Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-11-03 adj454 November 3, 1982 (Adjourned from October 29, 1982) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 3, 1982, at 3:00 P.M. in Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 29, 1982. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 3:30 P.M.), Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 3:15 P.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officer present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 3:11 P.M. by the Chai'rman, Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Buck Mountain Creek Project. Mr. Fisher said that at the meeting held on October 29, the Board had asked the County Executive and his staff to make a complete estimate of watershed management program costs for fiscal year 1982~3to get an idea of what the total expenses of such a program would be if all existing runoff control devices were maintained; plus the loss in property taxes which will be sustained when land in the Buck Mountain area is purchased and removed from the tax rolls. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated November 3, 1982, entitled "Estimated Legal Costs Watershed Management Program - Estimated Loss of Real Estate Revenue Relative to Buck Mountain Reservoir Project." "It is estimated that County legal staff costs related to reservoir protection activities in the FY 82-83 budget year could total $27,750 of the total County's Attorney Office budget of $118,867 (23.3%). Fees for outside attorneys occa- sionally employed for litigation are not included. Such fees are not estimated in the County's annual budget since they are an unknown quantity, and a decision on an appropriation for such fees is processed on an individual case basis. As reported earlier, since 1977, fees for outside attorneys have totalled $22,700. Loss of real estate tax revenue to the CounTy from the purchase of the land needed for the Buck Mountain project is estimated to be $29,200 in the current tax year. This loss would continue on an annual basis, and would vary depending upon assessment values and tax rates in future years. No attempt has been made to estimate the continuing loss in future years. Using the estimated legal staff costs, the watershed management program is estimated in FY 82-83 to cost: 1. Administration of Runoff Control Ordinance $25,440 2. Administration of Watershed Management Official's Office Legal Staff Services Sub-total of FY 82-83 County Budget Costs Maintenance of Runoff Control Facilities (Not currently budgeted) Total Potential Costs 24,046 27,750 $77,236 15,000 $92,236 Translating these costs to the wholesale urban water rate of the Rivanna Authority, the rate would increase, as follows: FY 82-83 rate = $0.383 per thousand gallons Increase to fund budgeted costs = $0.023/thousand gallons Total rate with budgeted costs = $0.406 or + 6.06% FY 82-83 rate = $0.383 per thousand gallons Increase to fund potential costs (includes maintenance of runoff facilities) = $0.028/thousand gallons Total rate with potential costs = $0.411 or + 7.24% The County Staff has prepared these estimates without the benefit of a system to record or log all of the time spent by staff members on specific tasks related to watershed protection measures. The staff's knowledge of several years of activities is the exten~ of the information that is available to prepare the estimates. It is recommended that an internal system of accounting for such costs be established if an agreement on the method of funding is reached." (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 3:15 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom asked if the costs of the watershed management official's office are not now being borne one-half by the City and one-half by the County. Mr. Agnor said that is correct; City Council has proposed that these costs be funded through the Wholesale water rate. Mr. Fisher said he had read in the newspaper that City Council took action Monday night, but he has not received any communication stating their action. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to "take back" some of the things he said last week. He will now state that he is willing to support the proposed 5C's compromise for funding of the Buck Mountain project with the understanding that when the Rivanna Authority determines the facility is actually needed, that decision will trigger funding of the actual structure, and this stipulation should be set out in the supplemental agreement. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not believe such a supplemental agreement could be considered an amendment of the Four- Party Agreement or a deviation from the Agreement. Mr. Lindstrom said the existing Four-Party Agreement mentions projects such as this, but it also says that the City and the Albemarle Service Authority have to jointly request such projects. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels strongly ~u~M~ sM p~s mo~pu~q '~X 'usp~nq sq~ ~sq o~ @~M ~uo~ ~uno~ oM~ u@M~ pu~ ss~ ~ou %sn~ sy uoy%do sTM% ~%no KpoqXue ~uT%%sI s! %T ~uTM% %ou PIP sM pies ITounoo K%ID %9I. %sn? pgeoff sM% %eM% ~uT%ss~ns sea sM J$ mog%spuT% mog%spuTq 'gM '~IlSggeq ~ gSAO. pg~off SM% PlOM O2 ~uIXg% %sn? s! ITouno0 s~u!q% sM pies ssTmogdmoo sTq% %dsooe u~ us ~u!~go~ sea :oT~osuuoo Mos s@~geqogns Xq psgsAoo sq pIno~ mog%spuyq 'gM 'sgesX o~% nT ~u!M%Xu~ suop %ou s~q %y usq~ @mi% sTq% %e ~uIq%~u~ op II!~ sssugTej uy %~q% sI@@J sMg 'M%TeJ poo~ uT uo~sTosp e shem ~ouu~o Iesodogd sTq% uo uo$%oe smog ~oo% I~ounoo ~%TO JT %eq% sIS@J K%unoo us u@pgnq @go~ ~u~%%nd. pu~ psss~geq ~uTsq s~tI %ou s@op jo p~@%su! pus ~gyoAgsssg oust @g@q% JT ~%unoo sM% ut do%s IIT~ q%~og~ %eM% ~u!M% %ou sq @sneosq ~%Tsssosu ~ sT gTOAgSSsg sM% s~uTq% SM PT~S mog%spuTq 'gM 'op o% ~UTO~ s! · s@X pyas mog%spuy% 'gM '%noqw psugsouoo os st pgeoff sM? suoT%e~yIqo IeTOu~uT~ @ssM% s~0~ sM% %dope pgeoff SM% %~q% ~uT%ss~ns se~ sM JT moM%gpu!% 'gM ps~s~ s~ooD 'X'd 0~:~ %~ psATgg~ ~@IUSH 'gM) 'ssx~% @sesgouT 0% pssu sM% s%~sgo ~em sTM% ~P smog pspnIouY 000¢00I$ KIqeqogd sy sgsM% %~M% ~ss~ %ssi psuoT%u~m p~M gsMs!~ 'gM pies %T ~uTq% %ou ssop sq pus ¢%os[ogd uTe%unox ~onff sM% us uoT%o~ @AT%!u!J~P smog s~e% 0% pg~off ~uyq 'gM 's%soo jo ~u!geqs sM% goj IeSOdogd smog M%T~ dn smoo IIT~ @s%%Tmmoo ~su sTM% ~doq u@q% pus ssT~ogdmoo s~O~ sM% q%!~ ~i@%eypsmmy p~sMe o~ 02 ~uTsodogd @gs~ ~og%spuT~ sssIun I~¢odogd @sTmogdmoo s~O~ sM% %goddns qou IITa @q %eM% Keg 0% ~uTII!a %ou sT sq ¢%nq ¢s~OIAsp IOgqUOO Sjoung sM% jo soueu@%uI~m goj X%TITq!suodssg %uTs? e @geMs ~snm K%unoo (E96I '6E gsqo%o0 moms psugno~pv) E86I '~ gsqmsAON 456 November 3, 1982 (Adjourned from October 29, 1982) Mrs. Cooke said she was becoming confused about some of the remarks being made and asked for a history of the entire question. Mr. Agnor said that before the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed, the City and County had paid for a feasibility study on regional water and sewage disposal needs; this was called the Malcolm Pirnie Report. That report indicated that if a regional water system were formed, the existing water supply would be inadequate in the future, and of course, the sewage disposal system was completely deficient. Following formation of the Rivanna Authority, the first focus of attention was the pollution abatement program. Then the need for another water supply source to serve the urban area was addressed; Crozet and Scottsville were not a part of that forecast. Six years ago, the Rivanna Authority employed Camp, Dresser and McKee to look for optional sites for water. That report was received and CD&M reemployed to do a more definitive study of the sites selected. This all began many years ago with the Malcolm Pirnie report that indicated that there would be a water shortage in the future. Mr. Agnor said he would agree with Mr. Lindstrom that there has not been any formal action to instigate these studies; they were a part of the creation of the whole regional system. Mr. Agnor said he does not understand why financing of the project should come up at this time when all the preparatory work has been financed through the Four-Party Agreement. Mr. Fisher said the County government might decide to stop taking extraordinary measures to protect the water supply at any time. This is a regional system and there is an agreement for operation of same. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Four-Party Agreement in effect at this time should be carried out. Mr. Lindstrom said he believes that the Revenue Sharing Agreement with the City has made a significant difference in the thinking of City Council members. Putting off this project for twenty years will make the land very expensive, and for the estimated cost of the land at this time, he is not williing to say he is not willing to acquire the land because of the cost. Mr. Butler said he is very concerned about the water supply. Three or four years ago Sugar Hollow Reservoir was almost dry. If there had been six more months of severe drought at that time, the community would have basically been without water. He feels this is a serious concern and the Board needs to secure the Buck Mountain water source for the community Mr. Fisher agreed but said he did not believe that a few more months will make much of a difference. Miss Nash said the Chairman is probably right in that the County has been cheated by not receiving reimbursement for these watershed protection costs, but she does not feel it is right to jeopardize the welfare of the County at large just to save the County's face on these costS. Mr. Lindstrom said he could sense that no motion would get a majority vote this ~fternoon. He felt the Board should talk to City Council again about what they plan to do. Mr. Fisher suggested that word be conveyed to City Council that probably a majority of the Board is willing to go along with the 5C's proposal for financing of the Buck Mountain project provided a supplemental agreement is signed which includes a resolution of the whole watershed management program, its costs and responsibilities. He suggested that a committee composed of the City Manager, County Executive, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and a repre- sentative from the City Water Department, meet between now and the end of the year to try and arrive at some solution, and in the meantime the Board should just drop the moratorium. Mr. Fisher said he will not vote to extend the moratorium again. Mr. Lindstrom said he is not willing to wait two more months but he would be willing to defer action for two weeks until the Committee could make some report. Mr. Fisher said this could not be done without City Council's concurrence. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the Board request establishment of a committee made up of the City Manager, County Executive, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, director of the City Department of Public Works, and that the Committee meet within the next week and attempt to determine whether any sharing of the costs of the watershed management program as outlined in Mr. Agnor's letter dated November 3 can be arrived at, and then report back to City Council and the Board of Supervisors by November 10, either their suggestions for a solution or their inability to arrive at a solution. Mr. Agnor said he would be away Monday and Tuesday of next week, but would start to work immediately if the motion passes. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that if this motion passes, it be communicated to the City Manager and Mayor this afternoon. Miss Nash asked if that were a part of the motion. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Miss Nash said that under those conditions, she would second the motion. Roll was called at this time, 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. 3. at this time. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. There were no other matters mention~ Agenda Item No. 4. Executive Session. Mr. Fisher said he had received requests for an executive session during dinner to discuss a personnel matter and litigation concerning the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. He suggested that the Board take the vote now and not go into executive session until 5:30 P.M. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. 457 November 3, 1982 (Adjourned from October 29, 1982) The Board recessed at 4:13 P.M. pending executiYe session starting at 5:30 P.M. Upon completion of the executive session, the Board reconvened into open session about 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned the meeting which had begun at 3:00 P.M. 458 November 4, 1982 (Abstract of Votes) (Clerk's Note: Listed below is an abstract of votes cast in the County of Albemarle at the general election held on November 4, 1982; certified and furnished to the Clerk by the Electoral Board of Albemarle County, Virginia, and set out in this Minute Book pursuant to Virginia Code Section 24.1-150.) Member of the United States Senate Richard J. "Dick" Davis - 5902 Paul S. Trible, Jr. - 7981 James B. Murray - 1 Rick Collins - 1 Richard York - 1 Member of the House of Representatives - 7th District Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. - 5028 J. Kenneth Robinson - 7897 David J. Toscano - 1020 Hollander - 1 Member of the House of Delegates - 57th District Mitchell Van Yahres - 2118 William P. May - 14 George Allen - 2 Steven Bainbridge - 1 Russ Eugene Kubart - 1 Catherine A. Echols - 1 Claude H. Mitchell - 1 Donald Ramierez - 1 George Carter - 1 Richard J. Bonnie - 1 Thomas E. Albro - 1 E. O. Kinnier, Jr. - 1 John Doe - 1 Member of the House of Delegates - 58th District James B. Murray - 5034 George F. Allen - 5547 Richard York - 1 David Toscano - 1 Proposed Constitutional Amendments Question 1: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to change the information required to register to vote by deleting marital status and occupation and by including any prior legal name? Yes - 7326 No - 4479 Question 2: Shall Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize restoration of civil rights to felons as may be provided by general law? Yes - 4645 No - 7100 Question 3: Shall the Constitution of Virginia be amended to authorize the General Assembly to limit the introduction of legislation in the odd-year short session? Yes - 3986 No - 7570 November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 3, 1982, at 7:30 P.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. ZMA-82-10, P.H. Faulconer Estate, with Proffer. (Deferred from September 15, 1982.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the following letter dated October 27, 1982, from Mr. Timothy M. Michel, Agent for the applicant: "As agent for the owners, I am officially withdrawing the application for rezoning with proffer, designated ZMA-82-t0 and pertaining to Parcel 24, Tax Map 60 (known as the P.H. Faulconer Estate). The owners' original intent to request rezoning from R-1 to ¢0 no longer appears to be viable. New discussions may result in a substantially different rezoning application. The owners and myself wish to thank the entire planning staff for its assistance on this matter." Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept this request for withdrawal without prejudice. 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. 3. ZTA-82-12. To amend or to add the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to building separation and side yard requirements in order to provide a minimum building separation of thirty feet: 5.3.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3, 15.5, 16.7, 17.7, 18.3, 18.7, 19.8, 20.8.5, 21.0, 21.9 and 26.13. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1982.) Agenda Item No. 4. ZTA-82-13. To amend Sections 4.11.2.1 and 4.11.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to location of accessory structures to 1Ct lines. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said he would dispense with reading the staff report dated October 12, 1982, since it pertained mainly to discussion which occurred at the Planning Commission meeting of September 7, 1982. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of OctOber 12, 1982, unanimously recommended the adoption of the proposed amend- ments. (NOTE: The staff report of October 12, 1982, setting out the reasons for the requested amendments as well as the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance read as follows) "ZTA-82-12 & ZTA-82-i3. requirements. Amendments regarding building separation and side yard Staff has requested two deferrals of these items in an attempt to incorporate comments and concerns of local builders into the proposed amendments. The major change resulting from these discussions has been a~rewrite of the proposed 4.11.3 to provide three alternative methods to reduc~ building separation and side yard requirements. Under the first two alternatives (4.11.3(a) and 4.11.3.1(b)), reduction would be mandatory upon satisfaction of the criteria. A third alternative is provided primarily for the case where a request for reduction precedes construction. For example, a reduction in side yard requirements may be granted for a subdivision if the developer discloses in the deeds or on the plat that certain construction or locational regulations will subsequently be required. This would place lot purchasers on notice and avoid subsequent problems of record keeping (The Fire Official could maintain a map and log for reference purposes when approving building permits~). Other changes include an expansion of exemptions (4.11.3.3) and rewording, deletion of other provisions. The Fire Qfficial was agreeable to all changes. The local builders also expressed concern that the staff report did not fully explain the origin of the proposal and usage of the BOCA Uniform Statewide Building Code ~and Insurance Services Office (ISO) provisions in the proposal. Basically, the proposed amendments employ BOCA and IS0 provisions in a combin- ation which, in the opinion of the Fire Official, would reasonably reduce the risks of the spread of fire. The proposed provisions are more stringent than BOCA code requirements. The opinion of the Fire Official is that the BOCA code is primarily an "urban" ordinance which is not well-suited to the particular situation in Albemarle County (i.e., volunteer as opposed to professional fire company; areas of inadequate fire flow; areas of long response times), and that more stringent requirements are warranted. While the Fire Official will be present at public hearings to discuss this matter in greater detail, staff offers the following background: November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Be Table 502 comes from a section of the BOCA code containing provisions for "fire districts". While 501.2 of BOCA speaks to "areas containing con- gested business, commercial, manufacturing and industrial uses", the zoning provisions would apply to medium and high density residential uses as well. Insurance Services Office (ISO) standards are intended to be employed to establish fire insurance rates and are not ordinance or code requirements. ISO standards would be employed in the zoning proposals as one alternative method to reduce separation/yard requirements. ISO fire insurance ratings are based on three criteria: Proximity to a fire station. Available fire flow. Type of construction, use, and fire exposure. Recommended insurance rates are lowest where these criteria are met, presumably because risks of spread-of-fire are lower. The builders also took issue with an example of insurance savings in the pre- vious staff report: "The proposed amendments seek to address the third cri- teria. Assuming the first two criteria are satisfied, the ISO recommended insurance premium for a $70,000 dwelling not meeting the separation/construction criteria of the proposed amendments would be $311/year, while the annual premium could be reduced to $214/year if the criteria were met. This would be an annual savings of $97 for the homeowner." First, the ISO rating process is more com- plex and considers more factors than the example indicates. Second, ISO does not consider individual developments but uses a fire station service area as the base unit for recommended rates. ISO ratings are based on a plus-minus points system. Development consistent with ISO standards (i.e., proposed amendments) would receive plus points, while development inconsistent with ISO standards (i.e., existing regulations) would receive minus points. Therefore, for a partially developed area, rates would tend to increase or decrease dependent on the regulations governing new development. That is to say, future development could affect the rates paid by the current homeowner. The affect on rates could be less or more dramatic than cited in the example. Summary: The Code of Virginia is clear with regard to a locality's authority End responsibility to address matters of fire protection through zoning re- gulations. Excerpts from Section 15.1-489, Purpose of Zoning, state that: (Zoning) "ordinances shall be designed to provide safety from fire, to facili- tate the provision of adequate fire protection, to protect against undue density of population in relation to community facilities existing or available, and to protect against loss of life, health or property from fire .... " Satisfaction of these requirements is a matter of local legislative judgment and discretion. Litigation in Virginia has established that local governing bodies, because of their knowledge of local conditions and the needs of their individual communities, are allowed wide discretion in the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances. The Fire Official has stated his opinion that, based on his knowledge of local conditions, existing side yard and building separation requirements do not provide reasonable protection from the risks of the spread of fire in all cases. Staff has attempted to develop performance ordinance requirements to address those cases where reasonable protection is lacking. These amendments would have no effect in those areas where protection is adequate. (In practice, the Fire Official anticipates that the reduced yard/separation provisions of 4.11.3 will be the rule rather than the exception). Likewise, the amendments offer oppor- tunities for the developer to obtain reductions. Staff opinion is that this is a more reasonable approach than rigid yard/separation requirements or simply denying development based on inadequate fire protection. Additional Staff Comment: As stated earler in this report, IS0 fire insurance ratings are based on three criteria: proximity to a fire station, available fire flow, and type of construction, use and fire exposure. Zn addition to the proposed zoning text amendments, Staff would recommend that these criteria be addressed through a comprehensive fire protection plan which would employ ISO, BOCA and other criteria with the goals of: reducing the loss of life, health and property to fire reducing fire insurance costs by improving ISO ratings providing more uniform and improved fire protection throughout Albemarle County with particular emphasis on the higher risk growth areas. In addition to the fire protection "hardware" of the ISO criteria, the plan should address such topics as: consolidation of urban services for fire pro- tection, reciprocal agreements, and the like among the County, City and Uni- versity; methods of funding fire protection improvements; and the relationship of the fire protection plan to the County's Comprehensive Plan and watershed management efforts (i.e., multipurpose impoundments for water quality and fire protection). Staff has presented a brief outline for a possible comprehensive fire protection plan. Staff opinion is that this is an appropriate time for such an undertaking, due to the City/County consolidation discussions, the Albemarle County Service Authority's comprehensive water and sewer study which is underway and the preliminary Fire Official/Planning Staff study for the location of a fire station on Route 250 West in or near the Urban Area. (This would be a cooperative November 3~t982 (Re_~lar Night Meetin~ effort with the City.) Should the Commission and Board look favorably on such a concept, Staff could prepare a more definitive proposal after consultation with the Fire Official, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Albemarle County Service Authority, Watershed Management Official and other appropriate agencies. Amend 4.11.2.1 as follows: 4.11.2.1 ACCESSORY STRUCTURES If no utility or drainage easements or other easements are adversely affected, accessory structures or portions thereof may be erected no closer than ~,-~ six (6) feet .... Add a new section number 4.11.3 entitled REDUCTION OF BUILDING SEPARATION AND SIDE YARDS: 4.11.3.1 Building separation and side yards for main structures shall be reduced in accordance with applicable district regulations in a particular case under the following circumstances: Such structures are located within a four mile radius of a responding fire station and in an area where available fire flows are adequate by Insurance Service Offices standards to permit such reduction; or Ail such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with Table 502 Fire Grading of Use Groups of the BOCA Uniform Statewide Building Code~ or In the case of yard reduction~ the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this section inclusive but not limited to deed restriction~ disclosure~ and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County. 4.11.3.2 In the case of reduction as provided in 4.11.3.1~ the following additional regulations shall apply: No such structure shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County fire official; Unless constructed to a common wall~ no such structure shall be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line; No such structure shall encroach on any utility~ drai-nage~ or other easement~ nor on any feature required by this ordinance or other applicable law. 4.11.3.3 Development approved prior to the effective date of this section shall be exempt from 4.11.3.1 and shall comply with the side yard and building separation regulations of the Zoning Ordinance in effect at time of such approval. For the purposes of this section~ "development approved" shall mean: any final subdivision plat approved pursuant to Chapter 18 of the County Code~ any site development plan approved pursuant to Section 32.0 of this ordinance or comparable provision of prior zoning ordinance; or any planned development district established pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance or prior zoning ordinance. Amend Section 5.3.3, LOCATION OF MOBILE HOMES as follows: 5.3.3,1 (same) 5.3.3.2 The minimum distances between mobile homes shall be thirty (30) feet. ~e-A~ema~&e-Ge~-¢&~e-e¢¢&e&a&-ma~-~e~&~e-a~G&$&e~a& e~ee-~e~wee~-me~&~e-hemee-a~-e~e~-e~e~ee-&~-a~ ~e~&~e-~e~e-~e~ee~&e~-~e~e¢~e~ 5.3.3.3 (same) 5.3.3.4 (same) 5.3.3.5 No mobile home or other structure shall be located closer than ~&¥,-~ six (6) feet from any mobile home space lot line. November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) 4.11.3.1 Minimum building separation and side yards for main structures shall be reduced in accordance with applicable district regula- tions in a particular case under the following circumstances: Such structures are located within a four (4) mile radius of a responding fire station and in an area where available fire flows ~are adequate by Insurance Service Offices sta- ndards to permit such reduction; or Ail such structures for which separation and/or side yards are reduced shall be constructed in accordance with Table 502 Fire Grading of Use Groups of the BOCA Uniform Statewide Building Code; or In the case of yard reduction, the Albemarle County fire official may require such guarantee as deemed necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this section inclusive but not limited to deed restriction, disclosure, and other such instruments and the recordation of the same in the office of the clerk of the circuit court of the county. 4.11.3.2 In the case of reduction as provided in section 4.11.3.1, the following additional regulations shall apply: No such structure shall encroach on any emergency accessway as may be required by the Albemarle County fire official; Unless constructed to a common wall, no such structure shai1 be located closer than six (6) feet to any lot line; No such structure shall encroach on any utility, drainage, or other easement, nor on any feature required by this ordinance or other applicable law. 4.11.3.3 Development approved prior to the effective date of this section shall be exempt from section 4.11.3.1 and shall comply with the side yard and building separation regulations of the zoning ordinance in effect at time of such approval. For the purposes of this section, "development approved" shall mean: any final subdivision plat approved pursuant to Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle; any site development plan approved pursuant to section 32.0 of this ordinance or comparable provision of prior zoning ordinance; or any planned development district established pursuant to the provisions of this ordinance or prior zoning ordinance. 5.3.3.2 The minimum distances between mobile homes shall be thirty (30) feet. 5.3.3.5 5.3.3.6 No mobile home or other structure shall be located closer than six (6) feet from any mobile home space lot line. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Albemarle County fire official may require additional space between mobile homes or between mobile homes and other structures in any case in which he shall determine the same to be reasonably necessary to prevent danger of fire or to provide adequate protection therefrom. Sections 15.3, 16.3, 17.3, and 18.3, AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS, in the chart under "Yards, minimum: Side" change ten (t0) feet to fifteen (15) feet in each column and add footnote "a" to "Side" category with the following language: Minimum side yards shall be reduced to not less than ten (10) feet in accordance with section 4.11.3. Add section 15.5 with the following language and amend sections 16.7, 17.7, and 18.7 to also read: BUILDING SEPARATION In any case in which there is more than one main structure on any parcel, there shaZ1 be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between such structures except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wall. Amend sections 19.8 and 20.8.5, BUILDING SEPARATION, as follows: Except as otherwise provided in section 4.11.3, whether or not located on the same parcel, there shall be a minimum of thirty (30) feet between main structures. This provision shall not apply to structures built to a common wall. ¢~@u~Mo~m II~qu~d ~ ~@o~A@p Mon~ oq P~I qou qnq ~u~pnIou~ o~uo~oeIe ~o 'I~O~oeIe 'y~o~u~Moe~ V :@OTAaG/o~D ~uom@sn~v :e~n~u~I ~u!~oIIOJ @q% PP~ :sAoYIoJ s~ papuem~ aq ¢~$u~A eX,uno0 @I~m@qIV jo s~os~A~edn~ jo p~o~ aq~ ~q ~ZMIVGH0 ~I Z~ '[96I ¢I ~nu~f uo eAy~oeSje emooaq o~ eou~uyp~o ~uT~oIIOJ @q~ 'eou~u~p~o ~u~oIIoJ @M~ ~u~dop~ Xq uoyssTur~o0 ~uyuu~Ig eM~ ~q pepueuauooe~ s~ ~I-Eg-V~Z eAo~dd~ o~ Cmo~gspusq '~ ~q p@~ejjo ~ye~ypem-~y s~ uoy~oM · 9~m~ed @en I~o@de ~ e~nbe~ plno~ pu~ suoT~oe~ e~oq~ eM~ ~@pun II~J ~Iq~qo~d pIno~ pu~ ~u@mMe~Iq~gee I~uo~e~oe~ I~o~@unaoo. ~ e~@~ ezeM~ j~ p~ ze~on~ '~M '~eoTAep/em~ ~u@~e~nm~ ~eI ¢o ee~M9 XIuo pepnIou~ ~@u~nq @~ j$ pe~j~ss~IO ~q pIno~ ~eaueo ~ue~e~n~ u~ ~oM pe~ mo~pu~q · s~u@mpuem~ papgo~ eAoq~ eM9 jo uoygdop~ ~q~ pepuemmooeg ~Isnomyu~un '896I ¢8I gsqo%oo jo ~uy~@@~ s~y ~ CuoIssyum~oo ~uyuu~y~ ~q~ ~q~ pe~ou ~e~on~ 'gM 'SIT~M @ou~p pu~ STI~q Tood 'sXeIT~ ~UYT~oq 'sze~ueo ~uamasnm~ o~ P~Y~YI ~ou ~nq ~uypnTouy ~u@~qs!Tq~s@ uoy%~@go~g T~yO~eturmoo :s~OITOJ s~ ET@Ay%oeds@g · seo!Aep/sem~ ~uemesnm~ (~) e.@~q% u~q% eaom @g~ az@q~ qoyq~ uy uoy~ooI go 'ssauysnq '%uo~usyIq~sa ~uv :~o~uao ~u@masnmv · p@~@do -ue~o~ go -uyoo eq ITeMs @m~s @q% %ou go zeq%@M~ s@Iq~% ~uym~ pu~ seoyAep qons ~@q~o pu~ ~uyI~oq @Ijjnqs 'seIq~% mo~o 'seIq~ P~YIIYq ~seIq~ Iood s~ s@oyAep Mons epnIouy osI~ II~qs seuyqo~ em~ ~ue~esnmv '@~YI @~ pu~ s@uyqo~ ~uypu@A 'sq~ooq o~o~d 'seuy~o~m e~nss@~d pooIq s~ qons @sypu~qog@~ jo m@%y go uoy~uym~I Cqd~o~oMd 'aq~y@~ ~o ~uyp~e~ oyuoggo@ye u~ epyAo~d Mo!M~ seoyA@p ~o seuyMo~ ~uypnIoxe ~nq ss~n~%j oyIoqmXs eonpogde~ 0% @qn% oepyA ~ ~uSzyII%n @~ ~u~ ~o s@m~ o@pyA ~SSUyqO~m II~quyd s~ SeoyA@p Mons o~ pe%YmII ~ou %hq ~u!pnIou$ '%uem@snm~ go ~uemuy~@gu@ -ue~o~ go -uyoo o!uog~oeI@ go 'I~o!g%oeIe 'I~oyu~qoem V :@O%A@G/@D~D %uem@snmv :e~mn~u~I ~uy~oIIOJ eq~ ~uypp~ ~q gNOILIMI~G 0'[ puomv :~oIIoJ s~ p~eg PInO~ s~uempu@~ pesodo~d ~q& 'uo$~!oossv ~uyuu~I~ u~oygemV e~ ~o~J uoy~mgojuy pu~ qo~@s egn~e~yI uo pu~ ~Y0 ~u%puod uo pog~q sy (~M~ u~q~ @~o~) g@m~ jo ~@q~nu oM& gegu@0 ~uyddoqs-gu@mdoIeAaG peuu~I~ pu~ ~I~yO~@mmo0 ~M~!H ~y~yo~emmo0 eqg o~ sy s~uempu@m~ @q~ jo esodgnd X~mygd eq~ 's@m~ ~uemesn~ o~ PS~I@g uo uoTssTmmo0 ~uSuu~I~ eq~ ~o~syuympv ~uTuoz eq~ jo %s@nbe~ @q% %V~, :s~oIIoJ s~ uoyssymmoD ~uyuu~I~ sq~ jo uoy~pueum~oos~ eq~ pu~ ~gode~ jj~%~ ~uyuu~Ig @M% p~eg ~e~on~ ('~86I cie =eqo~oo '0'~ :sae~uao ~uem@snmw puw seoyA@p/sem~ ~ue~esnm~ o~ e~I@Z X@M~ s~ eou~uypg0 guyuoz eM9 jo suoI%o@s ~uy~oIIoJ eq~ pp~ o~ go puem~ oz '~I-Eg-VZZ '~ 'oM ma~I ~pue~V · uoyssymmo0 ~uyuu~Ig eM% pu~ jj~s ssnossp o~ ~u$IIY~ s! ~Y ~q~ pg~o~ @q~ jo snsu@ouoo eq~ s~ ~I '~e%%~m syq~ no p~o~ jo uoIu!do @q~ p@ys~ ~eqsy~ '~N 'X~nu~f ~o ~sqmeoe~ geq~ye uy p~o~ eM% o~ Jo UO!SIA~a ~ ~q~ pspp~ aou~v 'a~ 'u~Id uoy~o~ogd ~ayJ ~AIsusqsadmoo ~ Joj uoyssIurmoo ~uyuu~y~ sq% JO uoy~pus~moosg ~q~ aspysuoo o~ psqsya pg~o~ sq~ JI ps~s~ gou~v 'suox :SXVM :S~XV :e~OA p@pgooe~ ~uy~oIIOJ sq~ Kq peya~o pu~ qs~N ssIN ~q p@puooes s~ uoy~om @q& 'ePoO ~uIpIyn~ spineleSS maojIu~ VO0~ eM% jo sdnogD jo ~uyP~gD @gYg E0~ sIq~A q~I~ sou~p~ooo~ uI p8%~g~dss pu~ eq II~qS s@gn~ong~s uy~m ¢I~O~d ~s eq~ uo p@~ooI ~ou ~o :s~oIIoJ s~ p~sg o~ CMOI~VHV6%S DNIGqIQG PSI~I~u8 ¢[I'9E pu~ 6'IE suoy~oss PPV (Duy~@@~ $q~¥N a~InDaH) Y96I ¢~ aoqmsaoM November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) symbolic figures but excluding machines or devices which provide an electronic reading or weight, photograph, lamination or item of merchandise such as blood pressure machines, photo booths, vending machines and the like. Amusement game machines shall also include such devices as pool tables, billiard tables, carom tables, shuffle 'bowling and other sUch devices and gaming tables whether or not the same shall be coin- or token-operated. Amusement Center: Any establishment, business or location in which there are more than three (3) amusement'games/devices. Amend sections 22.2.2.1, 24.2.2.1, 25.2.2.1, respectively to read as follows: Commercial recreation establishment including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. 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. 6. ZTA-82-15. To amend the definition of "person aggrieved" in Section 32.7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and to amend Section 32.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to review of public areas, facilities and uses for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as required by 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1982.) Agenda Item No. 7. STA-82-3. To add a definition of "person aggrieved" to Section 18.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance and to add Section 18-17.1 to the Subdivision Ordinance to provide for review of public areas, facilities and uses for compliance with the Com- prehensive Plan, as required by Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 20 and October 27, 1982.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: "Amendments related to "person aggrieved" and review for compliance with Comprehensive Plan in the site plan and subdivision procedures. The County Attorney's office has recommended amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance to clarify certain matters. On August 11, 1982, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent to amend these ordinances and referred the matter to the Planning Commission. 1) Amend section 32.7.6 of the Zoning Ordinance and section 18-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding "person aggrieved". These current provisions deal with procedures for a "person aggrieved" to appeal a site plan or Subdivision plat to the Board of Supervisors for review. The proposed amendments would provide a definition of "person aggrieved" in the Subdivision Ordinance and a more specific definition in the Zoning Ordinance than currently exists. 32.7.6 (The last sentence should be changed to read); For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to section 32.3.2~ t~e .commission or it's chairman~ the director of planning, the zonmng.administrator~ the county executive and the board of supervisors or any member thereof, a~-a~ ~e~e~e~-~e~e~me~a~-a~e~e~-e~-e~¢&ee~-~e~ee~ Section 18-4 Appeals (a) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commission in its advisory capacity, or of the agent, or of any administrative official whose decision is required pursuant to this chapter, may appeal said decision to the board of supervisors as a whole by written notice filed with the agent within ten (10) days of the decision complained of. For purposes of this section~ the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant~ owners of property.abutting the parcel which is proposed to be subdivided~ the commission or it's chairman~ the director of planning~ the zoning administrator~ the county executive and the board of supervisors or any member thereof. (b) A~-~e~ee~-a~&eve6-~F-~e-¢&~a&-6ee&e&e~-e¢-~Ae-~ea~6-e¢ e¢-e~e~&ee~e-~e-~he-~e~&~-~e~-e¢-~e-~e~-e~-e~e~ ~e~-Aa~&~-~&e~&e~e~-e~-~he-~a~-&~e~e~-~e~a~-~e ~e~e-e¢-¥&~&~&a?-eee~&e~-&~-~-ae-ame~e~ The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right o£ final review of any plat which is required to be approved pursuant to this ordinance. Appeal may be taken from the decision of the board of supervisors as provided in section 15.1-475 of the Code. November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meetin~) 2) Amend section 32.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance and add 18-17.1 to the Subdivision Ordinance by the addition of language related to review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. This language would formalize review procedures for proposed developments which occasion new or expanded public utilities/facilities. The language would require a finding by the Commission of consistency with the Compre- hensive Plan and would require the Commission to forward its findings to the Clerk of the Board. This review would be an element of the normal site plan/subdivision review process. Notification to the Clerk of the Board would be by copy of the Commission's action letter. Add a second paragraph to section 32.2.3 to read as follows: 32.2.3 Any public area, facility or use as set forth in paragraph (a) of section 15.1-456 of the Code which is within~ but not the entire subject of~ an application under this section~ shall be reviewed by the commission as to whether or not the same is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan as well as for compliance with the design standards hereof. Approval of such application shall be deemed approval of such area~ facility or use pursuant to section 15.1-456 (a)~ (b)~ and (d) of the Code~ subject to review by the board of supervisors pursuant to sections 32.7.6 and 32.7.7 hereof~ which review shall~ as to such area~ facility or use~ be deemed to constitute review pursuant to section 15.1-456 (b) of the Code. Upon approval or disapproval of any plan showing such facility~ the com- mission shall promptly communicate its findings to the governing body by forwarding the same in writing to the clerk of the board of supervisors. Section 18-17.1 Any public area~ facility or use as set forth in paragraph (a) of section 15.1-456 of the Code which is within~ but not the entire subject of~ an application under this chapter, shall be reviewed by the commission as to whether or not the same is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan as well as for compliance with the design standards hereof. Approval of such applications shall be deemed approval of such area~ facility or use pursuant to section 15.1-456 (a)~ (b)~ and (d) of the Code~ subject to review by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 18-4 (b) hereof~ which review shall~ as to such area~ facility or use~ be deemed to constitute review pursuant to section 15.1-456 (b) of the Code. Upon approval or disapproval of any plat showing such facility~ the c6mmission shall promptly communicate its findings to the governing body by forwarding the same in writing to the clerk of the board of supervisors. Mr. Tucker said ~he Planning Commission at its meeting of October 12, 1982, unanimously recommended adoption of the proposed amendments with the following changes: The last sentence of Section 32.7.6 should read as follows: 32.7.6 For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to Section 32.3.2, the planning commission~ or any member thereof~ the director of planning~ .... 18-4 Appeals (a) ... For purposes of this section~ the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant~ owners of property abutting the parcel which is proposed to be subdivided~ the planning commission~ or any member thereof~ the director of planning, .... Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against these proposed amendments, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following ordinances as recommended by the Planning Commission, effective January 1, 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that sections 32.?.6, 32.2.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended, as follows: 32.7.6 Any person aggrieved by any decision of the commission in the administration of this section may demand a review of the appli- cation by the Albemarle County board of supervisors. Such demand shall be made by filing a request therefor in writing with the Albemarle County planning department within ten (10) calendar days of the date of such decision. The board of supervisors may affirm, reverse or modify, in whole or in part, the decision of the commission. In so doing, the board of supervisors shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the site plan review November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) committee and the commission. In addition, it may consider such other evidence as it deems necessary for a proper review of the application. For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, persons required to be notified pursuant to section 32.3.2, the commission, or any member thereof, the director of planning, the zoning administrator, the county'executive, and the board of supervisors or any member thereof. 32.2.3 In the case of any construction, use, change of use or other development required to be reviewed by the commission under section 15.1-456 of the Code, the provisions of this ordinance shall be deemed supplementary to the said section and shall be construed in accordance therewith. (12-10-80) Any public area, facility or use as set forth in paragraph (a) of section 15.1-456 of the Code which is within, but not the entire subject of, an application under this section, shall be reviewed by the commission as to whether or not the same is substantially in accord with the Comprehensive Plan as well as for compliance with the design standards hereof. Approval of such application shall be deemed approval of such area, facility or use pursuant to section 15.1-456 (a), (b), and (d) of the Code, subject to review by the board of supervisors pursuant to sections 32.7.6 and 32.7.7 hereof, which review shall, as to such area, facility or use, be deemed to constitute review pursuant to section 15.1- 456 (b) of the Code. Upon approval or disapproval of any plan showing such facility, the commission shall promptly communicate its findings to the governing body by forwarding the same in writing to the clerk of the board of supervisors. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 18 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE!KNOWN AS THE "SUBDIVISION OF LAND" BY AMENDING SECTION 18'4(a), SECTION t8-4(b), AND BY ADDING SECTION 18-17.1 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of Land, be amended as follows: SectiOn 18-4 Appeals (a) Any person aggrieved by the decision of the commission in its advisory capacity, or of the agent, or of any administrative official whose decision is required pursuant to this chapter, may appeal said decision to the board of supervisors as a whole by written notice filed with the agent within ten days of the decision complained of. For purposes of this section, the term "person aggrieved" shall be limited to the applicant, owners of property abutting the parcel which is proposed to be subdivided, the commission, or any member thereof, the director of planning, the zoning administrator, the county executive and the board of supervisors or any member thereof. (b) The board of supervisors reserves unto itself the right of final review of any plat which is required to be approved pursuant to this ordinance. Appeal may be taken from the decision of the. board of supervisors as provided in section 15.i-475 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Section 18-17.1 Any public area, facility or use as set forth in paragraph (a) of section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, as amended, which is within, but not the entire subject of, an application under this chapter, shall be reviewed by the commission as to whether or not the same is substantially in accord with the comprehensive plan as well as for compliance with the design standards hereof. Approval of such appli- cations shall be deemed approval of such area, facility or use pursuant to section 15.1-456(a), (b), and (d) of the Code, subject to review by the board of supervisors pursuant to section 18-4(b) hereof, which. review shall, as to such area, facility or use, be deemed to con- stitute review pursuant to section 15.1-456(b) of the Code. Upon approval or disapproval of any plat showing such facility, the com- mission shall promptly communicate its findings t~) the governing body by forwarding the same in writing to the clerk of the.board of supervisors. 468 November 1 82 Re 1 r i t ~ ' _ Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on the following budget amendments and appropriations from the Capital Improvements Fund: $58,000 for Albemarle High School Phase IV Renovations; $75,000 for Airport Phase I Terminal Building; $6,000 for Mint Springs Swimming Area Improvements; $2,500 for Mint Springs Maintenance Facility Improve- ments; $5,000 for Crozet School Recreational Improvements; and $12,000 for Health Depart- ment Parking Lot. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 26, 1982.) Mr. Fisher asked if the $58,000 for Albemarle High School Phase IV Renovations included planning money for an air conditioning system. Mr. Agnor said it did contain funds for the purpose of air conditioning, but also funds to bring the present mechanical system up to BOCA Code standards and also some repair work. Mr. Fisher said he has received a great deal of public response concerning the cost of an air conditioning system, following an article printed in the Daily Progress. Mr. Agnor said the actual figures quoted in that article were incorrect; the paper stated that air conditioning costs would run about one million dollars, and actually the entire final phase of the school renovations is estimated to cost $940,000 of which only part is for air conditioning. Mr. Fisher said since a discussion has been set for November 10, 1982, to receive public comments regarding the Broadus Wood School project, it would also be an appropriate- time to receive comments on the Albemarle High School project. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened. First to speak was Mrs. Babs Huckle who felt money for air conditioning projects would be better used if spent on roofs and walls which are badly in need of repairs at other schools. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against the advertised budget amendments and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher then requested these appropriations be deferred until November 10, 1982, for additional public hearing and then action by the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 9. Work Session, Charlottesville Area Transportation Study. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 28, 1982, unanimously recommended approval of an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan with regard to making the Charlottesville Area Transportation Study a part thereof. Mr. Fisher asked the reason for holding work sessions and public hearings on the CATS study. Mr. Tucker said the main purpose is to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan to provide a long-range transportation plan for the major collectors and arterial routes in Albemarle County through the year 2000. Mr. Tucker added that this plan, once approved, will be used by the City of Charlottesville, the County of Albemarle, the Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Virginia Department of Highways'and Transportation for planning and funding road improvements. Mr. Tucker stated that hopefully a public hearing on this Plan can take place on November 17, 1982. Mr. Tucker then presented the three major changes in the Plan since it was last reviewed by the Board of Supervisors. Those three major changes, recommended by the Planning Commission, are as follows: Delete the Route 20 connector between Rio Road and Route 20 (through a portion of Key West Subdivision). Deletion is recommended because of alignment problems and, following computer analysis, it was found to not be necessary. Shift the Western Bypass from Phase Two into Phase Four. The reason for this is to give the staff time to analyze the need for this route, as well as its impact on the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Shift the extension and improvement of McIntire Road from Phase One to Phase Two. Mr. Fisher expressed concern about the deletion of the connector road between Route 20 and Rio Road. Mr. Fisher said the need for this road has been discussed for a very long time, and he felt to delete this road from the CATS plan would encourage development in an area which has long been restricted. Mr. Tucker said the road was deleted mainly to discourage development in an area designated in the Comprehensive Plan for low growth. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the lists of committed projects, phases one through four, and the approximate timetables for these projects. Mr. Tucker noted that other areas of transportation covered by the study are transportation system management, aviation, railroads, engineering, bike paths and enforcement/education. Mr. Lindstrom expressed concern about the inclusion of the Western Bypass in this study. Mr. Lindstrom said he would never vote to support such a highway. Miss Nash said she was also concerned about the WeStern Bypass'. Miss Nash asked why this study is to be made part of the County's Comprehensive Plan and only a resolution on the part of the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Tucker said the City need not make it part of their Comprehensive Plan because there are no major projects proposed for development within the limits of the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Ken Lantz, of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, next gave a slide presentation for the Board's information, concerning the CATS study. Miss Nash asked if any study has been made relative to improving other methods of transportation rather than just roads. Mr. Lantz said the Department of Highways and Transportation is also in charge of reviewing a Statewide rail plan for the movement of both people and goods. Mr. Lantz said that for the CATS analysis, no comparison figures were used for rail versus automobile transportation. Miss Nash then asked if figures have been comPiled for traffic which is "simply traveling through the Charlottesville/Albemarle area". Mr. Lantz said figures for through traffic have not been separated out in this study, but were taken into consideration when presenting traffic count figures on major through roads such as Route 29 or Route 250. November 3, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lantz his opinion of eliminating the connector road between Rio Road and Route 20 North. Mr. Lantz said the estimated traffic count for such a connector road is 8,400 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Lantz said this is a border-line figure for whether or not to construct a new road. Mr. Lantz added that with the proposed improve- ments to McIntire Road (the Meadow Creek Parkway) and the "Free Bridge" on Route 250, it is felt that the connector road will not be necessary. Mr. Fisher said to eliminate this road completely from the plan will leave the land open to development so that future rights-of-way would be lost. Mr. Fisher said he would not support going to public hearing with this road deleted from the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he was extremely· concerned about the fact that the CATS study, as presented, has roads planned which are inconsistent with Albemarle County's Comprehensive Plan~ Mr. Lindstrom said he is vehemently opposed to a Western Route 29 Bypass, because it is completely inconsistent with planning for watershed protection, land at the north end has already been committed for commercial development, the cost is prohibitive'when compared to the travel time saved. Mr. Lindstrom said he would also like to see the Georgetown Road improvement project eliminated, but is willing to let' the other items remain in the Plan for public hearing purposes. Miss Nash said she agreed with Mr. Lindstrom regarding the Western Bypass and could not support the construction of same. Mr. Tucker then suggested November 17, 1982, as the date for a public hearing on including Charlottesville-Albemarle Transportation Study as an element of the Compre- hensive Plan. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to advertise the Charlottesville- Albemarle Transportation Study as the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission; public hearing to be held on November 17, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs..Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9A. Order advertisement of Treasurer's Statement of Accountability. Mr. Agnor said this is a new State law requiring that the Board of Supervisors order the publication of a statement of the Director of Finance's accountability of all funds following the receipt of the fiscal year audit. .Mr. Agnor said ~he audit has been com- pleted and is presently awaiting approval of the State Auditor of Public Accounts. Mr. Fisher said he had received the letter from the State Auditor of Public Accounts, stating that the Financial Report for the County of Albemarle for the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 1982, has been received and is accepted. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Butler, to order the Director of Finance of the County of Albemarle to have the Treasurer's Accountability Statement properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation. 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. (NOTE: The advertisement, as ordered in the above action, was published in the Daily Progress on November 15, 1982.) Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed On The Agenda. Mr. Agnor reported that a marketing plan for the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has received funding from the Department of Aviation, as well as several local, travel-oriented businesses to attempt to encourage use of the local airport, rather than driving to National Airport or Dulles Airport~o Mr. Agnor stated this project is being handled by the local Airport Commission, and involves $15,000 in State funds, $20,000 in local funds, and $1,800 from the local airport. Mr. Agnor said it is hoped the campaign can begin in early 1983. Mr. Agnor next asked the Board of Supervisors for a clarification of the Christmas Holiday policy. Mr. Agnor noted that the policy states that when a holiday falls on a Saturday, the staff is allowed to take the preceeding Friday; when the holiday falls on a Sunday, the staff is allowed to take the following Monday. Mr. Agnor said since Christmas Eve is on Friday and Christmas Day is on Saturday, a holiday will be lost. He then requested a two day holiday for Christmas to be scheduled for Thursday, December 23, and Frid&Yl, December 24, 1982. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to set t!he. County Christmas holiday for 1982 for December 23 and 24. Roll was called and the mOti°nlcarried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of three letters from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission, all dated October 21, 1982, from Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell, as follows: "Re: EDNAM HOUSE, Albemarle County This is to inform you officially that the above property has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places (Date Entered: July 8, 1982)." 470 November 10, 1982,(Regular Day Meeting) November 3, 1982 [Regular Night Meeting) "Re: EMMANUEL CHURCH, Albemarle County This is to inform you officially that the above property has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places (Date Entered: July 8, 1982)." "Re: CARRSBROOK, Albemarle County This is to inform you officially that the above property has been entered in the National Register of Historic Places (Date Entered: July 8, 1982)." Agenda Ir'em No. 11. With no further business to come before the Board, at 9:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman November 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 10, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7 of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T~ Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda con- taining one item requiring approval by the Board, and four items for general information. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept and approve the consent agenda as presented. 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. Item No. 2.1. Statements of Expenses for the State Compensation Board for the month of October, 1982, for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail, were approved as presented. Item No. 2.2. Report of the County Executive for the month of October, 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 October, 1982, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Grant Project Fund Capital Improvements Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Mental Health Fund $ 36,648.89 738,092.07 2,282,272.89 23,616.66 83,762.t2 1,140.29 49,394.70 291,908.54 373.97 233,409.14 $3,740~619.27 Item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of September, 1982, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia. Item No. 2.4. Notice from Central Telephone Company of virginia, dated October 18, 1982, regarding public hearing for an increase in rates before the State Corporation Commission, on which a public hearing will be held on January 25, 1983, in Richmond.