Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-14July 14, 19~82 (Regular Day Meeting~ 298 A regular~meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on July 14, 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. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:35 A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order at 9:12 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. la. Introduce: 4-H Exchange Delegate. Mr. Henley introduced Ms. Anne Perkins, 4-H Exchange delegate to Japan. Mr. Jeff Kirwan, Extension Agent, was present and noted that Ms. Perkins will be in Japan for one month and will be staying with a Japanese family. Mr. Henley then presented a book on Albemarle County to Ms. Perkins as a gift in recognition of her trip to Japan. Mr. Fisher wished Ms. Perkins a nice trip. Mr. Butler congratulated Ms. Perkins. He then noted his past involvement with 4-H and n~ that 4-H is a Hr. Butler extended appreciation to those persons involved in 4 ~ood youth organization - and felt a good job h~s been done. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor requested that item 2.3 on the consent agenda be deleted since the two roads listed are not ready and therefore cannot be considered for acceptance into the state secondary system of highways. Mr. Agnor then presented the consent agenda consisting of the following three items for the Board's consideration. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the items on the consent agenda and adopted resolutions where appropriate. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT; Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Item No. 2.1. Statements of expenses for the State Compensation Board for the offices of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of June, 1982, were presented; said statements were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Statement of expenses for the State Department of Corrections incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of June, 1982, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail phySician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer; said statements were approved as presented. (It was also noted that this is the last time that this report will be included on the Board's agenda since funds appropriated by the General Assembly to support locally-operated adult and juvenile programs for 1982-83 will be provided in block grants apportioned on a formula basis--see letter from Department of Corrections dated May 26, 1982.) Item No. 2.3. Take roads into the State Secondary of Highways; item removed pending completion of procedures. Item No. 2.4. Street Sign Requests. A street sign request dated June 8, 1982, was received from Mr. Wade Tremblay, President of Willoughby Corporation, for street signs to identify four streets in Willoughby PUD. Mr. Tremblay has agreed to pay for the signs. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Harris Road (State Route 1130) and Loma Lane (State Route 1133) at the southwest corner of its intersection; Harris Road (State Route 1130) and Quince Lane (State Route 1131) at the northeast corner of its intersection; Quince Lane (State Route 1131) and Pepper Place (State Route 1132) at the southwest corner of its intersection; and WHEREAS a citizen has agreed, to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. 299 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Request was also received from Dr. and Mrs. John Crisp, dated June 28, 1982, for street signs to identify Westbrook Place in Woodbrook Subdivision. Dr. and Mrs. Crisp have agreed to pay for the signs. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Westbrook Place (State Route 1477) and Brookmere Road (State Route 1418) at the northeast corner of its intersection; and WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase this sign through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by 'the Board of Supervissors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. The following items were then presented for the Board's information: Item No. 2.la. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of May, 1982~ was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Item No. 2.2. The following letters were received from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, signed by Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer: "June 18, 1982 As requested in your resolution of April 14, 1982, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective July 1, 1982: ADDITION AUBURN HILL, SECTION II, SUBDIVISION Villaverde Lane - From: Rt. 1122 SW and SE to Rt. 1122 LENGTH 0.44 Mi." "June 22, 1982 As requested in your resolution dated May 14, 1980, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved effective July 1, 1982. ADDITION HESSIAN HILLS, SEC~ION VII, SUBDIVISION LENGTH Old Forge Road - From: Rt. 1472 to SW Cul-de-sac 0.08 Mi." "June 22, 1982 Mrs. Grady Covington Howardsville Virginia 24562 Dear Mrs. Covington: This will confirm my statements made at our meeting on June 11, 1982, at your entrance on Route 602 in Albemarle County. At the time of our meeting we looked at the curve on Route 602 just east of your entrance. I indicated that a rough estimate of the cost to widen the shoulder and ditch on that curve would be $2,000. More extensive grading to improve the sight distance around the curve I estimated at some $5,000. This latter work would require the removal of a retaining wall and fence opposite your entrance. As I indicated at the time, the problem we reviewed is but one of hundreds of similar problems existing in Albemarle County. Although I agree the work we reviewed is a valid improvement need, I cannot support the work as one of the highest priorities on the secondary system in Albemarle County. The curve is marked by warning signs that if obeyed make the negotiation of the curve safe. Our most recent traffic count in 1980 indicates that some 154 vehicles per day use this section of road. Certainly the short sight distance at your entrance is a hazard, however, the low traffic volumes along 602 and low traffic using your entrance combine to make this hazard a low priority. Yours truly, (SIGNED BY) D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer" July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 300 "June 18, 1982 Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss Neher: Thank you for your letter of June 11, 1982, expressing the objection of the Board of Supervisors to the deletion of the urban portion of the McIntire Road extension from the Department's Six-Year Improvement Program. Additional highway funds provided by the 1982 session of the General Assembly have enabled-the Department to move forward with a transportation improvement program which will meet many of the critical needs in the immediate future. However, these additional funds are by no means sufficient to meet all the critical needs which have been identified by the Department and the localities. The Department is well aware of the importance of the McIntire Road extension to the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, and we share the County Board's concern with this project being dropped from the plan. You may be assured that the Department will work with the City and the Board of Supervisors to accomplish this improvement if funds should become available. Sincerely, (S~ED BY) Harold C. King, Commissioner" Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: March 4 (Afternoon), October 15, October 21, October 30, December 2 (Night) and December 4, 1981; January 14, February 17, March 17, March 24, March 29 and April 5, 1982. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of March 29, 1982 and noted the following corrections: On page 141, first paragraph, sixth line, insert the word "which" between "vehicles" and "will" and on page 141, sixth paragraph, first line, insert the following "and counselling with regard to the use of contraceptives and abortions" between "examinations" and "on". Miss Nash then offered motion to approve the minutes of March 29, 1982, with the above corrections. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs; Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. The other minutes listed on the agenda had not been read and were deferred. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Fieldbrook Road (Abandon and add section). Mr. Agnor said this matter is still not ready for Board action and is on the agenda today for deferral to September 8, 1982. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer action until September 8, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 4b. Highway Matters: Discussion: Six-Year Highway Plan. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and noted the following information which had been sent to the Board: "Mr. R. W. Tucker Albemarle County County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Tucker: Attached is the proposed Six-Year Plan for the Albemarle County Secondary System. The Code of Virginia requires that a minimum amount, totalling $1,906,000, be allocated for gravel road to hard surface improvements. This plan allocates this amount. 30 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day~ Meeting) The Department's policy is that each County allocate approximately one- third of its funds to qualifying federal aid projects. Conversion of the Meadow Creek Parkway to federal aid, thus making all three major projects federal aid, fulfills this requirement. Department policy allows up to 13% of the funds available to be undesignated to specific projects. This plan allocates $100,000 per year to this classification which is less than the maximum. $100,000 would build from one-half to one mile of gravel road per year. The eleven gravel road projects listed are all roads where right of way is already basically available. Only Routes 600 and 664 do not meet this criteria. Route 600 is in a village area and right of way acquisition has not yet been attempted. Route 664 right of way is being obtained by citizens. The right of way was staked in early June. Inclusion in the plan would assist those obtaining right of way. The major projects of Hydraulic Road, Park Street Bridge and Meadow Creek Parkway constitute the top three priority projects from the current six year plan. With proposed costs and funds expected and other requirements of the plan, these are all the major projects we can finance. I request this plan be distributed to the Planning Commission on June 24, 1982, and that a recommendation be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors as soon thereafter as possible. Yours truly, (SIGNED BY) D. S. Roosevelt Resident Engineer" 53% 15% MAJOR PROJECTS Hydraulic Road Park Street Bridge Meadow Creek Parkway GRAVEL ROAD PROJECTS Route 600 Route 601 Route 618E Route 618W Route 664 Route 671 Route 702 Route 717 Route 764 Route 769 Route 640 MISCELLANEOUS County Wide Items New Additions Hatton Ferry Undesignated PROPOSED SIX YEAR PLAN ALBEMARLE COUNTY 1,128,400 269,000 1,712,372 250,000 50,000 193,000 350,000 173,000 250,000 220,000 200,000 20,000 100,000 100,000 122,000 120,000 120,000 500,000 $3,109,772 1,906,000 862,000 TOTAL $5,877,772 Mr. Roosevelt then noted the Six-Year Plan for 1982 through 1988 in more detail as follows: PROJECT: TOTAL COST TENTATIVE FUNDING STRUCTURE Hydraulic Road Park Street Bridge Meadow Creek Parkway $2,900,000 594,000 3,500,000 Route 600 250,000 Allocations thru 1981-82--$1,771,600 1982-83--$558,100 1983-84--$570,300 Allocations thru 1981-82--$325,000 1982-83--$269,000 Allocations thru 1981-82--$50,000 1983-84--$185,615 1984-85--$548,683 1985-86--$374,622 1986-87--$302,007 1987-88--$301,445 (Additional $1,737,628 will be needed) 1986-87--$120,000 1987-88--$130,000 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 302 Route 601 Route 618E Route 618W Route 664 Route 671 Route 702 Route 717 Route 764 Route 769 Route 640 New Additions Hatton Ferry Undesignated Countywide Items 350,000 250,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 220,000 400,000 20,000 100,000 100,000 Allocations thru 1981-82--$300,000 1982-83--$50,000 Allocations thru 1981-82--$57,000 1982-83--$193,000 1984-85--$124,000 1985-86--$226,000 1987-88--$173,000 (Additional $127,000 will be needed) 1983-84--$61,000 1984-85--$189,000 1986-87--$120,000 1987-88--$100,000 Allocations thru 1981-82--$200,000 1982-83--$200,000 1983-84--$20,000 1983-84--$100,000 1985-86--$51,000 1986-87--$49,000 1982-83/1987-88--$20,000 each year 1982-83/1987-88--$20,000 each year 1983-84/1987-88--$100,000 each year 1982-83--$22,000 1983-84/1987-88--$20,000 each year Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting on July 6, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of the Six Year Secondary Road Plan as set out above. Mrs. Cooke expressed concern about a $20,000 allocation being shown each year for the Hatton Ferry operation. She thought that when the allocation was approved for the Hatton Ferry it was for only one year or until such time as the Committee could find a way for the operation of the ferry be self-supporting. Mr. Fisher agreed and said no decision was made about what would happen to funding the Ferry after the 1982-83 fiscal year. Mr. Roosevelt said he interpreted the Board's action to be an agreement to finance the Ferry operation with construction funds in the future and if another way of financing the Hatton Ferry operation could be found, then the Board would support that method. Mr. Fisher said no de~ision has not been made at this time. Mr. Roosevelt said the $100,000 for future years could be redesignated for specific projects or placed in undesignated funds and then could be used for the Ferry operation on a year by year basis if needed. The general consensus of the Board was to show $20,000 for the Hatton Ferry for Fiscal Year 1982-83 and delete the allocation for the years thereafter. Mr. Roosevelt recommended that the $100,000 allocation for the remaining years in the six-year plan be shown for the Meadow Creek Parkway project. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:35 A.M.) Mr. Fisher asked which previous projects had been deleted and which projects added to this plan. Mr. Roosevelt said the bridge on Route 671 over the Moorman River was deleted because there is not sufficent funding for the project and as long as the posted tonnage is adhered to the bridge will be safe. Other projects deleted were w~s Route 711 from Route 712 to Route 29 in the Red Hill area; Route 712 from Route 692 to Route 29; Route 785 from Route 695 to the dead end of same in the Proffit area; Route 727 from Route 627 to one mile south of same; and the bridge over the Hardware River on Route 633. Mr. Roosevelt said these projects were deleted because the necessary right-of-way could not be obtained. Mr. Roosevelt said new projects added are Route 618 West; Route 664; Route 671; and Route 640. These projects were added because the right-of-way has been obtained. Mr. Roosevelt said the remaining projects are those carried in previous years plus normal projects such as countywide items for seeding, fertilizing, etc. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board had any suggestions for changes or deletions in the plan presented by Mr. Roosevelt. Hearing none, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to advertise for public hearing on August 4, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., the proposed Six-Year Plan for secondary improvements as presented by Mr. Roosevelt with the one amendment mentioned. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 4d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom said he had sent a letter to Mr. Roosevelt about the stop sign at the intersection of Smithfield and Westminster Roads and questions continued to be asked about the matter. Mr. Roosevelt recalled the letter and restated his response at that time; a stop sign without enforcement is worse than no stop sign at all. He also noted that the sight distance in the area is limited and the area is already posted for twenty-five miles per hour. Mr. Roosevelt did not know of anything else that the Highway Department could do in this matter did not feel the Highway Department would be willing to put a stop sign at a location which will not be enforced. Mr. Lindstrom expressed frustration that this type of situation is a recurring problem because the Sheriff's Department will say it cannot enforce something when no sign is present and the Highway Department will say that it will not put a stop sign at a location that will not be enforced. He felt the complaints from the residents in the area are legitimate. Mr. Roosevelt said if the Board, as a whole, feels this is a solution and wishes to suggest such, he would send the request to the Culpeper Highway office. Mr. Roosevelt felt that by putting a stop sign at this location a false sense of security is created. Mr. Lindstrom disagreed and noted that most people stop at a stop sign. Mr. Henley did not understand the highway department being hesitate about errecting a stop sign and asked if it were a county road. Mr. Roosevelt said yes and noted that if persons traveled the twenty-five miles per hour speed limit posted, there would not be this problem. He also noted that the Sheriff does not have the forces available to enforce the speeding and there are now stop signs on the two side streets of the intersection. Mr. Lindstrom again expressed frustration about a stop sign not being erected and felt that people pay more attention to a stop sign than speed limits. Mr. Roosevelt said he would talk to the Highway traffic staff and report to the Board at its meeting on August 4, 1982. 303 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher noted the weeds along Old Lynchburg Road need to be cut. said mowing is in progress around the County now. Mr. Roosevelt Agenda Item No. 6. Requests for use of the Old Jailor's House. Mr. Agnor said that in late 1981 the Board approved a request for the staff to solicit uses for the Old Jailor's House and the Real Estate Building on East High Street. The real estate building has been leased and two agencies have expressed interest in the use of the jailor's house. One agency, Offender Aid and Restoration, National Headquarters, which currently occupies part of the old J_ail, is interested and the Region Ten Community Services Board. Mr. Agnor said OAR pays the utilities and is responsible for the interior and exterior maintenance of the portion it currently rents. The proposal from OAR is for $100.00 per month rent and Mr. Agnor said the actual rent based on the square footage should be $500.00 per month. Therefore, the County would have to underwrite a significant amount for the use of the building. The Region Ten Community Services Board is to be the contract agency for the City to establish a shelter for homeless alcoholics and it will be able to meet the costs for the rent of the space since the City is to receive State funds this year for this particular use. Therefore, Mr. Agnor said the staff recommends that if City Council requests the County to allow the Community Services Board to use the jailor's house for the shelter that the Board consider that as an appropriate use of the building. He felt the residents of the community will be served a more direct service by the Community Services Board and they will be able to incur the costs for the building. Mr. Fisher asked if the City has made any such requests. Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Fisher then suggested that this matter be deferred until the City Council takes action but would allow those present to speak today. The Board concurred in this suggestion. Speaking first was Mr. Skip Mullaney, Executive Director of Offender Aid and Restoration. He noted that OAR is involved with alcoholics and works with them on a one to one basis. However, OAR desires to occupy the entire jail complex because of the historic values of the buildings. Also, OAR has made an investment in its current headquarters in the Jail and a considerable amount of historical research has been done on the building. He also noted that the County received an award this past year from the National Association of Counties for the work OAR did on recovering the history of the building. Mr. Mullaney noted that city and county residents are hired by OAR and training and other field services are provided by the local chapter of OAR. Mr. Mullaney said OAR does not intend to renovate the complex but rather maintain its current status and hopefully make a portion of the old jail itself into a museum. Mr~ Mullaney said the proposal from OAR is to pay $100.00 per month rent which includes maintenance of the interior and exterior of the building. He noted that OAR offered this amount as rent and has been approached to rent the facility at another amount. In conclusion, he requested the Board's favorable consideration of this request. Next to speak was Mr. Gene Krumnacher, Chairman of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Advisory Committee, and a county appointee on the Region Ten Community Services Board. Mr. Krumnacher said the first priority of the committee after it was organized a year ago was to locate a shelter for the homeless alcoholics. The lease on the temporary shelter currently being used for the inebriates will expire soon. Therefore, another facility will be needed immediately. Mr. Krumnacher said this site is suitable because it is close to the police departments, cannot be observed from the public highways, and is readily available to the rescue squads and the University of Virginia Emergency Room. Mr. Krumancher said it is also close to the local courts which will eliminate transit of the inebriates. Mr. Krumnacher said there will be a work program for the inebriates in exchange for their board. There has been objection voiced by the downtown merchants about the location of the shelter in the subject area, thus creating a nuisance on the Mall. However, he did not feel there would be as great a nuisance as felt because Winchester has a similar situation and the problem of inebirates has not increased. Even though the shelter will not solve the problem of inebriates on the Mall, the Committee feels the offer of humanitarian services to them will alleviate further problems. In conclusion, Mr. Krumnacher requested favorable consideration of the Community Services Board request. Next to speak was Mr. John C. Hutter, local businessman in the downtown area who supported the proposed location for the shelter. Mr. Fisher said regardless of who leases the building, it should be stressed that there will not be exterior renovation now or in the future without a major design approved by the City Architectural Review Board. He felt the building has a historical value which should not be altered. Mr. Fisher also felt that the building would have to undergo a considerable amount of interior renovation to meet the fire codes and other requirements for it to be used as a shelter. Mr. Krumnacher said the committee has discussed that with various contractors and has been informed that $4,000 would put the interior of the building in an acceptable condition. Mrs. Cooke said this area has a historical aspect and she would be very disturbed if an historical landmark such as this is not available for public use. She was impressed with the work OAR did on the building and felt that a one tenant occupancy is the most desirable. This is only a short distance from a residential complex for the elderly and she was not very pleased with inebriates being in such close proximity. Mrs. Cooke was concerned about the use of the facility for the inebriates. Mr. Fisher said as noted before, the matter will be discussed again after the City Council has taken action. July 14, 1982 (R~Qlar Day Meeting) 3.04 Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Ronald E. Lucas Final Plat. (Plat drawn by R. O. Snow, Certified Land Surveyor, dated May 17, 1982, 2.00 acre parcel, a portion of Tax Map 28, Parcel 26, Ronald E. Lucas Property, Albemarle County, ¥irginia, for James K. Shifflett) Mr. Fisher noted the following letter of appeal dated June 28, 1982, from Mr. Ronald E. Lucas, applicant: "Dear Mr. Tucker: I wish to appeal the denial of the Planning Commission's decision on June 22, 1982 to the Board of Supervisors. Please refer to the letter which I wrote to Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner, Department of Planning on June 9, 1982. I requested a waiver of Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance requiring a minimum of ten acres to be served by a private road because my entire tract consists of 8.67 acres a.nd would be unable to have two ten acre lots. James Shifflett has been married for five years and has been trying to buy two acres of land somewhere in Albemarle County, especially in the White Hall District, but has been unable to find anything that was situated as well as this. He felt that two acres would be sufficient for a house and garden and with interest rates so high he could not afford ten acres of land. The ordinance has been changed from five to ten acres since the sale of the two acres was started. James has worked for me off and on since he was in school doing electrical and plumbing work. He worked regular for me from graduation until March, 1978 when I had a heart attack and was off from work for three months. He got a job in Charlottesville then but has continued to help me on Saturdays when I needed him and comes by in the evenings from work and helps in the yard with mowing, etc. James has already spent about $500.00 for surveying and other fees and I hope you will give this request your careful consideration and help this young couple get the two acres of land and then a home." Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following staff report "Location: Parcel 26 on Tax Map 28, White Hall District; located off the east side of Route 608, south of the intersection with Rt. 671, north of Free Union. Acreage: 8.67 acres Zoning: Rural Areas History: April 20, 1982 - The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance VA-82-11. This approval allowed relief from Section 10.4 and permitted a structure (barn) to be located twelve feet from the right-of-way. This was a variance of 63 feet. Proposal: To divide an 8.67 acre tract into a two acre and 6.67 acre tract. The two acre tract is to be served by.a 15~ right-of-way. The 6.67 acre tract has an existing dwelling and separate entrance. Reason for Planning Commission Review: This property is served by an easement. Topography of Area: Gently sloping. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 608 currently carries 303 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to be tolerable. Watershed Impoundment: Rivanna Watershed. Soils: The Soil ConServation Service reports that this property contains a deep well-drained soil with bedrock deeper than sixty inches. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation with a recommended density of one dwelling unit per five acres. School Impact: Total projected enrollment of approximately one student with a slight impact. Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Waiver Request: The applicant has requested a waiver of Section 18-36b(5) of the Subdivision Ordinance~. This section of the ordinance states that the 'average density in such subdivision shall comply with the Comprehensive Plan'. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the recommended density for this area is one dwelling unit per ten acres as this property is located in the watershed. The applicant is proposing to divide 8.67 acres into a two acre tract (to be sold to Mr. James Shifflett) and a 6.67 acre residue (with an existing dwelling). The applicant has noted in the attached letter that due to the immense cost of buying land and constructing a home, it is prohibitive for most young people to buy even five acres of land. The applicant states that allowing a private road to serve the two acre lot would in no way conflict with the private road provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has commented that the existing entrance, which will serve the two acre parcel, is adequate for a private entrance. The 6.67 acre parcel is served by an adequate private entrance one hundred to one hundred and fifty feet to the south of this. Written Health Department approval has been obtained for the two acre tract. The staff has no authority to recommend the above noted waiver, but should the Planning Commission choose to grant the waiver, the following conditions of approval are recommended. 30'5 July 14,]1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met: ae Determination of a 30,000 square foot building/site on the two acre parcel; Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance, if necessary; Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance, if necessary; Note the date by which all reference monuments will be set; County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for fifteen foot right-of-way if easement is nonexclusive." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on June 22, 1982, denied the Lucas Final Plat on the basis that it did not comply with the private road provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. In order to comply with Section 18~6~f~h.e~d~n~nce, the lot served by the private road or right-of-way would need to comply with the recommended density for this area under the County's Comprehensive Plan. The recommended density for this area is one dwelling unit per ten acres since the property is located within the Rivanna Watershed. Mr. Fisher said it was his understanding that if this new parcel were served by a public road, the applicant could, by right, divide the existing parcel into four parcels. Therefore, it is only because the parcel is to be served by a private road that the larger density as determined by the Comprehensive Plan is in effect. Mr. Fisher asked what sort of precedent approval of this waiver would set for the two additional divisions of this parcel and if there are Other places in the County where this situation exists. Mr~ Tucker said the Commission has in several cases granted waivers but there are other situations where a waiver was not considered. Mr. Tucker said while the Commission-has not been consistent in their actions, it has in some cases given reasons for approving or denying such a plat. However, this is the first plat that has been denied based on Section 18-36. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant has indicated any intent to divide other parcels off of this remainder of the lot. Mr. Tucker said the waiver request is just for this two acres and another waiver would be necessary if the applicant decides to divide another two acre lot. Mr. Fisher said if the Board overrules the Planning Commission a precedent will be set for other such applications. Mr. Tucker said if the Board does overrule the Planning Commission, the Board's reason should be clearly stated and the reason will be very important in any review in future applications for subdivisions. Mr. Wendell Winn, attorney for Mr. Lucas, was present. Mr. Winn said Mr. Lucas does not have any plans to resubdivide this property. He has lived on this property for thirty- nine years. Mr. Winn said the motivation is not a monetary one. The request is for a waiver of Section 18-36(b)(5), part of the private road provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Winn then presented a history of that section. He understood that prior to June 30, 1981 that section did not exist. Further, he understood that prior to May 1982, the Planning Commission acted without reference to that section. Requests were granted and by so doing, the Planning Commission implicitly waived this condition. In April and May 1982, the condition was waived either expressly or implicitly by the Planning Commission in at least four cases of which he was aware. Then without any warning, the Planning Commission denied the Lucas request. Mr. Winn said the waiver has been requested for the following three reasons. One, this could be interpreted as a hardship case because Mr. Lucas is sixty-two years old ~and has had some health problems. Mr. Lucas has had a long term~relationship with Mr. Shifflett who has helped him on the farm and checks on Mr. Lucas on a regular basis, Mr. Lucas has children but they do not live close by. Therefore, Mr. Lucas would like to have Mr. Shifflett close by to help on the farm. Mr. Winn said the appeal is actually about the inequity of the Planning Commission granting waivers in a number of cases and then denying a waiver in this case. Therefore, he felt either, the Board or the Planning Commission should study the application of this condition so that it can be clearly and uniformly applied. Mr. Winn then referred to the following cases where waivers were approved; John Boseley Plat, approved in April 1982; Shifflett plat, approved in April 1982; both of these did not refer to Section 18-36(b)(5) and do involve private roads. In conclusion, Mr. Winn said he felt the plat should be approved on the hardship aspect, and the precedents already set by the Planning Commission of plats with similar situations being approved and the fact that the Planning Commission may approve a subdivision without requiring that it meet Section 18-36(b)(5). Mr. Winn did not feel it was practical, or in the public interest, to require Mr. Lucas to put in a public road which he could do as a matter of right to serve this two acre parcel. The environment would be damaged more if such was done. Mr. Winn said in talking with the surveyor, Mr. Roger Ray, who is also present, he understands that the proposed location for the road is the only suitable place for a road because there is a pond along the southern boundary. Mr. Roger Ray, land surveyor for Mr. Lucas, was present and said a private road plan was prepared and submitted to the County Engineer's department showing the size of the road and the right.-of-way. He noted that such plan has been approved by that department. The road is designed on an eight-foot width of stone and such is adequate for one user. There is also very minor grading required because of the lay of the land and the fifteen foot right-of-way is adequate. With no one else present to speak for or against the plat appeal, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the private road provisions in the Subdivision Ordinance and noted that such are basically for large lot developments and this is basically a private driveway serving one lot which is different than what the provisions were designed for. Mr. Lindstrom felt the private road provisions are rather weak to balance the entire Compre~ hensive Plan on. However, given the past history of Planning Commission actions, he was unsure if there was anything the Board could do to reverse their actions. July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. St. John said if a public road is required it would never be actually public because such would serve only one house and the Highway Department would not accept same into the system. He also noted that it is impossible for the applicant to comply with the density requirements of the Comprehensive Plan because there is not enough property. In conclusion, Mr. St. John felt the requirement of a public road would be an impossible requirement for the applicant. Mr. Fisher agreed and felt the waiver should be granted in this situation. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to grant approval of the waiver of Section 18-36(b)(5) as requested by the applicant. Mr. St. John said the approval should include the conditions of the staff. Mr. Henley then amended his motion to include the five conditions of the planning staff. Mr. Butler seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. At 11:!0 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:20 A.M. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir. Mr. Fisher said a joint public hearing was held with City Council on June 30, 1982, on the proposal to build a water supply reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek. Since that time, the staff has researched records to determine the property owners who would be most affected by the various proposals presented at the public hearing. He then asked Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, to review his research. Mr. Norris noted a report entitled "Proposed Buck Mountain Creek Impoundment" dated July 14, 1982, delivered to the Board this date, which included a list of property owners affected by the various proposals. Mr. Norris said the findings of his review indicate the following: "l. There are thirty-three parcels of land totally or partially located within the normal pool area created by a dam constructed at site 'C'. By including those parcels which would probably be taken in their entirety, appr0x~ma~l~2625 ac~s~of land would be needed. Purchase of this land would require a minimum expenditure of $1.6 million. Approximately thirty-six parcels of land would be located either totally or partially within the 300 foot buffer established from normal pool. This brings the total number of parcels affected to forty-six. There are approximately 456 acres contained in this area. The properties located within this buffer have a value of approximately $1 million. Therefore, the purchase of a 300 foot buffer from the normal pool along with the purchase of the pool area would result in a land purchase price of $2.2 million. There are seven additional parcels located either totally or partially within a 300 foot buffer as established from the one hundred year flood plain. This option would involve the purchase of approximately 236 additional acres and would require the expenditure of an additional $450,000. The total land purchase price of this option is approximately $2.6 million. If a 100 foot buffer zone were established from the edge of the minor tributary streams, approximately 200 additional acres would be needed with a 300 foot buffer from the normal pool and 174 would be needed with a 300 foot buffer from the one hundred year flood plain. This option would add approximately $$474,000 to the price of the 300 foot normal pool option and $440,000 to the 300 foot flood plain option. There are six dwellings affected by the purchase of the normal pool area and those parcels that would be purchased entirely. These dwellings have a 1983 assessed value of $338,000. The establishment of a 300 foot buffer from normal pool would impact at least eight additional dwellings with an assessed fair market value of approximately $710,000. No additional dwellings would be impacted by a 300 foot buffer from the one hundred year flood level." Mr. Norris said by using the Camp, Dresser and McKee estimates, the purchase of the normal pool is about $900,000. Using the current real estate assessment values, taking into account residue properties that would have to be taken in .whole, the estimate is now $1.6 million. Mr. Norris said none of the proposals have the 500 foot setback option discussed by the Board at the public hearing. His opinion is to go either with the 300 feet from the normal pool or 300 feet from the one hundred year flood level. Mr. Norris said there is no authority or division of the government that uses five hundred feet and the Army Corp of Engineers recommends three hundred feet for purposes other than water quality protection. However, if the integrity of the buffer is to be maintained then that is what is achieved through a three hundred foot buffer. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an analysis has been done on the additional cost involved in taking land beyond the three hundred foot plus area. Mr. Norris said no. He has attempted to go with the minimum number and this is what would be required for a minimum purchase. 30 7 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) \0 Mr. Fisher said at the joint public hearing, some city council members were asking questions about alternative methods of financing. He then asked if any response has been received from either the City staff or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff on ways of financing other than through twenty-five year bonds. Mrs. Norris said the City staff has not responded but the Rivanna staff has developed a brief summary of financing alternatives. Mr. Bill Sessoms from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff then distributed the following report: FINANCZNG PLAN AND WHOLESALE WATER RATE EFFECTS BUCK MOUNTAIN RESERVOIR LAND PURCHASE 1. CAPI~AL~-,COSTS: (millions): Estimated Estimated Net 0~_~o~ Market Value* Leaseback Value** Capital CoSt $1.6o 3.3o Pool Area Only Pool Area and 300 foot Buffer from Pool Pool Area and 300 foot Buffer from 100-year floodline 100 foot tributary buffers*** $.20 $1.q0 .44 2.86 3.8o .45 3.35 - - .25 *Land, dwellings, structures and appurtenances at fair market value **At $5/acre/year for land and $3600 per year per occupied dwelling, capitalized at 12%. ***Easements rather than purchase. Estimated at one-half market value. 2. FINANCING PLAN Temporary financing (bond anticipation notes) in Autumn 1982. Permanent financing as part of the Authority's contemplated mid-1983 bond issue for an assortment of water and wastewater capital projects and for the purchase of city and County facilities. The current estimate is for a 25-year bond with a net interest cost of 10%-12% in the range of $12-14 million before any Buck Mountain Land Purchase. 3. WHOLESALE WATER RATE EFFECTS Option Debt Service Cost(il%) Additional Rate Pool Only Pool and 300 foot buffer from pool Pool and 300 foot buffer from 100-year floodline 100-foot tributary easements $166,000 340,000 398,000 30,000 $.053/1000 gal. $.108/lO00 gal. $.126/1000 gal. $.01/100'0 gal. Mr. Lindstrom asked why an easement would cost only one-half market value. At th~ last meeting, a good point was made that if an attempt was made to purchase the buffer areas by easement, the easements would have to be so restrictive that for all intensive purposes the property would be taken; He asked if this was a different kind of easement. Mr. Sessoms said it is his understanding that what would be required in the three hundred foot buffer strip would essentially amount to a taking of the land, but a less restrictive easement would be possible in the one hundred foot buffer on the tributaries. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of easement is being'considered for the tributary streams. Mr. Norris said the idea of having easements is to minimize damage to adjacent properties while still allowing access from one property to the other in order not to landlock an individual by purchasing stream channels. Another problem comes with purchase because people feel that livestock access should be limited. However, the approach of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is that if there is an easement, livestock access is allowed on the tributary streams, agricultural activities with no cultivation is allowed within one hundred feet of the streams, and there is already in effect the one hundred foot setback for septic systems. Basically what is being done is to find a way to save some money but yet minimize damages to the properties in that area because there are quite a few parcels that are just minimimall affected but sections are carved off along the streams. Most of the parcels have the streams as their back boundaries. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel there would be any problem with livestock having access to the streams until there is an impoundment. He felt if someone is landlocked, an easement will have to be given or the entire parcel purchased. Mr. Lindstrom said th.ere has been a lot of discussion from the public about a five hundred foot buffer. He said that the minimum three hundred foot buffer from the one hundred year flood contour and then looking at the length of slope, steepness of slope and erodability, that three hundred from the one hundred year contour is the minimum; but beyond that there may be a need to purchase more land based on these other items. Mr. Norris said there are some areas where it may be possible to get the five'hundred feet based on the steepness of slope and erodability of soils that will boil down to setting a minimum and establishing guidelines. The reason he had shown this in the original report was to have some guidelines so that the buffer could be extended in those areas Where there was a need; in particular, where the soil or slopes warranted an additional buffer. Those modifications were dropped somewhere along the way in an attempt to condense some recommendations. Mr. Norris felt it was Rivanna's intent that those modifications still be part of the package. Mr. Agnor said the modifications are a part of the report that was submitted and adopted by the Rivanna Board, but when it was summarized and passed to the Board, they were not included in that report. July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 308 Mr. Lindstrom asked what guidelines were used to modify the original proposal. Mr. Norris said the only thing he found in literature to use as a guideline was the slope and the erodability chart which was developed and is used by the State Forestry Department. This was incorporated into the revisions of the Comprehensive Plan and he felt either that chart or a modification of that chart should be used as an initial basis for modifications. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the 25% slope is a concern. Mr. Norris said the three hundred foot covers to about thirty percent slope for moderate erosion hazardous soil. Mr. Lindstrom said if there was a slope beyond the three hundred foot buffer immediately adjacent to the buffer that was of that degree, three hundred feet would be sufficient. Mr. Norris said that once you cross into a severely erodable soil or hit the bottom of a thirty percent slope and head toward forty, the buffer jumps from two hundred and eighty foot to three hundred forty; the recommendation of the Forestry Department. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the one hundred year flood contour is taken plus three hundred feet and some additional land based upon slope and erodability, how that figure relates to a five hundred foot buffer. Mr. Norris did not know at this time. Mr. Fisher said he had been encouraging the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to do everything in its power to complete all its evaluation of ~he area in order to make a recommendation as to whether this is the best site for a water supply reservoir. They have done that. Therefore, he felt the City and County should make a decision as soon as possible on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's recommendation. He feels the moratorium which has been in effect for two years in the subject area has been an extreme hardship on the property owners. He feels the Board should now decide whether it is prepared to give the Rivanna Authority the go ahead to acquire the necessary property or to extend the moratorium. If the Board decides on an extension of the moratorium, he is not interested in one that will last longer than three months. Mr. Henley felt the persons living in the proposed area should have adequate time to make comments on this matter and he supported the moratorium being extended another three months. Miss Nash them asked if the property included in the moratorium area is the same land under consideration for the reservoir. Mr. Fisher said no, the land involved in the morat area is less. Mr. Lindstrom felt an evaluation should be made of what property is needed to be covered in the moratorium and either cover all the property or none at all. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should make some type of recommendation on this matter and then have another public hearing in order that the persons affected will know what the Board is considering. At this time, he did not feel the property owners or anyone else knows what is going on with all the possible options. Miss Nash did not feel there was any need to axtend the mOratorium. Mr. Fisher said there are some areas where building permits could be applied for and approved. Then a new building or buildings Could be constructed and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would have to purchase those buildings. Mr. FiSher said the Board could advertise for another public hearing~ on August 4, 1982. By doing that, the p~oposed area, the impact to the property owners, and ~he of the property owners involved could be made. Then after the public hearing, some a~tion could he taken on the proposal, and if not, the moratorium could be extended. Mr. Lindstrom felt more information'is necessary on the matter before another public hearing is held. Mr. Fisher noted, that he was prepared to go with option #5 as outlined in the memorandum from Mr. Norris and set~ a public hearing for August 4, 1982 and this would permit time for additional slope analysis of the area. Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, said this can be done but increasing the buffer based on slopes was originally envisioned as being an exercise which would occur in the field. Mr. Keeler said, however, in most cases, the three hundred foot buffer would be adequate. Mr. Norris said it is important for the staff to know if the Board is considering the tributary Streams in the proposal as well. Mr. Fisher felt the staff-should examine that aspect. Miss Nash then offered motionto advertise for public hearing on August 4; 1982,~a proposal to purchase a 300 foot buffer from the 100 year floodplain limit, plus a 100 foot buffer from all minor tributary streams for the proposed Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor asked if City Council is to meet with the Board that date. Mr. Fisher felt this issue is between the Board and the property owners. However, if the~members of City Council desire to have a joint meeting, he did not object. A discussion followed on whether maps will be aVailable for property owners to view. Mr. Norris said maps will be available in his office. Mr. Lindstrom ~also~felt a-complete Slope analysis should be made. Mr.~ Agnor noted that at earlier meetings, there had been criticism that some property owners were not even aware of this project being contemplated. Therefore, he asked about notification of the public hearing. Mr. Fisher felt a letter should be sent to each property owner,- Mr. Henley agreed. Mr.~Lindstrom~was very Opposed to sending individual letters because if someone is missed there Will be even more problems. He did not feel it is certain who will be affected at this time and was concerned about sending any notice. Miss Nash disagreed. Miss Nash then amended her motion to include that notices be sent by mail to the owners of record within the potential area of the reservoir, and legal notice be advertised and a display ad run in the Daily Progress, the Crozet Bulletin and the Charlottesville Observer. Mrs. Cooke accepted the amendment to her second. 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. 309 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 10. Report from Consolidation committee. Mr. Fisher said at the first meeting of the consolidation committee, the City indicated that they wanted to explore possible new ways of having a local government; neither City nor County. Mr. Fisher said the committee agreed that it could be looked at and the committee indicated that perhaps the Institute of Government at the University may desire to pursue this idea as a project. The City's legal staff is trying to prepare a letter for the consolidation committee to review, requesting that such an evaluation begin. However, the Committee feels that the idea should be approved by both the Board of Supervisors and the City Council before any letter is sent out from the Committee. Mr. Fisher said he also suggested that a review be made of those operations which are currently jointly funded as to the management and efficiency and examine other potential areas for future consolidation. Mr. Agnor is working on such a list. In conclusion, Mr. Fisher said staff work is underway and there is not a recommendation on anything to the Board or Council at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to urge the committee to examine the possibility of consolidation or at least to enhance the cooperation of the public safety through the City police and County sheriff. Mr. Lindstrom felt'-thirty deputies to cover 740 square miles was inadequate. With the County growing much more rapidly than the City, he felt the Committee should look at that possibility and undertake whatever staff services may be necessary, to determine such. Mr. Fisher then noted that the next consolidation committee meeting will be August 5, 1982, at 2:00 P.M. at the City Hall. Agenda Item No. 13. Crozet. Authorization to revise C & 0 Railroad Lease for Parking Lot in Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated July 8, 1982, regarding the revision of the lease for the C & 0 Property in Crozet: "In 1966, the County executed a lease with the C & 0 Railroad for a one-quarter acre parcel in Crozet at an annual rental of $75. The property is used for parking in front of the Crozet Hardware, Cr. ozet. Drug, Sandridge A & H, and Electronics Unlimited. The' County then entered into an agreement with the four business firms for payment to the County of the annual rent~. The C & 0 Railroad, now the Chessie System, has advised that a new lease effective August 1, 1982, is being prepared at an annual rental of $125, all other terms of the existing lease remaining the same. The businesses affected have been advised, and agreed to the increase. Authorization to execu6e the new lease is requested. The lease runs for an indefinite period until terminated by either party with thirty days written notice." Mr. Agnor said his request is for authorization to execute the revised lease when same is returned by the C & 0 Railroad. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke to that ~effect. 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. 12. Discussion: A Building for the Crozet Library. Mr. Agnor said the Perry Foundation proposes to purchase and renovate the 01d Crozet Railroad Depot as a library building. The Perry Foundation has requested that the Library Board of Trustees and the Board of Supervisors indicate officially their endorsement of the concept of the former Railroad Depot building being used as a library. Mr. Fisher asked if a structural analysis has been made of the building. Mr. Agnor said not to his knowledge. Mr. Henley said the Perry Foundation is pushing this along and would like to make a recommenda~ tion to their architect. Mr. Henley felt the building was well built and did not have any problems or concerns about use of same. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Library Board had done a full evaluation of the building. Mr. Agnor said he was not sure what the term "full,' meant but the Library Board has looked at the building and taken dimensions and measurements and adopted a resolution stating, that it believes the building would serve the immediate needs of a library. Mr. Agnor said projected needs show-more square footage than this building contains, but the Library Board feels that the building.would serve their current needs and if at a future date more space is needed there is enough land being acquired with the building so same could be expanded. Mr. Fisher was concerned and did not feel enough e~lu~lihmrhad been done to determine if this building will actually serve the Library needs. Mrs. Karen Hayden, member of the. Library Board, was present and said the Perry Foundation came to the Library Board with this idea. She feels the building is ideal and is at the top of their list as a priority building but no expert has been hired to analyze the building. Mr. Roy Patterson was present and urged that whoever evaluates the building also examine the adequacy of parking, how to get into the building and if children would have to cross Route 240 or the railroad tracks to get to the library. Mrs. Hayden said there is adequate parking on the far side of the building and most of the children do not walk to the Library. Mr. Agnor said information has been provided regarding ~t'he requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for parking. July 14, 1982 (Regular D~y Meeting) 310 Mr. Fisher said the offer is good but he felt the proposal should be examined further. Mrs. Cooke then asked if it were possible to have a preliminary proposal in writing before the Board obligates itself to accept the proposal. Even though she agreed the proposal is a marvelous gesture on the part of the Perry Foundation, she felt an evaluation was necessary first. Mr. Fisher then asked the timetable for furnishing an answer to the Perry Foundation. Mr. Agnor said it is urgent as far as the Library is concerned because they are in the process of renegotiating a lease with the Fruit Growers and need to know~ if the lease should be for a year or a longer period of time. Mr. Fisher said the Perry Foundation should be encouraged to proceed with this idea and encouraged to examine all the questions before a final committment is made. Mr. Fisher said the questions of pedestrian access, parking, safety of the building, whether or not there will be any changes made necessary by BOCA requirements and the question of future expansion should be studied. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor to disauss with the Perry Foundation these items. He then suggested that this be placed on the Board's agenda for July 21, 1982 for action. The Board recessed for lunch at 12:52 P.M. and-reconvened at 1:40 P.M. not return to the meeting and Mr. Henley took over as Chairman.) (Mr. Fisher did Agenda Item No. 5. Report from Miss Nash on Transportation Metropolitan Planning Organization. Miss Nash said the initial meeting of the Metropolitan Planning Organization was held recently and she was the only one there from the County and no one was present from the City. There were two representatives from the State. Highway Department, Federal Highway Department and other' persons not associated with highways. Miss Nash said even though the contract for the M.P.O. has been executed by the County, it will have to be revised and presented to the Board again for approval. Mr. Agnor said the M.P.O. is a policy board but it can overrule anything that the City Council or the Board of Supervisors, decides in the way of transportation planning. This group has to approve any transit projects involving Federal funds and develop a transportation improvement program which incorporates everything that the Board approves such as the Six-Y~ar P~an ~r Secondary road improvements. However, if the MPO does not endorse a project, then the project does not receive funding. The other aspect is that the Board~used to be responsibl for classifying the highway system but that aspect will now be handled by the M.P.O. group. Another item is that Miss Nash and Mrs. Cooke, as representatives from the County on this organization, are requested to designate an alternate to attend the meetings in their absence. Mr. Agnor said he recommends that Mr. Tucker or someone affiliated with the planning function so the County will have a representative who is familiar with planning matters. Mr. Agnor said there have been bills introduced in Congress to eliminate the MPO but that has not been done and as of this time, the MPO can be a powerful organization. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the MPO decided to do a project that was neither supported by the City or the County, if the project would be undertaken. Mr. Agnor said no, projects have to be approved, by the City or the County but the MPO can veto the decisions. Miss Nash said the important thing is that the organization sets the parameters for their jurisdiction which is supposed to be the urban area as set by the 1980 census, but there is a provision that jurisdictions can change that with a good cause. Mr. Agnor said the M.P.O. itself sets the urban boundary line for transportation projects and the proposed boundary is taken from the census bureau. The planning department and the Planning Commission have done some work on the boundaries of the M.P.O. because the census boundaries do not make sense from a transportation point. Miss Nash said this transportation plan includes any secondary roads that receive federal money. Mr. St. John asked if the county had any voice in formulating the by-laws. Mr. Agnor said the County cannot get any funds unless the MPO is agreed to. Mr. St. John asked who drafted the by-laws. Mr. Agnor said the staff of the State Highway Department. Miss Nash said a decision has to be made as to who will do the staff work for which funds will be received. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District is interested in getting the staff work so as to get the money to help them in their budget. Mr. Agnor said five members of the MP0 will vote on the designation of the staff. Mrs. Cooke asked who else would be in contention for the staff work since it appears that it must be between the City, County~and Planning District Commission. Mr. Agnor said the State Highway Department offered staff to get MPO started but indicated they would prefer staff work be done on a local level. Miss Nash asked if the main planning ~s to be on county or city roads. Mr. Agnor said the bulk of the~work would be in the County because the urban area will have more projects than city, but the bus transportation part will be more for the City. Mrs. Cooke asked why the Planning District Commission would be designated the staff since they are regional and was concerned about this because the other counties are not involved in the MP0. Mr. Lindstrom said he understood the planning district commission would like to do the staff work because they ha~e persons now that are not utilized to full capacity and are trained to do this work. Mr. Agnor said the City would like to do the staffing or do it jointly with the County. Miss Nash said her opinion was to invite the planning district commission staff do the work since they are efficient and do not have enough work now. 311 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No~ !1. Report on Soil Erosion Violations. Mr. Agnor said several months ago, the Board requested a ~eport on possible .violations~ of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance. Several staff members have compiled information on this and he summarized the correspondence which has been received and distribute to the Board. (The copies of said correspondence are on file in the Clerk's Office.) Mr. Agnor said Mr~ R. A. Shaw, Senior Inspector, submitted a memorandum dated April 19,-1982, and basically concluded that enforcement of the Soil Erosion Ordinance consists of two problems. One is the lack of cooperation from owners and contractors, and two, the amount of staff time that c~n-be spent on enforcement. Mr. Shaw is of the opinion that soil erosion inspections generally take a back seat to 'other work.~-~Therefore, inspections are not always made when needed or when a deadline-is due for compliance. Mr. Shaw has recommended that since time is the most critical factor in correcting soil erosion problems, that performance bonds be utilized and grading and~building permits-revoked as.has been suggested in the State Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook. Mr~Shaw said some thou~ght has been given to separating soil erosion~enforcement from the'Zoning Department but due to its close relationship with site plan inspections, issuance of building permits and the Zoning- Ordinance, he feels it should not be moved. Er. Agnor said he does not feet that~zoning ordinance regulations and~soil erosion enforcement need to be together and that the function of soil erosion administration should be in the Engineering Department. Therefore, he has recently moved the administration of soil erosion from the Zoning Administrator and placed same under the direction of the County Engineer. Mr. Agnor then continued with the correspondence rec.eived on soil erosion Miolations. Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, by.memorandum'dated April 2~,.1982, reported the violations from research of.files from 1979 through 1982. During that time period, only two warrants were obtained for violations. Mr. Norris also suggested that the following four. i~ems be considered in an effort to resolve possible violations, l) More time should be made available for follow-up inspections of violation sites and other sites to assure compliance with the ordinance. 2) Maintain a violation report on each violation in order to keep track of the problems encountered and the actions~taken to achieve compliance as well as the time period involved. B) Every effort should be made to achieve prompt- compliance on every siteJbefore legal action .is taken. ~) In order to correct problems before any additional erosion damage is done to the 'subject property or adjacent properties when dealing with habitual offenders, the bond should be cashed. .~' Mr. Agnor said the final report received was from Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, dated July ?, 1982. Mr. Vaugh~n indicated that there were a total~of 245 grading permits issued from January l, 1979, through April 16, 1982, and~o2 those there.Wer'e 66 violations. Mr. Vaughn agreed with the first procedure suggested by Mr. Norris and ~noted that item two was established several months ago and such has .helped with a follow~up on violations. The third suggestion Of Mr. Norris is one used in obtaining compliance'a~d the fourth suggestion is to him an oPtion but a last resort. Mr. Vaughn indicated that the zoning inspectors have been enforcing the ordinance for the 'past~eight years and~has done .an excellent~Job in obtaining compliance with the minimum state standards. However, with the recent adoption of a new State Soil and~Erosion Handbook, Mr. Vaughn feels that administration willrequire considerably more~expertise and he did not feel that~th'e Zoning Department has personne'l~ with the required engineeringbackground t'o properly supervise the administration with the new requirements. Therefore, Mr. VaUghn agreed that administration'of the ordinanc, should be under the direction of t'he County Engineer. Mr. Agnor said changes in the Soil Erosion Ordinance are being considered to eliminate some cumbersome procedures now involved. Time is a Critical fact~Or and Present procedures prolong projects. Mr. Agnor summarized the present procedures and concluded by stating that the Engineering DePartment will handle the problems of soil erosion. ' - A brief discussion followed on possible ways some contractors may follow to circumvent the ordinance. Mr. St. John did not feel that any contractor was intentionally ignoring the ordinance but normally there is a different reason for each violation. Mr. Vaughn agreed that there was definitely not a pattern of continued violations on the part of any one contractor. Some of the violations were to expedite jobs. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested scheduling a Joint meeting With the Planning Commission to discuss this matter further. Mr. St. John said the Commission.is interested in obtaining compliance with the conditions which they put on site 'plans and subdivision plats as well as the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said even though this is not.a public hearing, he would appreciate if Mrs. Babs Huckle, who is present, could be allowed to speak. Mrs. Huckle~'representing the League of Women Voters was present, and stated that she did not feel requiring a soil erosion permit~would s01v~ any problems but that~a'review of the soil erosion plan by the Countymmust be'madeto assure that theSoil Erosion.-Plan is adequate~ She'also felt~more education is needed~on the Procedures involved. Mrs. Huckle said she also'felt adequate bonds need to be established because in some cases they are too small. According to the Soil Erosion Handbook, the locality-is responsible for setting the~ bond and administering that requirement. Ers. Huckle concluded by stating that she felt there is a need for more enforcement of the ordinance, Mr. Agnor said periodic seminars are held by the Soil Conservation Service whereby the County Soil Erosion Inspectors teach people how to read plans and how to follow soil erosion measures. Mr. Agnor said bonding is not the problem bUt rather liquidity is the problem; in order to Met to the funds in time to correct the problem rather than having the problem exist while trying to get the bond money. Mr. Agnor said about a year ago, a method of assessing values and adding a percentage increase to overcome deficiencies was formulated. Therefore, there are now plenty of funds in terms of the total dollars of bonds. July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 312 A brief discussion followed on the violations and the fines for violators. Mr. Lindstrom also suggested that a comperehensive questionnaire of what a person intends to do would really help the person applying for a permit. No action was taken on this matter. (Mr. Fisher returned at 2:41 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 14. Albemarle County Code. Set Public Hearing Date to Amend Sections 9-1, 9-5 and 9-6 of the Mr. Agnor said action is necessary to advertise for public hearing minor amendments to~ Sections 9-1 (Burning of Refuse, Etc.), 9-5 and 9-6 (BOCA. Fire Prevention Code) of the Albemarle County Code. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Linds~rom,' to a~bis~ 2or public hearing'on August ll, 1982, an ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 9-1, 9-5 and 9-6 of the Albemarle County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Boundaries. Discussion: Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Mr. Tucker was present and noted that the Board had requested at an earlier meeting that the project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority be examined, particularly those properties abutting an existing water or sewer line. Mr. Tucker said this request was a result of some confusion about the notes on the service areas map concerning service in the areas adjacent to the water lines of the Auth0rity~ Mr~ Tucker then explained a new map and noted that the staff examined records to see which parcels adjoin efiSting water or sewer lines. The staff also used real estate tax records to determine what type of structures if any, are located on these parcels that abut the lines. Mr. Tucker then explained the various colors on the map and said basically along Route 29 North, there are areas which have existing dwelling units which could obtain water if the Board amended the note on the map or specified the type of parcels that could be served. Mr. Fisher asked if any commercial buildings are included in this new list.. Mr. Tucker said yes, but garages, carports or similar structures were not. Mr, Lindstrom~then asked if "dwelling unit" meant any building which would be inhabited by people. Mr. Tucker said yes and it also means commercial and industrial structures. Mr. TuCker said he had undverstood that the County would provide service to any parcel~which~abutted the waterline whether there was a structure existing or not. ~ ........ Mr. Fisher said if the Board desires to adopt the new map, a public hearing must be scheduled. Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service. Authority, was present and did not have any comm~ents because the Authority Board of Directors had not seen this map. Mr. Fisher asked if th'is map would help clarify the problems the Authority has had in the past. Mr. Brent said yes, if the existing parcels or dwellings are defined. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adVertise for public hearing on August ll, 1982, an amendment to the Albemarle County Service Authority project areas map. Mr. Fisher felt the definition "dwelling unit" is very broad and should be reexamined. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board is agreeable to serving all exisbing structures. The Board agreed. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same - carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Budget Amendments. Mr. Agnor summarized a memorandum dated July 9, 1982~ from Mr. Ray Jones,.~Director of Finance, regarding an amendment to the bUdget of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The 1982 SessiQn of the General Assembly amended the State Code whereby the Board of Supervisors will no longer set-the~ salary of the Circuit Court' Clerk, .... A.ccordinE to this new law, the Clerk's salary will be $~1,500 since Albemarle County has a population of more than 40,000 but not more than 70,000. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 3:01 P.M.) Mr. Agnor said based on this increase, a public hearing is necessary in order to amend the budget to handle ~his increase. Motion was then offered'by Mr~ Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to advertise for public hearing on August ll, 1982, an amendment to the budget of the'Clerk of the Circuit Court. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recOrded-vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. and Miss Nash. 313 July 14, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 16. Contract for Renovation of Buildings on Court Square. Mr.. Agnor said several weeks ago, the Board authorized him to negotiate with Johnson, Craven and Gibson, Architects, for a written agreement on the renovation of the buildings on Court Square. He has met with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gibson and a standard form of agreement between an owner and architect has been prepared and provides that the firm will conduct their professional services for this project with a two percent credit against the fees that would be charged. The scale to be used is the one used by the State and such decreases the percentage of the architectural fees as the project increases in price. Mr. Agnor said the agreement is':T~he form that has been used by othe~architects and he-requests ~ " authorization to execute said contract and the range of the fee that would be collected by the architect be 8.6% to 8.9% depending on the bid. He also requested that the execution of the contract be subject to the approval of the County Attorney. Motion to this effect was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. l?. Appointments. Mr. Fisher announced for the news media that the Board had recommended~to City Council the name of a person to fill the vacancy of Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. The nomination was sent a month ago but the City has not responded. Mr. Lindstrom felt a formal response should be made by the City and he then offered motion that the Board reiterate in writing to the City Council that the County has nominated a person for the vacancy and is awaiting a formal respons~e. Mrs.. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion .carried ~by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not on thelAgenda. Mr. Agnor noted that the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors is not able to meet with the Board on August 4, 1982 regarding the funding of items in the Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Fisher suggested the meeting be held on the afternoon of September l, 1982. Mr. Agnor suggested September 15 as an alternate if the September 1st date is not satisfactory. The Board agreed. Mr. Agnor noted communication he had received from a county resident regarding the possibilit~ or'opening Chris Greene Lake earlier in the morning for those desiring to fish. Mr. Agnor said the schedule has been changed to open the park at 6:00 A.M.~.beginning July 17 through Labor Day. The situation will be evaluated at the conclusion of the summer to determine if the arrangement should be continued or not., Mr. Fisher asked if a fee will be charged. Mr. Agnor said such is dependent on whether someone is at the gate to. collect a fee. Mr. 'Lindstrom then noted that he had read the minutes of March 17, 1982, and noted the following correction: Page 125, fourth paragraph from the top of the page, fourth line down, insert the word "affected" between "adversely" and "if". He also noted that a statement needs to be made at the end of the description of agenda item #6 on. page 125 that he returned to the meeting at this point. Mr. Lindstrom then discussed at great length his feeling that staff reports and other long reports should not be copied into the minutes. Mr. Fisher hated that a word. processor may be necessary to alleviate this work in the future. The Clerk on duty informed the Board that these materials need to be on permanent file and there is no way at this time to 'have them on file other than by copying them into the minutes~ Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the-minutes of March l?, 1982, with the above noted corrections. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 19. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 3:35 P.M.