Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-01September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 346 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 1, 1982, at 7:30 P.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 and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. M~. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting of two items and noted that an additional request has been received for a lottery permit from the Scottsville District Democratic Committee. Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the two items on the consent agenda and the lottery permit request as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Item No. 2.1. Lottery Permits. Lottery permit requests were received from the Universit of Virginia--NROTC Honor Guard for bingo games from September through December, 1982 and from the Scottsville District Democratic Committee for a raffle from September 1 through November 2, 1982; same were approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and ~ regulations for the issuance of such permits. Item NO. 2.2. Report of the County Executive for the month of July, 1982, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of July, 1982, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Capital Improvement Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 692.03 941,214.42 776,645.55 369,298.74 22.50 81,275.39 372.98 13,894.34 189,043.71 $2,372,459.66 Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing Community Development Block Grant Application. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 23, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and circulated a state required form to obtain signatures of persons present for the public hearing concerning the Community Development Block Grant. He then presented the following staff report: "INTRODUCTION: One of the nine federal block grants being offered to Virginia for administration beginning in fiscal year 1982 is the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). The CDBG program is not new however. The Housing and Community Development Block Grant Act of 1974 created this block grant from several earlier categorical programs. The goal of this program is to improve economic and physical environment in Virginia communities and neighborhoods for the primary benefit of low and moderate income citizens. Albemarle County is one of 303 localities eligible to apply for Community Development Block Grants. Charlottesville, for example, is not in this group and is entitled to receive CDBG monies outright. Competition for the remainder of the monies among the 303 localities will be very~keen as only $14,000,000 is available to this group in Virginia. Localities can only make one application and a limit on that application has been placed at.S700,000. Localities can however apply with other localities (regional project). Information on a regional type project is provided in a separate document prepared by the Thomas Jefferson Planning Commission, There is no match of local funds required by this program. While the State has tightened the mechanics of the overall program, projects eligible for assistance range from industrial development to commercial revitalization to housing rehabilitation. 34'7 September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS: In the past, the County has been the recipient of two Community Development Block Grants from the Federal government. Both of these programs have assisted in the improving of housing for residents~of the County - (housing rehabilitation program through Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, AHIP; self-help housing in Bishop Hill Subdivision; and the construction of a 24-unit elderly housing complex in Crozet, the Meadows). Ail of these programs have been successful and have assisted in the provision of adequate housing for County residents. Local monies, through the subsidization of AHIP by the County, have also been utilized to aid in this goal. Much work still needs to be done. The Land Use and Housing Quality Index conducted by the Planning Department in 1981-1982 identified 1,458 dwelling units that could be classified as substandard according to the following conditions: - the unit lacks all plumbing; - the unit has only partial plumbing (i.e., cold piped water only, or without a flush toilet); - the unit was assessed with poor to very poor exterior and/or interior condition by the Real Estate Division (i.e., sagging roof, leaning walls, cracks in foundation, etc.). The number of substandard dwelling units accounted for 6.3 percent of the County's total housing stock. The provision of adequate housing was also a concern during the recent budget review of social programs. Housing was given a top priority in the review of these agency programs. Further indication of the importance of this goal of adequate housing in this area, as well as the entire State, can be seen through the assignment of housing rehabilitation as a top priority by both the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and the State of Virginia. Projects in top priorities receive a maximum number of points during the review process conducted by the State. LOCAL PROPOSAL: The time frame for the development of a complete proposal has been kept to a minimum by the State in order to extend awards by October. Much work is involved in the development of a proposal of this type. With some work completed in the housing area (the Land Use and Housing Quality Index), and the assignment of top priority by local, regional, and State governments, a proposal for housing rehabilitation is being proposed for submittal. This grant is aimed at continuing and expanding efforts of AHIP which is supported by the County. Development of this proposal has been accomplished through the efforts of State, regional, AHIP and County staffs. The proposal is based on work which can be accomplished through the expansion of AHIP. The local proposal contains the following facets: - Total grant proposal of $500,000; - 55 units to be rehabilitated; - Rehabilitation efforts will be directed at major projects (units without plumbing and other structural problems); - Average cost of rehabilitation project estimated at $9,000-$10,000; - $6,000 will be utilized from State grant monies; - $4,000 will be leveraged (increasing the value of the grant monies by the utilitization of similar and compatible monies; i.e., local monies, volunteer efforts, family contribution, other grant programs such as Farmers Home and the Charlottesville Housing Foundation Loan Fund). - Two or three strategy areas which are designated in the revised Comprehensive Plan have been utilized to target rehabilitation efforts (development of a strategic problem such as this is a top priority of the State and will receive maximum points during the review process); - The grant program will be administered by AHIP with assistance provided by the Planning Department. While this local proposal is directed at improving housing in strategy areas recommended in the Comprehensive Plan, the AHIP efforts will still be utilized to assist rehabilitation improvements in other parts of the County. The development of this proposal is based on a continuing effort in the community_development area. Grant applications for other project types, as mentioned in the introduction, may be submitted during future review ~ri~s~fD~e~t~n~g~v~m by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors in the community development area should suggest additional projects for study. September 1, 19~2 (Regular ~ig~t Mee~ing~ Mr. Tucker then presented the following summary regarding a regional application for a community improvement grant to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development: .'!~Rplicant' AlbemarleCounty ~rticipants_:_ Albemarle, Fluvanna, Louisa and Nelson Counties Amount to be requested: Albemarle $200,000 Fluvanna 100,000 Louisa 200,000 Nelson 150,000 $650,000 ?U.Mpose: To provide a means to continue the shared responsibility of local governments Within the region to maintain and add to the existing housing stock of the region by eliminating substandard housing through the improvement~ of residential properties to a minimum standard of quality by providing a revolving loan fund accessible to low and moderate income households. Loans will be originated and serviced by local financial institutions under the policy direction of a regional nonprofit housing improvement corporation. Each locality may provide guidance to the corporation on neighborhoods to be targeted, types of households to be served or other policies which reinforce the community development objectives of the specific jUrisdiction. Work to be done will be bid to private sector Contractors, except in Albemarle County, where the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program will supervise and execute the rehabilitation. How Loan Funds May Be Used: 1. To make direct loans or grants to property owners. To subsidize interest or principal on loans made by banks with bank funds. To guarantee repayment of loans made by banks with bank funds. As collateral for financing extended loans to a rehabilitation agency. To pay fees or charges to banks for financing and servicing rehabilitation loans. 6. Other uses consistent with a rehabilitation program. Local in-kind contributions will be quantified and included in the cost allocation portion of the application. These contributions include time spent by local housing coordinators and building inspectors working with program applicants and program activities, as well as shared clerical services from local county administration. In the case of Albemarle County, these services will be primarily those of AHIP staff. PRODUCT: The number of rehabilitations to be completed in the twenty-four month grant award period are estimated based on two alternative assumptions. Additional loans will be made as repayments are received. This application is being developed by the staff of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission in consultation with the chief administrative officer of the participating counties and the Planning Department of Albemarle County." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 31, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of the two grants. Mr. Fisher then expressed concern about the $4,000 leverage (mentioned in the staff's proposal) and felt the amount should be increased. He then questioned if the County's contribution to AHIP could be used. as leverage. Mr. Tucker said he was not sure and noted that his department has worked closely with the State in developing this proposal. The State feels that the proposed efforts are feasible but he would examine that possibility further. Mr. Fisher felt the $4,000 was too low. A general discussion continued on this question and Mr. Tucker noted for Mr. Fisher that the request should have stated that the $4,000 leverage is per unit. Mr. Fisher said he was not aware of how the leverage was computed. Mr. Lindstrom asked if applying for both grants jeopardized chances of approval for either one of them. Mr. Tucker said based on his knowledge of the process'he felt that the chance for approval was better if applications are submitted for both. A discussion then followed on the four counties participating in the application. Mrs. Jane Saunier from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission felt that Fluvanna and Nelson Counties have the highest need factors, thus will rank highest for approval. Th Fluvanna and Nelson Counties do not feel they can request as much as Albemarle and Louisa since those counties have other community help. Miss Nash asked the time element for these grants. Mr. Tucker said the deadline for submission of the applications is September 17, 1982. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Gary Oliveria, Director of AHIP, if the operation of AHIP would change if the grants were received. Mr. Oliveria felt the grant would enable AHIP to operate better and be able to do more rehabili- tations. In order to rehabilitate fifty-five units, some additional field personnel may be required. However, this would not really be enlarging the staff and he felt that the level of production can be managed effectively with the existing staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many extra people would be required to fulfill the regional grant. Mr. Oliveria said his desire is to hire as many as six additional people and that would require use of $160,000 of the $500,000 grant. 34'9 September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked if the other counties have approved the application. Mrs. Saunier said the other counties have not acted officially although they have been presented the concept but none of the counties have held a public hearing on the question nor have any resolutions been adopted. However, they will be given that opportunity before this applicatio] process is completed. Mr. Butler was encouraged that efforts are being made to provide better housing for Albemarle County and other jurisdictions. He felt the chance for approval is better regional but was pleased that the application was being submitted for both purposes. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the applicati~ the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following resolutions. 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. RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCX GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED JOINTLY BY THE COUNTIES OF ALBEMARLE, FLUVANNA, LOUISA, AND NELSON FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES IN THE RESPECTIVE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS WHEREAS, it is the purpose of local governments to create a climate which encourages a wide range of adequate housing for its citizens; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has participated in programs and activities which have broadened the choice of housing for its citizens, particularly those who have less choice in the market place; and WHEREAS, this jurisdiction has accepted a mutual obligation to share the development of assisted housing opportunities through participation in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP); and WHEREAS, one of the goals of the AHOP is rehabilitation of existing housing stock which does not meet minimum standards of quality, health, and safety; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on September 1, 1982, do hereby authorize the submission of a Jointly sponsored regional application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for a Community Development Block Grant for Housing Rehabilitation for low and moderate income families in the respective political subdivisions and agree to act as the designated applicant on behalf of each of the political subdivisions; a public hearing, duly advertised, has been held to gain public input for the development of this proposal; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby authorize the County Executive of Albemarle County to sign on behalf of the County of Albemarle any necessary certifications and assurances relating to the application as may be required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to the approval of the County Attorney. RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT TO APPLY FOR VIRGINIA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO BE USED BY THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE FOR HOUSING REHABILITATION FOR LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES WHEREAS, it is the purpose of local governments to create a climate which encourages a wide range of adequate housing for its citizens; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has participated in programs and activities which have broadened the choice of housing for its citizens, particularly those who have less choice in the market place; and WHEREAS, one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan is rehabilitation of existing housing stock which does not meet minimum standards of quality, health, and safety; and WHEREAS, this jurisdiction has accepted a mutual obligation to share in the development of assisted housing opportunities through participation in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Areawide Housing Opportunity Plan (AHOP); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on September 1, 1982, do hereby authorize the submission of an application to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development for a Community Development Block Grant for Housing Rehabilitation for low and moderate income families in the County; a public hearing, duly advertised, has been held to gain public input for the development of this proposal; and ns, ~ September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 350 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, do hereby authorize the County Executive of Albemarle County to sign on behalf of the County of Albemarle any necessary certifications and assurances relating to the application as may be required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, subject to the approval of the County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-82-8. Martin Schulman. Request to rezone 7.249 acres from Light Industry to Heavy Industry with proffer related to veterinary hospital/clinic-accessory kennels. Located northern side of Route 240. County Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25, 1982.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: HI Heavy Industry (Proffer) Acreage: 7.249 acres Existing Zoning: LI Light Industrial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 56, Parcel 67A is located about 800 feet north of Route 240 in Crozet. Access to the property is by a private road which intersects Route 240 across from Acme Visible Records. Character of the Area: A single-family dwelling, a cottage and two out- buildings are located on this property. A single-family dwelling is located about 1000 feet to the east. Other adjoining properties are undeveloped. Properties to the south and west are zoned Light Industrial, while properties to the north and east are zoned Rural Areas. Public Water is available at Route 240. Public sewer is not available. Comprehensive Plan: Shown within the Crozet community in the Comprehensive Plan, this property is recommended for industrial usage. Applicant's Proffer: The applicant has proffered to limit the use of the property under HI zoning to a veterinary hospital/clinic with accessory kennels (HI regulations permit indoor accessory kennels). Staff Comment: The applicant proposes to use the existing cottage for the veterinary practice. Given the distance to the nearest dwelling and the requirements of section 5.1.11 of the Zoning Ordinance (supplementary regulations), it does not appear that this use would be objectionable in this location. Staff recommends approval. NOTE: A site plan is required for this use under section 32.0 of the Zoning Ordinance. However, since existing structures are to be utilized and since Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has stated that the existing entrance is adequate, staff opinion is that the requirement of a complete site development plan would not forward the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Staff recommends waiver of a site plan in accordance with section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions: Health Department approval. Any kennel wash down or other animal waste disposal shall be to a septic system; County Engineer approval of paving specifications for entrance road and parking area; 3. Staff approval of parking and circulation plan; 4. Building Official review for compliance with noise regulations. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 3, 1982, recommended waiver of the site plan requirement and approval of ZMA-82-8 with the conditions proposed by the staff subject to the proffer limiting the use under HI to a veterinary hospital/clinic with accessory kennels. Mr. Tucker then noted the following memorandum dated July 28, 1982, from Mr. William K. Norris, Watershed Management Official, since the subject property is within the immediate watershed of Beaver Creek: "The property referred to above is located immediately adjacent to Parrott Branch which is a major tributary to the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Since Beaver Creek is a water supply reservoir, every effort should be made to minimize any direct runoff of potential pollutants to the stream. The request to convert an existing building on the property to a veterinary hospital and clinic with accessory kennels should be granted only if Health Department approval is granted so that any kennel wash down or other animal waste disposal would be to a septic system. Also no portion of this septic system should be within 100 feet of Parrott Branch in order to minimize the possibility of contamination of the stream." Mr. Fisher noted that a copy of the proffer was not included in the Board's materials. Mr. Tucker said the proffer was made on the application dated June 21, 1982, and read: "Zoning Desired: HI, PROFFER-Veterinary Hospital/Clinic-Accessory Kennels." Mr. Fisher said the staff report stated that the applicant proposed to use an existing cottage and he asked if there was anything in the proffer stating that the applicant would not build a 20,900 square foot veterinary hospital. Mr. Tucker said the proffer does aot speak to the proDerty and the only way that could be controlled would be by requiring a site plan. However, he agreed that there is no guarantee or requirement that the cottage itself would be ~he only part of a veterinary hospital. Mr. Fisher then requested Mr. St. John to review the proffer to determine if it is a legal proffer. 351- September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) The public hearing was opened. Mr. Martin Schulman, applicant, was present and said his proposal is to offer full veterinary services for the western part of the county and he only plans to use the existing buildings. ~Mr. Lindstrom asked if that was the intent of the proffer. Mr. Schulman said yes and emphasized that he did not have any definite plans for additions in the near future. Mr. Schulman said he did not object to the proffer stating that only the existing facilities could be used for a veterinary/clinic-kennel. He then asked what was necessary if his plans changed in the future. Mr. Tucker said he would have to apply for another rezoning similar to this request. Mr. Schulman restated that it is his intent to use the existing facilities and that is the wording he would like to have in the proffer. Mr. Henley asked if that wording would mean that the applicant could not remodel or partition the existing facilities. Mr. St. John said the proffer is legal but it does not state anything about the request being limited to the existing buildings and he felt that should be in the minutes. Mr. Tucker said the limitation could be put in the action letter from the Clerk's Office to him because such is the wording sent to the applicant. Mr. St. John said the use being limited to the existing buildings but not prohibiting the applicant from interior renovation.should be included in the minutes. Mr. Henley asked if that was satisfactory to the applicant. Mr. Schulman said yes. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve ZMA-82-8, with proffer, 'and conditions in lieu of site plan, as recommended by the Planning Commission and with the verbal statement from the applicant that it is his intent that the proffer as set out on the rezoning application limits him to the use of the existing structures which can be renovated as necessary for his use without expanding the size of the building. 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. 5. ZMA-82-9. Frances P. Gibson. Request to rezone 8.441 acres from Rural Areas to C-1 Commercial with proffer to limit usage. Located northern side of Route 810 at Nortonsville. County Tax Map 8, Parcel 31 and part of Parcel 32. White Hall District (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25, 1982.) Mr. Tucker noted the following letter dated August :30, 1982, requesting withdrawal of this petition: "RE: ZMA-82-9: Frances P. Gibson, Administrator c.t.a, under the Will of L. C. Parrish Dear Miss Nash and Gentlemen: My client, Frances P. Gibson, administrator c.t.a, under the Will of Louis Cranston Parrish, deceased, does hereby withdraw her above-captioned application for Zoning Map Amendment filed on July 6, 1982. With best regards, I am Sincerely yours, (SIGNED BY) George B. McCallum, III" Mr. Tucker said action to allow withdrawal of this petition is necessary. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the withdrawal of ZMA-82-9 without prejudice as requested by the applicant. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-82-43. M. O. Whyte. Request to locate a veterinary hospital on 4.430 acres zoned C-1. Located northeast side of Route 743. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 32 and County Tax Map 3lA, Section 1, Block B, Parcel A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 19 and August 25, 1982.) Mr. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Veterinary Hospital (22.2.2#5) Acreage: 4.43 acres Zoning: C-1 Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 31, parcel 32 and Tax Map 3lA, Section 1, Block B, Parcel A, is the Earlysville Green Shopping Center located on the northeast side of Route 743 at Earlysville. Character of the Area: Earlysville Heights subdivision is located to the north and Earlysville Forest Planned Unit Development (PUD) is located to the east. The veterinary hospital would occupy about 850 square feet of existing floor space adjacent to the beauty shop in Earlysville Green Shopping Center. The closest residential lot, which is in Earlysville Heights, is about 320 feet away. September 1_~,_198~ (Re'gUlar Night Mee~ _ _ - ~ing) Staff Comment: The applicant proposes a veterinary practice for small animals. No outdoor kennels or runs are proposed. Considering the construction and orientation of the building, staff would not expect noise to be a problem. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Written Health Department certification that the existing septic system facilities are adequate for the veterinary use; 2. No kennels or runs shall be permitted; Compliance with section 5.1.11 of the supplementary regulation of the zoning ordinance, except as otherwise provided in these conditions; and Building Official review to insure compliance with noise limitations." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 3, 1982, recommended approval of SP-82-43 with the staff conditions and with the following words added to conditiol 2: "except that sick animals requiring hospitalization may be kept for short periods indoors." Mr. Tucker said communication has been received from the Zoning Administrator regarding inspection of the building and the determination that the building is in compliance with the Building Code and also meets the noise limitations; said review in compliance with condition #4. Mr. Butler asked if any objections have been received. Mr. Tucker said no and noted that there was no one at the Planning Commission meeting to voice opposition. Mr. Fisher said he received a call from someone in Earlysville Heights who was not aware of the petition until after the Planning Commission had acted and was disturbed about the proposal. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Marianna Sullivan, property owner behind the proposed facility, was present and noted that there is an existing kennel located about one- half mile away from her home and a great deal of noise comes from that facility. Mr. Fisher said to his understanding there will not be any animals kept outdoors. Mr. Tucker said that is correct and none of the animals are to be kept over night unless hospitalization is required. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the performance standards about noise apply in this case. Mr. Tucker said yes and he felt the communication dated August 27., 1982, from the Zoning Administrator spoke to that. Mrs. Sullivan then asked the recourse of residents in the area if the dogs do wake them up. Mr. Fisher said the Zoning Administrator has the authority to require property owners to maintain noise levels below certain described sound levels at the property line. Mrs. Sullivan then asked about waste disposal. Mr. Tucker said condition 1 of the Planning Commission's approval is in reference to that. Mr. M. O. Whyte, applicant, was present and presented to the Board a letter dated August 25, 1982, from Mr. Jack Collins of the Virginia Department of Health. Mr. Fisher read the letter as follows: "This is to inform your department that the existing system is adequate for the proposed use and also for the post office which it now serves." Mrs. Sullivan asked if the septic system would be used for the disposal of dead animals. Mr. Fisher said no, but he felt the applicant should be allowed to answer some of these questions. Dr. John Gruce, veterinarian proposing to operate the hospital, was present. He noted that the hospital is for small animals. He understands the concern about noise but does not feel this operation should be compared to a kennel. Dr. Gruce said the facility will be for hospital use only and not for boarding animals. If there is a problem with noise, he felt that could be remedied by insulation of some sort. Dr. Gruce said he was uncertain about the disposal of dead animals. He also emphasized that his intent is to have a clean and healthful environment in order to be compatible with the surrounding area. Mr. Fisher asked if the law requires incineration of the carcasses of small animals. Mr. Tucker said either incineration or burial. Miss Nash asked what would happen to the animals at night. Dr. Gruce said either he or his wife, also a veterinarian, would visit the facility to submit any necessary medicine. He did not feel such would be a problem and someone woutd not have to stay at the facility all night long. Speaking next was Mr. Smith, resident of Eartysvile Heights. He asked if this request is to be for 850 square feet or four-plus acres. In other words, he was curious if the applicant would be allowed by this special permit to expand beyond the 850 square feet. Mr. Tuoker said a site plan amendment ~ould be required for anything beyond the 850 square feet unless the Board were to impose a condition limiting the amount of square footage that the applicant could have for maintaining this facility. Next to speak was Mr. Bob Grant, resident of Earlysville Heights, who noted the same concerns as Mr. Smith. Mr. Fisher said a condition could be'imposed which would limit the use of the animal hospital to a specific structure which would give this owner or any future owner the right to use the building for this use but not to expand it without going through this same process. 3'53 September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) With 'no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the applicant if it were his intent to occupy only the existing structure. Dr. Gruce said for his use it is only the existing structure but since he will only be leasing the structure, he could not answer for the owner, Mr. Whyte. Miss Nash then asked the purpose of putting the 4.43 acres on the request when the request is only for 850 square feet. Mr. Tu~ker said 4.43 is the size of-the parcel and that was the only description he had other than the site plan. He said the applicant did not have any way to define the request to a specific structure. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the special use permit is approved, if the uses permitted by right in the C-t district would be permitted on this parcel through the normal site plan process or if this special permit is for the entire area. Mr. TUcker said there are other C-1 uses by right that could be located in the other structures on this land or even in this structure. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel this special permit limits the-owners rights at all. Mr. Lindstrom asked about specific noise limitations. Mr. Tucker said noise regulations are set out in Section 5.1,11 of the supplementary regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and suchdeal~with the decibel reading to the nearest property line which cannot exceed 40 decibels. Mrs. Cooke asked the character of the other occupants in the shopping center. Mr. Tucker explained the uses currently there. Mr. Lindstrom said he was concerned about the proximity of this use to the residential area but he felt that the use could be clarified by stating that it would not be a kennel. He then offered motion to approve SP-82-43 with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Written Health Department certification that the exiSting septic system facilities are adequate for the veterinary use; ~No kennels or runs shall be permitted except that sick animals requiring hospitalization may be kept for short periods indoors; Compliance with 5.1.11 of the supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, except as otherwise provided in these conditions; Building Official review to insure compliance with noise limitations of 5.1.11 of the supplementary regulations of the Zoning Ordinance; No disposal of dead animals on the subject property; Use of the property for a veterinary hospital shall be limited to the existing structure of 850 square feet designated as Building C on the Landscape and Planting Plan drawn by Grigg, Wood and Browne, Architects, Charlottesville, Virginia, dated revision September 10, 1979, for Earlysville Green and buildings identified A~ B, C, D by RWT, 9-1-82. Miss Nash seconded'the-mOtion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Whyte if he concurred in the conditions just set on the special permit. Mr. Whyte acknowledged yes. Agenda Item No. 7. End of Year Transfers - Education. Mr. Agnor said a memorandum dated August 24, 1982, has been received from Mr. Thomas W. Hurlburt, Deputy Superintendent of Education, noting that the School Board took offical action to transfer 1981-82 fiscal year balances to overexpended functions as reflected in a memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, dated August 4, 1982. Mr. Agnor said the following transfers are now requested: From 17D1 Pupil Transportation $30,412 To 17A 'Administration 17CI Attendance & Health Services i7F2 Maintenance - School Plant $ 2,289 1,272 26,851 $30,412 Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the foregoing transfers in the School Fund for the 1981-82 Fiscal Year as requested. 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. 8. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said the insurance carrier of the accident insurance'covering the volunteer firemen notified the County that effective September 1, 1982, they would no longer provide coverage. The County Purchasing Agent has' requested bids for this type of insurance and all three companies who responded to the request gave'bids in excess of the current year's appropriation of $5,550.. Therefore, an additional appropriation in the amount of $2,450 is necessary in order to continue this type of coverage and to pay for the premium upon presentation of same. Mr. Agnor said the request is for $2,450 from the General Fund to Code 3202-5614,' Jefferson Country Association. September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) .3 5:4 Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the following resolution. 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. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,450 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 3202-5614--Jefferson Country Association for accident insurance. Agenda Item No. 9. Bids, Phase II County Office Building. Mr. Agnor said the plans for Phase II for the County Office Building were recently approved and the architect, Stainback and Scribner, was authorized to proceed with the bid process on same. Bids have been received and the architect requests that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Hancock-Fuqua, Inc. of Lynchburg, Virginia in the amount of $1,203,708. Mr. Agnor noted that the estimate for this construction is included in the Capital Improvements Program for $1,309,650. He said the request is for authorization to execute a contract with the above named firm for $1,203,708 for Phase II of the County Office Building. Mr. Agnor then noted that the parking lot improvements on the football field plus the access road between that lot and the parking area adjacent to the building will be bid in late winter and that will be the final phase needed to complete the entire County Office Building complex. Mr. Fisher asked when the project will begin. Mr. Agnor said in the latter part of October. Mr. Fisher asked about possible disruptions to the parking around the building during construction. Mr. Agnor then explained that about fifteen parking spaces will be lost during construction,~ Mr. Agnor also noted that the actual work will take about a year. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the County Executive to execute a contract with Hancock-Fuqua, Inc. of Lynchburg for the loW bid of $1,203,708 for Phase II of the County Office Building. 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. Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor requested the Board's concurrence in approaching the City for a release of the five-year lease of the football field on McIntire Road at the end of this football season. He said there have been some preliminary discussions on the matter but he preferred to have the Board's approval first. Mr. Agnor said the grading for the parking lot project needs to be bid in the winter and begun in the spring in order to have sufficient Parking for the County Office ~Building. Mr. Fisher asked when the lease expires. Mr. Agnor said in June 1983. As he understa~ndS, the Cityls need for the football field will terminate at the end of this football season. Mr. Fisher concurred in the request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to authorize the County Executive to approach the City as requested for the termination of the lease on the football field. 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. 10. Approval of Minutes: December 9, 1981; February 17, March 10, April 7, April 14, May 12, May 19 (Afternoon) and May 19 (Night), 1982.. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of April 14, 1982 and found no errors. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes of April 14, 1982. 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. The remaining minutes were deferred to a later date. Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: 1982-83 Biennial Legislative Program fOr VACo. Mr. Fisher said communication has been received from the Virginia Association of Counties stating that any legislative resolutions for the 1982-83 General Assembly must be in their office by October 1, 1982. Mr. Fisher said indications are that there will not be many new legislative matters taken up this year because this is the short session of the General Assembly. Mr. Fisher noted that legislation is being drafted for the possible combination of the law enforcement personnel of the City and County without the loss of State funds. Mr. Henley asked if the Board had voted on such a combination of agencies. Mr. Fisher said no. Mr. Henley said he was curious if the Board wanted to ask for legislation on something which has not even been decided on by the Board. Mr. Fisher said Senator Thomas Michie informed him that in order for Senator Michie to introduce legislation on this subject, he needed some drafted language. Mr. Fisher said an evaluation is being 355 September 1, 1982 (Regul~ N~ht MeetinqQ done on whether it makes sense to consolidate the two law enforcement departments and a report should be presented to theBoard within a few~weeks. Mr. Henley said he was not certain he could support the combination of the City and county police departments. Mr. Agnor said legislation on this subject to be presented to the General Assembly will be geared toward the County not loosing its level of State funding if the County changes from a sheriff's department to a police department. After a brief discussion on this subject, motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to submit language to Senator Michie for the possibility of consolidating into one police department, law enforcement personnel of the County with that of the City. Mr. Henley did not have his mind made up. He said he does not feel that police protection for him would be any better than what presently exists and he could not support asking the General Assembly to do something that the Board did not know if it wanted or not. Therefore, he could not support the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher asked if any there were any other requests for the Virginia Association of Counties Legislative package. Mr. Agnor said none at this time and if there are any others, they will be presented on September 15, 1982. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said several weeks ago the Offender Aid and Restoration-National, and the Shelter for the Homeless Alcoholics expressed interest in leasing the Jailor's House. However, action was deferred at that time pending request from the City Council relative to the Jailors House being used as the Shelter for Homeless Alc~h~i~s.~ Mayor Buck has informed him today that the City is no longer interested in the Jailor's House for the Shelter. Mr. Agnor said the original request will be rescheduled for the Board for action on September 15, 1982. Mr. Fisher said he recently went to a City Council meeting and City Council has agreed to the land area for the Buck Mountain reservoir as proposed by the Board several weeks ago. However, he was surprised to find out that the Four Party Agreement which established the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has been interpreted by the City Attorney to not require any particular kind of funding for this sort of a project. Therefore, Mr. Fisher requested Mr. St. John to researCh the question. Mr. St. John said Mr. Agnor had previously given an opinion regarding Section 4:3 of the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. St. John said he agreed with Mr. Agn~'s opinion which was in the event of a new impoundment of this type that the entity, which in this case is the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority, using such would fund the acquisition and construction of the facility. Mr. St. John said the fact that Buck Mountain is within the South Fork Rivanna Watershed does not mean that this proposed imp~nndment is not new. Mr. Fisher felt Mr.'St. John's opinion should be communicated to City Council as the County's official position on this matter. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board is willing to have the County Attorney draft a letter to the City informing them of this opinion. Mr. Lindstrom said he would make that motion but would also like to set a date to resolve this matter. He felt the property owners in the Buck Mountain area should know where they stand. Mr. Agnor suggested that Mr. Fisher forward to the Mayor the research of Mr. St. John and ask for a response to same. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested a more diplomatic way is to ask the City to meet with the Board to resolve this issue. Mr. St. John said there are some ramifications attached to this opinion which need to be discussed before sending such a communication. He also felt this should be discussed in executive session. At 9:33 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adjourn into executive session for legal matters having to do with the acquisition of land for the proposed Buck Mountain reservoir. 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. The Board reconvened into open session at 10:02 P.M. Mr. Lindstrom said in view of the fact that the Board has an ordinance in effect which extends the moratorium on development in the proposed impoundment area until October 12, 1982, the Board needs to decide if the ordinance will be extended further. He felt it is important to meet with City Council before that date in order to determine how to fund this project and he felt it is obvious at this point that there is a fairly significant disagreement between the City and the County on how the acquisition of that land should be funded. Mr. Lindstrom did not see how these differences will be resolved without meeting with the Council. He suggested asking City Council, in that context, if Council would be willing to meet with the Board on September 16, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. to see if this apparent impasse over the funding can be resolved in order that the Board will know how to proceed when the ordinance comes up for public hearing in October. September 1, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) He then offered motion to commUnicate by letter to the Mayor' the above Conversation and note that the County is faced with a decision on the extension of the ordinance in early October and also that there is an obvious disagreement on funding, and in order to resolve the impass to respectfully request that the City meet with the Board on September 16, 1982. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and MiSs Nash. None. Mr. Fisher noted letter dated August 27, 1982, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, regarding the Authority's review 6f the "208 Watershed Management Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir", prepared by F. X, Browne Associates, Inc. Mr. Agnor said the letter was for the Board's information. Agenda Item No. 13. At 10:.10 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn to September 2, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Rooms 5 and 6. 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. CHAIRgLAN