapped from $56,950 to $65,~50, an increase of $8,.500 to reflect ~the proposed real estate tax rate. change from 675 to 77~. 7) The ad~justment~of the appropriation-for the Capital Improvement-Program from $1,163,406 to $1,190,~.419, an increase of $27,013 to restore a porti.on~of the $97,263 cut ~in this~appropriation-which was used in the original budget for funding one-time operational expenses. 8) The removal of $26,333 in revenues from the General Fund Carry'Over Balance category used in the origi~nal budget ~to balance the total budget. The additi6n of 10% to the Real Estate tax rate is calculated to produce $1,582,700 in gross revenues and subtracting 'an ~increase in "Refunds" ofL$228,960~, leaves a net revenue increase of $1,353,740~ This is $60,188 more than the $~,293,552 needed to fund the ReVenue Sharing Agreement with the City, and $53,346 more than needed to fund the Agreement taking into account the amount for the. Youth Service Center and rent for the COmmonwealth,s Attorney. A nine cents rate increase would provide $1,218,366 in net revenues, a~shortfall of $75,186~for funding the Revenue Sharing Agreement, and $82,028 short of funding this amended~budget. It is therefore ~ecommended that the budget be balanced with the $53,346 in new revenues being allocated to remove the dependency on the Carry-Over Balance ($26,333) and to restore the remainder ($53,~46 - $26,333 = $27,013) to the Capital Improve- ment~ Program. June 2, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 229 The following is a summary of the changes: Revenues: General Fund School Fund Self-Sustaining Funds TOTAL REVENUE Approved , A~ril 28- $26,985,672 9,900,051 $36,885,723 Proposed Change $28,542,039 + $1,556,367 9,916,837 + 16,786 2,~87~719 +, 2~683,~7,1? $41,146,595 + $4,260~872 Expenditures: General Management and Support Human Development Public Safety and Justice, Sub-Total, General Government Operations $ 2,994,380 $ 2,994,380 $ -0- 3,068,998 3,075,240 + 6,242 ,2,806,388 2,806,988 + 600 $ 8,869,766 $ 8,876,608 + $ 6,842 Refunds Education Debt Service Revenue Sharing - County/City Capital Improvements Self-Sustaining TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 1,632,350 $ 1,861,310 + $ 228,960 23,160,134 23,176,920 + 16,786 2,060,067 2,060,067 ~0- -0- 1,293,552 + 1,293,552 1,163,406 1,190,41~ + 27,013 -0- 2,687,719 + 2,687~719 $36,885,723 $41,146;595 + $4,260,872 The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against ~this budget. The public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said that the cost Of the Revenue Sharing Agreement is about 9.6% on the tax rate. Mr. Agnor has used the other 4/10% to fill some of the holes created a few months ago dUring work sessions on the budget. Mr. Lindstrom said that for clarification, it should be stated that Mr. Agnor made every effort to see if the increase on the tax rate for the agreement could not be set at one penny less and he hopes that this effort will be made each year. Mr. LindStrom immediately offered motion to order the drafting Pof an appropriate Appropriation Ordinance for adoPtion on JUne 9, 1982, using the budget figures advertised for tonight. The motion was seconded by Miss NaSh. Mr~ Agnor said he had one further change to recormnend. The County has been funding the utility cost of the Meadows Senior Center, but in preparing the Parks and Recreation budget no amount was included for this expense since it was felt at the time that the operation of the Center might be.handled in a different manner next year. Mr. Agnor then recommended that $2,650 be included for Utilities at the Meadows Center, with a like amount being subtracted from the Capital Improvements category. Motion to accept this change to the mo~ion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, accepted by Miss Nash, and the motion then carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom ·and Miss Nash. ' NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. ?. Request from Emergency Medical Services Council bo.occUpy Space in old real estate offices.. Mr. Agnor said that the Board did not see fit to fund this' agency; Only an appropriation large enough to cover the cost of maintenance for the radio system was included in-the budget. Since~the budget was finalized, a letter has beenreceived requesting an in-ki~d contribution by allowing the EMS Council to occupy space in the fOrmer real estate assessment offices. The County has beentrying to rent spaces that were'vacated last year to other public agencies, but has not been successful as far as this space is concerned. Mr. Agnor said if the Board sees fit to grant this request, he would recommend that $6,~00 be appropriated so the EMS Council would have funds to-~pay the rent per a lease, and~to share in the cost of the utilities with the other tenants of this building. Mr. LindStrom said that after the Board had decided not to support this agency, he had-had second thoughts. Since the space is available, and the Board had decided that the County should not rent to private organizations, he would be in favor of the request. Mr. Fisher said he would rather make a contribution~in this fashion and suggested that the request be approved With~the term of the lease being the same as that for other tenants. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to lease this space to the EMS COuncil for the time prescribed in the other leases for that building and to incorporate $6,~00 for the expense into the ApproPriation Ordinan6e to be adopted next week. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash'and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr.' Butler. Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-82-7. Amend Section 31.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to authorize the Zoning Administrator rather than the Director of Planning to accept bond surety'prior to issuance of Certificates of occupancy. (AdvertiSed in the Daily P~ogress~onMay 19 and May 26, 1982.) .... Mr. Tucker said that in January, 1982, the responsibility for~assuring compliance with site plan conditions was shifted from the Planning Department to the Inspections Department. In keeping with that change and as a matter of efficiency, this amendment would authorize the Zoning Administrator to accept bond surety prior to'issuance of certificates off-occupancy. On April t~, 1982, the Board adopted a resolution of intent to amend Section 31.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and referred the matter to the Planning Commission. The Staff and Planning Commission recommend adoption of the following amendment: 23o June 2, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 31.2.3 CEETIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY ... The ~ee~e~ et ~ammAmg.zoning administrator is authorized to accept instead .... ' The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to amend and reenact Section 31.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance by adoption of the wording set out above. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the ~follOwing recorded vote: ~. AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-82-8. Amend definition of child caring uses in the Zoning Ordinance to provide for uniformity in the. minimum number of children served. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 19 and May 26, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said that on April 15, 1982, the Planning Commission, at the request of the Fire Official1, adopted a resolution of intent to amend definitions of child caring uses to provide for .uniformity in the minimum number of children served. The staff recommended the following amendments which would: 1) Define child caring uses as serving six or more children. TheSe uses reGuire special use permit, s in most' districts. Child caring uses serving fewer than six c'hitdren.would be considered as .babysitting and could~be established as~a home' occupation, The staff recommended the following amendments: under the heading "Day Care,,.Child Care or Nursery Facility" make the following changes: Day or Child Care Center:~- Any facility..for the purpose of providing-care, protection and guidance to a-group of six'(6)~or more children, separated from their parents or guardian during a~part-of the day only, except: l) . Same. 2) Same. 3) Same. 4) Same. 5) ~Same. Nursery: Same. Nursery School- A school designed to provide daytime instruction for six (6) ~we-~S~ or more children from two (2) to five (5) years of age inclusive, and operated on a regular basis. Mr. Tucker said that at its meeting hel~d on May ll, 1982, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendments set,out above. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak .for or against the amendments the public hearing was closed.- Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to amend and reenact Section 3.0 of the Zoning Ordinance, Definitions, by adopting the amendment to ~ay or Child-Care Center as set out above. The motion~carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. -..~ ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 10., Discussion: Letter from VACo on Alternative Minimum Tax. Mr. Agnor said that 'Congress is considering legislation that is geared toward increasing the Federal income tax on banks. Part of the formula being considered includes the amount of tax exempt bonds that banking institutions are holding. In-so doing, it is felt that in the long run this will have a negative impact on local government financing because it will decrease the demand for exempt securities thus raising the rate of interest on local government securities. The banking industry is complaining that they are being penalized too severly for having helped the communities in the country with their long-range planning. Mr.~Agnor said he has talked with several bankers about this proposed legislation. The'Virginia Association of Counties staff is urging that the Board write its Congressmen and advise them of the impact that this legislation will have on the County. Mr, Fisher asked if any specific proposal~has been intr°duCed in Congress.-. Mr. Agnor said-no; the proposal is still in committee. Mr. Henley said he does not.feel that the banks have bent over backwards to help the localities, so does not feel the Board should say anything about this until a bill has been introduced. Mr. Fisher agreed. There was no further.discussion of the matter. Agenda Item No..11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor said that when he requested that Mr. Maynard Elrod be appointed as the new County Engineer he forgot to also request that hebe appointed as Runoff Control Official. He so requests at this time. Motion to appoint Mr. Elrod was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. June g, lg~2 ~Regu~lar .D..ay. Me~ti~ng) June 2, !9~12 ('Regu±ar l~ign~ ~lee~lng) 221 Mr. Henley said that he had read the minutes of September 9, 1982. He noted two corrections on page ~80. Sixth paragraph, add the word "said" after "Mr. Agnor" at beginning of sentence° Seventh paragraph, change to read: "Mr. Agnor then noted that County staff has begun the process .of analyzing the diminishing federal funds of a number of agencies?, a~ ~e~ As these asencies turn to Albemarle County for assistancez a~ the rate of return on the investment ae ~a~ ae of public funds~.must be known." Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve the minutes of September 9, 1981, with the corrections noted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by'the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, ~indstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None~ ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of copies several letters: Letter signed by Charles R. Price, Supervisor, State Bureau of Radiological Health, addressed to Harold W. Berk, University of Virginia Hospital, in which he stated that the State did environmental sampling around the University incinerator site on Route 20 for over a year, and quarterly samples of air, soil, vegetation and water'analyzed forgross beta activity show no activity above background levels. Therefore, Mr. Price feels that the sampling is unnecessary. Next was~a letter from Harold Berk to Linda Peacock, Office of Emergency Services, in which he states that the State Department of Health will no longer be making environmental surveys at the incineration facility. Third was a memo from Linda Peacock to the Board a-nd Council members in which she stated: "I do not believe that discontinuation of sampling by the State should be cause for concern, as the Radiation Safety Officer will still be monitoring and sampling before and after every burn as per the established protocol which is part of the University's NRC license." Mr. Lindstrom said that in a memo from Ray Jones dated May 19, 1982, he mentions that the Virginia Code permits localities to impose a special tax on consumers of telephone service for the purpose of installing a 911 emergency telephone system. He asked if there would be further comments on this subject. Mr. Agnor said there will be, but not until after receipt of the Central Police Dispatching report which is due to be received at any time. Miss Nash asked Mr. Agnor if he knew anything about the complaints about the chimney at the Old Woolen Mills. Mr. Agnor said the owner has done some pointing of the brick and made improvements to preserve the chimney as an historical point of interest. The chimney has not been condemned as reported earlier. The chimney has been examined by several engineers and none have found it to be an unsafe structure. Agenda Item No. 12. 9:50 P.M. With no further business to conduct, the meeting was adjourned at June 9, 1982"' (~egular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 9, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, ~01 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E.~ Fisher, Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:16 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. 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. Motion was offered by Mrs. ~Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the consent agenda consisting of two items~ Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of May, 1982, were presented; said statements were approved as presented.