Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-12-15 adjDecember 15, 1982 (Adjourned from December 8, 1982) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ Virginia, was held on December 15, 1982, at 2:B0 P.M. in Meeting Room ?, County Office Buidling, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from December 8, 1982. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 2:B2 P.M.), Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 2:52 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. J'ohl (in attendance from 2:20 until 2:40 P.M. and then returned to the meeting at 4:00 P.M.); and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Mr. Tucker noted that at the December I work session, the Board had .deleted parts of the growth area of Crozet; those sections that drain into the Beaver Creek watershed. The staff has studied this action and.found that ten acres of vacant commercial lands have been delete~ twenty-five acres of industrial land near Morton's, and 125 acres of residential land. Mr. Tucker said that the Comprehensive Plan provides for a certain percentage of development to take place in the villages, communities, rural and urban areas. The staff in trying to maintain that balance, has worked out three alternatives to replace the population lost in this deletion. Mr. Tucker then explained three different maps which had been placed on the board. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 2:52 P.M.) A short discussion concerning these alternatives followed. Mr. Henley then offered motion to accept the staff's proposal for the community of Crozet to: l) increase the medium-density residential areas adjacent to The Meadows and Brownsville School to compensate for loss of low-density residential areas north of Route 240; 2~ add additional low-density residential area adjacent to Jarman Gap Estates and Lickinghole Creek - the western boundary of the community to be expanded to reflect this change; B) add a commercial area adjacent to Jarman Gap Road and the existing central business district (CBD); and 4) add an industrial area adjacent to the C&O Railway and the existing industrial area. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Tucker said the Board also discussed the fact that the villages of Scottsville, Ivy and Earlysville all lie within public drinking water supply w~tersheds.o.~ My. Tucker said in reference to Scottsville there are two drainage areas - Mink/~a~ers~e~ an~ Totier Creek watershed. There is a fair amount of existing commercial land which drains into Totier Creek. The County Engineer recommends that areas draining into Totier Creek be deleted from the Plan even though he feels these areas would have an insignificant effect on the reservoir. Mr. Tucker then noted new maps of Scottsville which had been posted on the wall. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to: l) show the western boundary of the village of Scottsville as Routes 795 and 726 (boundary of the Totier Creek watershed), and 2) add two village residential (VR) areas along Routes 77B and 705 to the growth areas - the boundary to be expanded to reflect this change. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker next noted plan for the village of Ivy showing the new boundary recommended by the Planning Commission. He said the proposed boundary is a reduction from the original plan. He noted that the entire village of Ivy is within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Fisher asked how much land is included in the Ivy Village which is still undeveloped~ Mr. Tucker said there are about five acres of commercial, twelve acres of industrial, twelve acres of public land, and 125 acres of residential. Mr. Fisher asked if deletion of the village is an alternative to be considered. Mr. Tucker said one alternative would be to delete the village as it is proposed, maintain a village boundary for existing development only, or delete the village all together. There has been some discussion of rebuilding the Ivy Post Office because of the needs in the area. If a public use building were deleted from that area, it would then not be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any way to have a village without allowing the VR designation for new development, in other words, maintain a density lower than VR for new development? Mr. Tucker said there is no district at the moment which would allow a two-acre density by-right. Mr. Tucker said that if these areas are deleted, it will change the goal for population growth in the villages; that growth will have to be moved to another area. Mr. Lindstrom asked the population planned for the Ivy village. Mr. Tucker said it is about 1,000 persons. If the residential areas mentioned are deleted, that area would contain about 85 dwellings, and 200 people, J Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board should be consistent in its policies concerning development in the watersheds of public drinking water impoundments. If some way can be found to keep a reasonable village boundary and still reduce the amount of undeveloped lands in the village residential category, that should be done. Mr. Lindstrom said, other than the impact mentioned by Mr. Tucker on public buildings, he did not see any reason to have the village of Ivy at all. Mr. Fisher said he liked the idea of amending the Ivy village plan to include only existing devlopment. He said the Board could argue at a later date about what constitutes "development". ~December 15, 1982 (Adjourned from December 8, 1982) 548., Mr. Lindstrom asked if any development activity, is taking place in the Buck Mountain area at this time. Mr. Agnor said he did not know, perhaps Bob Tucker could, make a report at the meeting tonight. Mr. Fisher said he appreciated the amount of work the staff had put in on this agreement in preparation for today's meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said he fel~~ that the Board was clOse enough to resolving the issue of financing of the Buck Mountain project so the Board might take some action on reestablishing the moratorium on deveZopment in the~Buck Mountain Creek area for whatever benefit it might be to County citizens in the next few weeks. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motionto readopt Section 5-3.1 of the County Code as an emergency ordinance ending 60 days from the date of adoption. Mr. St. John said that from a legal standpoint, he would ask that Mr. Lindstrom articulate into the record the nature of the emergency as he sees it. The moratorium was lifted not too long ago, and it seems that the only change is that the Board is getting close to some agreement with the City. Mr. St. John said he does not question that, but does feel that something should be articulated into the record. Mr. Lindstrom said he would elaborate further. He was one of four members of the Board of Supervisors who voted to rescind the moratorium when the Board did not agree to go ahead with the 5 C's proposal for financing. The reason he makes this motion now is for the same reason the Board adopted the emergency moratorium the first time - the impact on the property owners who have slated their land for development. Mr. Lindstrom said that at the time he voted not to continue the moratorium it did not appear that there was any concrete expectation that there would ever be a Buck Mountain reservoir, so there did not seem to be any reason to impose any limitations on properties in the area. Now that it appears that the project may soon be ready for land acquisition to begin, and for all the reasons reiterated before in support of an emergency ordinance, Mr. Lindstrom said those reasons would again be applicable. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not see any difference now for justification for this ordinance as an emergency than existed at the time the original ordinance was first adopted as an emergency. Mr. Lindstrom said the difference he sees is that once again it seems realistic that there may be a right-of-way acquisition program. Mr. St. John said he does not have any standards as to what constitutes an emergency, but he feels that the Board has a duty to use this power only in legitimate situations of emergency. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be glad to drop it. If the land is to be acquired, that fact is the same as it was before so he is not sure there ever was any Justification for an emergency because the situation is exactly the same as it was before and he feels the Board only rescinded the moratorium because there did not seem to be'any prospect of having a reservoir in the foreseeable future. Mr. St. John said he thinks the question of whether there is an emergency is a legislative decision, not a legal question. It is up to the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said he would defer his motion until a report can be obtained from Bob Tucker at tonight's meeting. Mr. Fisher said the Board could go ahead and take action to set a public hearing on readoption of the ordinance for the January 5 meeting, going through all of the normal advertising procedures. Mr. Henley said the problems between the Board and City Council have not yet been resolved, but progress is being made and he thinks the problems will be solved soon and he will support scheduling the ordinance for a public hearing on January 5. Mr. Lindstrom said he would move that the Board set January 5, 1983, as the public hearing date to readopt Section 5-3.1 of the Albemarle County Code restricting issuance on building permits in the area denoted in the Comprehensive Plan for a reservoir on Buck Mountai~ Creek. If Bob Tucker reports tonight that a lot of changes are presently occurring, this could be changed. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Henley said he thinks the question of what is going on in the Buck Mountain area is important, but he feels that what is going on between the Board and Council is also important. Mr. Henley said he will not vote to readopt the ordinance unless this problem with Council is resolved by January 5. Roll was called on the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that a memorandum and resolution relating to a drowning had been received from the County Attorney. Although this is listed as Item No. 12A on the night agenda, he asked if the Board could not discuss it at this time. Mr. St. John said it is a matter of potential litigation so could be discussed in executive session. Mr. Henley and Mrs. COoke both said they did not know anything about this item. Mr. St. John suggested that it might be in the County's interest to discuss the resolution in executive session. Mr. Agnor noted that he also had a land matter to discuss. Mr. Fisher said the Law Enforcement Study undertaken by the County and City was to have been returned by December 15. He would like to announce to the press that the Study has not been received and he does not know why. Agenda Item No. 5. At 4:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters dealing with Agenda Item No. 12A and with acquisition or disposal of property. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. December 15, 1982 (Adjourned, f-rom December 8, 1982) The B~ard reconvened into open session at.7:.30 P...M.~ and immediately adjourned~ the meeting which had begun at 2:40 P.M. December 15, 1982 (Adjourned from December 8, 1982) 546 Mr. Fisher asked about the village of Earlysville. Mr. Tucker said the situation in Earlysville is similar to that in Ivy, but only part of the area drains into the South Fork Rivanna watershed. The Planning Commission has suggested that Earlysville Forest be added to the village in the area adjacent to Route 743. Mr. Fisher asked the density of this development. Mr. Tucker said the density is one dwelling unit per two or two and one-half acres, but the houses are clustered on one-acre lots, with the remaining land in open space. He then showed to the Board two new alternatives which had been developed by the staff. Motion was then offered by Mr. Butler, for the village of Earlysville, to: l) show the southern boundary of Earlysville as Routes 743 and 663 (boundary of the South Fork Rivanna watershed); and 2) add Earlysville Forest Subdivision as a village residential (VR) area to the growth area - the eastern and northern boundaries to be expanded to reflect this change. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Tucker said that concluded the presentation of the land use plans the staff had been requested to redraft. He noted that the County Engineer, Mr. Maynard Elrod, was present to make a presentation as requested by the Board concerning an impoundment for sedimentation purposes on Lickinghole Creek. Mr. E!rod said the staff had studied two different approaches for a lake as to the size of the impoundment and the area that would be affected. A lake purely for trapping sediment which would be dry most of the year would affect about thirty acres. If the lake were to also be used for recreational purposes, it would affect between seventy-five and 100 acres. A question was raised earlier by Board members as to whether a larger lake would have more of an effect on water quality. A larger impoundment would certainly trap more sediment, but a larger lake creates a problem because the depth of a larger impoundment would make the lower regions of such a lake anaerobic which would in turn.produce algae. The Engineering staff, therefore, does not believe a larger take would contribute that much to improving water quality. Conditions in Beaver Creek reservoir at this time were studied by the staff and Mr. Gene Potter of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was questione¢ Mr. Potter said there are problems with algae in Beaver Creek which create a lot of taste problems. If a lake of the same size and depth as Beaver Creek were built, it could be expected that the same thing would occur. If a lake is needed for recreational purposes, it might be best to build several small lakes that are not so deep, and have each lake seep right into the lake below it. Mr. Lindstrom asked if one small pond for sedimentation purposes would be as effective as the several mentioned~. Mr. Elrod said several lakes would be more effective~in terms of degree, although the increased percentage is not that great. If the Board wants to consider the purpose of an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek for purely water quality purposes, Mr. Elrod said he would not recommend either a large lake or a series of small lakes, but only a small detention basin. Mr. Fisher said on the basis of the presentation just made, he feels the answer to the Planning Staff's question at the last meeting as to how large an area to show in the Compre- hensive Plan is to show the thirty-acre sedimentation basin unless other Board members have different ideas. Mr. Henley said he thinks the Board will be lucky to-find the money to build even a small impoundment. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the next step would be if the Board wants to pursue this project. Mr. Elrod said topographic maps are needed..of the area, plus geologic information. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to have the Engineering Department put together a proposal to-~determine the estimated cost of such a project. There was no second to the motion. Mr. Fisher said the first question asked by the staff was the.size of the impoundment to be~shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker saidthat from the conversation~today, he would add language to the narrative text of the Comprehensive Plan that the role of a. small thirty-acre lake on-Lickinghole~Creek is to be that-of a sediment basin only'and is not intende. for recreational use; the approximate location of the basin-will be indicated on the Crozet land use plan. Mr~ Fisher asked if any Board members disagreed with Mr. Tucker's-interpretatio~ There was no reply. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the County Executive and County Engineer put together a proposal for a preliminary study of a sediment basin on Lickinghole Creek, There was no second. Mr. Agnor said that new State law going into effect after January l, 1983, will~ require that professional~ services'~ be put out to ~bid, He. would like to make.~an estimate of what a consultant's services might cost in time and money and bring that information back to the~Board for review. Mr. Lindstrom~agreed with that-idea. Mr. Fisher said the only thing that has not been completely finalized is the plan for the village of Ivy. Mr. Tucker said that is right. If the Board~ wants to actually see the village map before taking final action on the Comprehensive Plan amendments that can be done. At that time, the staff will also present the "Table', which deals with the balance of populatio~ in the communities, villages and urban and~ rural areas. Mr. ~Fisher said when~ the maps in the Comprehensive Plan' were adopted five years, ago, the Board had requested that a timetable be put on each map so that no one ~would think the proposed~ population was to be obtained in the five-year planning period. He would like to request again that the maps be dated. Mr. Tucker said that would be done. Mr. Lindstrom' then offered motion to defer final action~-on the Comprehensive Plan amendments until January 5, 1983. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, MessrS. Fisher~, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. -' : ' - The Board recessed at 4:00 P.M. pending arrival of the County Attorney. reconvened at 4:12 P.M. with Mr. St. John present at that time. The Board December 15, 1982 (Adjourned from December 8, 1982) Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion.: City Proposal to Fund Watershed Management Program. Mr. Fisher said that one of the primary problems between the City and County has been the inspection of the runoff control facilities which are already in place. With the help of the Mayor, City staff and County staff, the City Engineer has already made the inspections that he deems necessary and without any specific authorization from the County. Mr. Fisher said he had received verbal information that the City Engineer found no problems with existing structures. In light of this, Mr. Fisher said he had asked the Clerk to prepare a draft agreement to cover all of the issues discussed to this time; the agreement was forwarded to the County Attorney for review,, and on Tuesday afternoon the agreement was forwarded to the City Attorney for his review. Mr. Fisher said the Mayor had called him today and there are still a few problems to be ironed out, so the Board is not in a position to take action today. Mr. Fisher then distributed copies of the agreement to the Board members and the conversation related mainly to the excerpted paragraphs below. 1. The periodic inspection and maintenance of the devices required by the County's Runoff Control Ordinance will be perfermed by the Rivanna. Water and Sewer Authority as agent of Albemarle County, and the cost of same shall be berne by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its urban water rate. 2. That the cost of the Watershed Management Official's Office shall be paid by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its urban water rate, but the Watershed Management Official shall remain administratively within the County management structure at this time. B. That the City Attorney will be authorized to work with the County Attorney, if requested, in defending lawsuits directly related to the pro- tection of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, with authorization of City Council for this purpose being made on a case-by-case basis.. 4. That pursuant to Section 4.3 of the Four Party Agreement, the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Service Authority do hereby request Jointly the purchase of the property for the proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir with the cost of that purchase to be borne by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in accord with the compromise funding agreement presented by the Citizens Committee for City-County Cooperation (5 C's), dated October 22, 1982." Mr. Fisher said a question came about when the City Engineer went out to make the inspections. That question was whether the devices ment.ioned in the paragraph numbered 1 are just those devices built to protect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir, or whether this paragraph also covers devices which may be built to protect Totier Creek and the Scottsville water supply or those that might protect Beaver Creek Reservoir and the Crozet water supply. Mr. Fisher said he and the Mayor have agreed today to strike the word "urban" in numbered paragraphs i and 2 from "urban water rate" so it will be clear that the Rivanna Authority will have the ability to charge for the inspection and maintenance of devices in both Totier and Beaver Creek watersheds. The City will try to create a line in each of those paragraphs which will place the cost for inspection and maintenance of devices in Totier Creek and Beaver Creek watersheds into the water rate for the users in those areas, with only the devices in the urban area being charged into the urban water rate. Mr. Fisher said a second coDcern of the City is with the 5 C's proposal, and what charges will actually be made for connections for apartments, commercial and industrial structures. The proposal is not specific as to how much these types of developments shOuld be charged. The City is extremely concerned that an apartment complex in the County might be charged a different connection fee than an apartment complex in the City. Mr. Fisher said he and the Mayor have agreed that City staff will work with the Albemarle County Service Authority to decide what the Buck Mountain surcharge should be. Mr. Bill Brent was present and Said that the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors is probably more concerned about this problem than the City since the ACSA already has a mechanism in its structure which allows a rate to be charged depending on the amount of water consumed and the City does not do that at the present time. Approval of the 5 C's proposal was given by the Board of Directors of the Albemarle Service Authority this afternoon contingent upon finding a workable solution to this problem, and also contingent on approval from the Authority's bondholder~ Mr. Fisher said a third issue mentioned by.the City has to do with the Rivanna Authority reviewing and approving all plans for runoff control devices. The Mayor wants some way for the Rivanna Authority to be able to say that a device can be maintained before it. accepts responsibility for maintenance. Mr. Fisher said he had asked Mr. St. John to think about this and try to core uD with-a way that does not delegate the County's authority to enforce its own:ordinances. Mr.~St, John said the Rivanna'Authority would be serving as a consulting agency in this matter, just like other members of the Site Plan Review Committee, and he does not feel that would be a delegation of authority.. Mr. Maynard Elrod said the Rivanna Autharit is already checking every plan that is filed with the County. Mr. Agnor said the Runoff Control Official is involved in the issuance of a permit. For a lot of the permits issued by the'County, there is a Check off list of review people which must be compIeted before the permit is issued. The Rivanna Authority could be added to that list and by checking thereby acknowledge willingness to accept the design plan~of'.the facility.. Mr. St. John said that was correct, and if the Rivanna Authority did not sign the check off list, the Runoff Control Official would not be able to approve the structure. Mr. Fisher said he would leave that question to Mr. St. John and the City Attorney to resolve. The only other thing standing in the way of signing the agreement is actually writing into the agreement the charges to be made. Mr. Fisher said he hoped the agreement would be ready for signing at the January 5 meeting of the Board.