Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-05~anuary ~, ±R~ (Hegular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 5, 1983, at ?:30 P.M. in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 7:36 P.M.), 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. The meeting was called to order at 7'36 P.M. by the County Executive pending election of the new Chairman. Agenda Item No. 2. Election of Chairman. Miss Nash offered the name of Gerald E. Fisher as Chairman for Calendar Year 1983. Thee motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Butler moved that nominations be closed. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Henley, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. A · BSTAIN. Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher expressed his appreciation to the Board members for their confidence in reelecting him as chairman. Agenda Item No. 3. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mr. Lindstrom offered the name of J. T. Henley, Jr. as Vice-Chairman for the Calendar Year 1983. The motion was seconded by Ers. Cooke. Mr. Butler moved that nominations be closed. carried by the following recorded vote: The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Henley. Roll was called on the motion to elect Mr. Henley as Vice-Chairman; same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Linds~rom and Miss Nash NAYS: None. ' ABSTAIN: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerks. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to appoint Lettie E. Neher as Clerk and Linda W. Leake and Barbara J. Flammia as Deputy Clerks. Mr. Fisher noted that the Clerks are doing an outstanding job of keeping the Board straight. 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. Set meeting times, dates and place for Calendar Year 1983. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to retain the same schedule, i.e., the fir-st and third Wednesday nights at 7:30 P.M. and the second Wednesday beginning at 9:00 A.M., all meetings to take place in the County Office Building on McIntire Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the folloWing-recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash None. · Agenda Item No. 6. Set dates for hearing zoning text amendments. Motion was offered bY Mr. LindstrOm, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to hear requests for zoning text amendments from citizens during Calendar Year 1983, on the first Wednesday meeting in June and on the first Wednesday meeting in December. 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. ?. Rules of Procedure. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to readopt those rules of procedure which were used during the 1982 year. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash None. . Agenda Item No. 8. SP-82-70. Charlottesville Free Will Baptist Church. Request for a special use permit in order to locate a church on County Tax Map 90, Parcel 35B (3.840 acres) and Parcel 35E (.060 acre) zoned R-1. Located on eastern side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended). Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 22 and December 29, 1982.) January 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker presented the staff's report as follows: "Request: Acreage: Zoning.~. Location: Church (Section 13.2.2.10 Churches) 3.9291 acreas R-1 Residential Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcels 353 and 35E, is located on the east side of Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) approximately one mile north of the intersection of Routes 742 and 20 South. Character of the Area This site is developed with a dwelling, mobile home and several outbuildings. Properties to the north and east are zoned R-1 Residential. Lake Reynovia is zoned R-1 and RA is across Route 742. Properties to the south are zoned HC Highway Commercial and LI Light Industrial and are developed accordingly. Public water and sewer are not available in this area. While the slope of the site is not severe, grading to provide proper approach and access to Route 742 may be required. Comprehensive Plan This site is located in Neighborhood Four of the Urban Area in the Compre- hensive Plan. Commercial and industrial uses are recommended in this area. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to construct a two-story, 4800 square foot church with a seating capacity of 300 to 500 persons. No activities other than worship activities are proposed. Staff has reviewed this application under Section 31.2.4.1 and recommends that the proposed church: a) would not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property; b) would not change the character of the district; c) would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance; and d) would not be contrary to the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff opinion is that a church: would be an appropriate use of the property and would serve as a transition between existing residential uses to the north and commercial/industrial uses to the south. Staff recommends approval." Mr. Tucker noted that the County Engineer had stated that the applicant should be aware that several property owners in the general area have experienced problems with wells as a water supply. However, Mr. Tucker has learned that the problems stated by the County Engineer incurred a mile or two away from this property. Information furnished the Planning Staff earlier was that during a drought a few years ago, the existing well on this site was used by other people in the area when their wells had gone dry. In a letter from E. O. Gooch & Associates, dated November 5, 1982, it is stated that the site is adequate for septic drainfields. The Highway Department has also said that there is no problem with sight distance. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held on January 4, 1983, voted unanimously to recommend approval of SP-82-70. Miss. Nash asked if the surrounding lots are all zoned Highway Commercial and Light Industry. Mr. Tucker said the properties to the south of these lots are so zoned. Miss Nash said she understands that the lot which adjoins on the south to the church property has a mandatory 50 foot setback from the church property, but if the church property were rezoned to HC or LI, the setback would no longer be necessary. Mr. Tucker said that whenever there ~ is a property zoned for commercial or industrial purposes adjoining a residential district, there is a 50 foot setback required from the residential district. The property adjoining on the south was rezoned to C-1 a couple of months ago so a 50 foot setback is required on that property because the property to be purchased by the church is zoned for residential purposes. The Charlottesville Free Will Baptist Church has applied for a special use permit under the residential zoning so the setback on the adjoining property will remain in effect. If the property to be purchased by the church were rezoned to either commercial or industrial, the 50 foot setback would no longer be required on the adjoining property, but would instead be applicable to the church property which would abut residentially zoned property on the north. Mr. Fisher said that is correct; if the church property were rezoned, that property would then be subject to the 50 foot setback from the nearest residential property; somewhere there has to be a border between districts. Mrs. Cooke said that the staff report mentions that a mobile home, a dwelling and several outbuildings are on the proper~y. She asked if either the mobile home or the dwelling will be occupied after construction of the church. Mr. Tucker said he could not answer that question. At this point, the public hearing was opened. Present on behalf of the Charlottesville Free Will Baptist Church was Rev. Walter Summerlin, Pastor of the Church. He said the church is presently trying to sell the property it owns on Harris Road. He was advised to use the special permit route instead of applying for a rezoning. If the property were rezoned to commercial, there would be a 50 foot setback from the northern boundary line and a 15 foot setback from the southern line, so the church as proposed would not fit on the property with driveways, etc. He is also concerned that the church might have to pay taxes on any property not used for church purposes and at a higher commercial rate. Also, with the equity involved, if there were commercial zoning, the church could not afford to build. Mr. Summerlin said the church is in the area to be a good neighbor. January 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked about the question of the mobile home being removed from the property. Mr. Summerlin said there is no mobile home on the property at the present time, evidently it has already been removed. There is only one single-family dwelling on the property and as soon as final papers are signed, the property will be bulldozed.' Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Summerli~ if he was aware that people in the area have experienced problems with water. Mr. Summerlin said he had checked and found that the well on the lot was used by other people in the area during periods of drought. Since the church will only~have services three times each week, he did not feel there will be a problem. Next to speak was a Mrs. Webster, owner of J.V. Farm Equipment on the property adjoining to the south. Mrs. Webster said she understands that the church wants to change the use of the property, but not the zoning. Mr. Summerlin told the Planning Commission that the church will be constructed to house 500 people or contain 3500 square feet of space for worship services. The property is approximately the same size as Mrs, Webster's property, or ll0 feet of road frontage. Mrs. Webster noted that the building on her proPerty had to be turned sideways to the road because of the 50 foot setback imposed from the church lot because that lot has residential zoning. Mr. Summerlin told the Planning Commission that he did not want to have the zoning changed because he fears the balance of the property might be taxed. Mrs. Webster said she went to the County Real Estate Department and obtained a definition of what constitutes tax exemption for nonprofit organizations (she read same into the record). Mrs. Webster said that in order for her to obtain commercial zoning on her property, she had self-imposed, along with the County, a 50-foot setback because of the R-1 property adjoining. She believed and trusted what was shown in the County's Comprehensive Plan for this area. She had bought the property and built her business based on her understanding that the zoning she requested~-was consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations for this area. The land she purchased is only ll0 feet across and this poses a problem. If the church receives a special permit, she will permanently loose 50 feet for any structure on her property and will also be forced'to park any farm equipment 20 feet from that~line. With~the property being only ll0 feet across, the~building~being 30 feet wide, and a~setback of 12 feet from Certified Welding on the adjoining property, only l0 feet is left for any structure on some parts of the property and only 40 feet is left for parking~farm equipment and~m, mOvement ~of traffic. Mrs. Webster-said she wants her business to be an asset to the~County. She had trusted in the County's decision relative to the recommendations'-in the Comprehensive Plan where it is stated that this area will be commerCial and light industrial~ She requested that this permit request be denied. Mr; Fisher said he might be'.missing something in the conversation, but'did not know'why the church property remaining as R-1 affected Mrs. Webster. Mrs. Webster said that according to the County's Comprehensive Plan, this whole area, from the Calvary Baptist Church'south, is designated as Light Industrial and Commercial. She was willing to comply and self-imposed a 50-foot setback, along with the Board, knowing full well that eventually she would become the next door property, and the next door~property to herwould become LI, which would-take care of the setback on her property. If the church obtains a special permit and-retains the R-1 zoning, the 50-foot setback wilt apply permanently to her property. Mr. Lindstrom said from what he can gather, it appears that Mrs. Webster took a risk, bought a piece of property in anarea shown in the Comprehensive Plan for Commercial~and Industrial, and assumed that the next property (i.e., the property being purchased by'~the church) would ultimately be rezoned to one of these designations, thus relieving Mrs. Webster of the requirement for a 50-foot setback from a residential property. It was a sort of a gamble. Mrs. Webster said yes, but she did not feel it was much a gamble because of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that in answer to the Chairman's question, Mrs. Webster would prefer not. have a special permit issued to the church because the opportunity 'for~a rezoning that would eliminate the requirement for a setback would then be lost. Mr.. Henley~asked if ~rs'~ Webster has any recourse, such as applying'~for~a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mrs. Tucker said~she could apply for a variance,~.~however~she would have to prove that a hardship existed. Mr. Lindstrom said that theoretically it should be a hardship that was~not.self, imposed. Mr. Fisher~said~hismreaction to listening~to Mrs. Webster is that the Board probably made a mistake~in'~rezoning her property. Mrs~Webster said at the time of her rezoning request, one member of the Board had suggested that~it~would not be a bad idea to buy the property next door, and it was her fault for not picking up on that suggestion. Mr. Summerlin spoke again saying that the'~church has also been hard"hit by~'the economy. The church had applied for a special permit at this time because there are two members of the congregation who are contractors and it was felt that with their help and knowledge, the materials could~be purchased and the church built at a'~lower cost.~ The church~would not be able to finance the project using conventional zoning methods, ~ · Mrs. Webster said that the two lots next to the church property belong to Mr. Dudley and there are no residences on those properties other than a trailer. There is nothing on the other side so the 50-foot setback would be measured from nothing. Mr. Fisher said that mobile homes are considered residential uses in-Albemarle C~unty. Mr. Fisher-said the 50-foot setback requirement would still apply since the setback is required from a property,-line and not from a use. Mr. Butler said he needed a clearer understanding of the conflict. Mr. Fisher said that Mrs. Webster~had her~property rezoned to Highway Commercial. The property being purchased by the church is zoned R-1 and will remain R-1 even under the special permit procedure. Mrs. Webster is required to have a 50-foot setback from the residential property line. She cannot build on that setback; that is a general rule where there is a change betweenall zoning categories. Mrs; Webster built on,her property hoping that the property next~door~(church property) would~someday~be rezoned to commerCial~so she would then~have the~benefit of the 50 foot setback,~because the. next owner would then be required to have~the 50 foot'setback from residential uses. These were the private aspirations of a property owner. There is nothing in the rules that says this land will ever be rezoned; Mrs. Webster hoped it would be rezoned because it is shown for that use in the Comprehensive Plan. Now, the church wants a special use permit, but using the underlying zoning of residential. Mr. Butler asked what change it would make for the church if the property were zoned to commercial. Mr. Fisher said the church is afraid that some tax assessor might say that even though the church is on the property, not all of the property should be tax exempt and if the property were zoned commercial, the part that remained and were taxed could be taxed at a higher rate. January 5, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said this is one of the most esoteric questions the Board has had in the way of a rezoning request, but. he would prefer to concentrate on this application. The property is in ant area which is surely in transition, and the application has been recommended as being in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He did not see how the Boa.rd.could consider the expectations of a property owner for a change on property ~hat.does not even belong to that person, and use that anticipation as the basis ~for denial of an application that is not really for a change in zoning. Mr. Henley said he was going to support approval of the special use permit. He said that if~he were a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals, he would certainly give some thought to the fact that the applicant had some reason to believe there would be a change in zoning in the area. Miss Nash said she agreed with Mr. Henley and did not believe that technically there is anything on which to deny the application. Mr. Fisher said if the Board members fo.cused on the merits of the application, it is clea~ that the applicant does not intend that there be concurrent uses-on the pr.operty. In the absence of public sewerage service in the area, Mr. Fisher felt a condition to that effect should be imposed on the permit - that there would not be multiple uses on the property~ untiI such time as public sewage disposal is available. Mr. Fisher said.he also feelS that when public structures are built in the urban area, the applicant should be asked to cooperate and provide fire suppression on the property when public water becomes available~. Mrs. Cooke said that in view of the staff's recommendation, and the discussion tonight concerning the Webster's options, she will support the special permit-request. Mr. Henley said. in reference to Mr. Fisher's suggestion that there not be multiple rises on the property, he felt that condition should wait until someone decides to-build a house on the property-. Mr. Fisher-said there is already a house on the property which the applicant has indicated will be torn down. Mr. Fisher said he wOuld prefer that this be made a conditio~ of approval. Mis~ Nash noted that there is more than one structure on the property~ there are also outbuildings. Mr. Fisher said to require that "all residential s~ructures" be removed would~be correct. Mr. Henley said in reference to Mr. Fisher's second suggestion, he felt that this is taking over some of the duties of .the Albemarle County Service Authority because he knows that one of these days the people in Crozet are going to be faced'with a mandatory sewer hook-up policy. He did not know whether that should be made a condition, Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to approve SP-82-?0 as recommended by the Planning Commission but adding a condition reading~ "All residential structures and dependencies will be removed from the property described as County Tax Map 90, Parcels ~5B and ~5E, when the church is constructed." 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. Agenda Item No. 9. Watershed Management Program-Joint Resolution. Mr. Fisher noted that the draft of the agreement prepared by the'County, and sent to the City Attorney was rewritten in some places, and a copy of that redraft was sent back to the County on December 29. Council made some further changes in that draft at their meeting on January ~.~ Numbered paragraphs I through B as sst out in the minutes of the December 15 meeting have been expanded and this entire section now reads as follows: 1. The-period inspection and maintenance of the devices required by the County's Runoff Control Ordinance will be performed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as the agent of Albemarle County, and the cost of same shall be borne by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its water rates. The cost of inspection and maintenance, if not obtainable from the private owner or developer pursuant to County ordinances, shall~be charged to the water rates of the water system directly served by the drainage- area in which the device is located. The County Engineer's Office shall send all plans for aforesaid runoff control devices to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority staff for review and comment. The Rivanna Board may refuse to accept for inspection and maintenance any devices which it believes to be inadequate or improperly designed. 2. The cost of the Watershed Management Official's Office shall be paid by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its water rates, but the Watershed Management Official shall remain administratively within the County management structure at this time. The cost of the Watershed Manage- ment Official's Office shall be prorated over'the various Rivanna water rates of the water systems directly serving the drainage areas in which the Official spends his time. 5. The City Attorney will be authorized to work with the County Attorney, if requested, in defending lawsuits directly related to the protection of the water supplies of the Charlottesville-Albemarle urban area, with author- ization of City Council for this purpose being made on a case-by-case basis. _J_a~_ua r~ 8~( R e ug~l a r__~ h t Meetin.g~ 4. Pursuant to Section 4.B 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. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall finance the project as follows: Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will finance the land acquisition through the best long term debt financing available. All of the yearly debt service on the aforementioned financing will be paid through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's urban water rate with the exception of the revenue to be derived by the sur- charges outlined below. The City Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority will, beginning July l, 198B, collect a surcharge for each new water service connection in the City and in the urban area of the County, respectively, according to the following table and remit said sur- charges to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority which will use all of said surcharges to pay a portion of the aforementioned debt service. These surcharges will be in addition to any other charges made for a new water service by the City or by the Authority. METER SIZE CAPACITY GAL/MIN FACTOR SURCHARGE 5/8" 20 1 $ 200 1" 50 2.5 500 1 1/2" 100 5 1,000 2" 160 8 1,600 3" 350 12.5 2.,500 4" 600 30 6,000 6" 1250 62.6 12,500 8" 1800 r 90 18,000 10" 2900 145 29,000 12" 4300 215 ~3,000 All Buck Mountain surcharge collections will be transferred to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority semiannually by the 15th of September and March, respectively. A report itemizing the number of connections of each-size made will-be sumitted to Rivanna by the 15th of the month for the previous month. All such funds will be used to pay a portion of the aforementioned debt service in the following manner: surcharges collected and transferred~in any fiscal year will be applied to the budgeted debt service for the following fiscal year before~rates are calculated. D. The surcharge describedin~Sub-Paragraph C shall not be required for any new water service connection which the Albemarle Service Authority, or the City, is required to. provide at a fixed cost, or free of cost, by virtue of any contract prestating this agreement or by virtue of any court order. E. The Albemarle Service Authority and the City reserve the right in its sole discretion to adjust, readjust and apportion its rate scheduling including connection, surcharges, provided that it shall remit to Rivanna the amounts applicable under Sub-Paragraph C, for all new urban area water service connections. F. In those instances where a larger meter is needed to serve an existing service, then the surcharge shall be the difference between the surcharge on the. existing meter size and the surcharge on the new one. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Directors~of the Albemarle County Service Authority met in special session this date and have forwarded notice of their approval of the JOint resolution, but their approval is contingent upon-approval of the Service Authority's bondholder and action on the surcharge after the required public hearing. The .Service Authority added sub- paragraph G reading as follows and made some editorial changes in Sup-paragraphs D and E. Ge The obligation of the City and the Albemarle County Service Authority to collect the surcharge shall terminate upon the retirement of the long-term debt financing for the land acquisition. Mr. Fisher-noted that the Director of'Planning has questioned the us, or-.the words "urban area" in paragraph 4(C) since the County's-urban area in the Comprehensive Plan does not include the community of Hollymead which is a user of the urban water system~ Mr. Agnor said this could be changed to read "urban area of the County as defined-in the Four-?arty Agreement" since that agreement c&early defines the urban area where RivannaAuthority water rates are applicable. Mr. Fisher asked if there-will be any problem with-interpretation by the way this sentence is written. Mr. St. John said he could see Mr. Tucker,s point, but he felt that anyone, who is familiar with the way the Four-Party Agreement is written, and is also familiar with the jurisdictional (service) areas of the Albemarle County Service Authorit will not find any difficulty. Mr. St. John said he would leave that language as shown· Mr. Lindstrom said the agreement will have to be returned to the City for final approval if Paragraph G is approved by the Board, so if the word "urban" can be defined without too much verbage, he felt the language might as well be "cleaned up" now. Mr. St· John said "urban" could be defined as everything except Crozet and Scottsville. Mr. Agnor suggested adding the word "water" between "urban!' and "area". 56? January 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meetin~ Mrs. ursuant Agnor Cooke asked about the words "if not obtainable from the private owner or developer to County' ordinances"-which had:been added in the second sentence of Paragraph l, said that in a conversation with the City~Manager~ it~was related to him that Mr. Conover felt the cost associated with inspecting and maintaining these.devices by the public agency should be recovered from the private property owner, or developer of~the property, if the County wanted to create an ordinance which would allow this. In the absence of such an ordinance, the cost could be paid from the water rates. Mr. Conover feels that as the land is developed, the device with be of benefit~to the private developer, so the developer should be willing to pay the public costs associated with the development~of that property. This idea was discussed with members of City Council at the earlier meetings and the Board stated that it was felt that the property owners do not benefit from the devices, at all, the devices being required by the reservoir, therefore the cost of maintenance should be paid by the water users. Mr. Hendrix indicated that Council had agreed to add this sentence, but agreed that this would have to be by-'ordinance, so if the County ever adopted an ordinance, the cost would be shifted to the property owners. Mr. Fisher said' this~is the'same thing that Board members and Council members have been arguing about for years. Mr;-Fisher said he wanted to go on record right now saying that he has noLintention of ever enacting.such an ordina'nce; the idea is completely foreign to his whole philosophy. Mr. Henley said he shares Mr. Fisher's feelings, and would never expect to vote'to have private owners pay these costs, but he does not mind including the language in the agreement because he feels' the City'hopes the Board will do something along these lines and it will already be taken care of by this agreement. Mr. St. John said he does not feel that this language imposes any obligation on the County now, or in the future, to enact any such ordinance. If this language did so obligate the Board, Mr. St. John said he would advise the Board not to sign this agreement since that would contract away the Board's legislative decision making powers. Mr. Fisher disagreed with Mr. St. John's interpretation saying that to him the language sounds as if there were State enabling legislation for such action, the Board would enact such an ordinance. Mr. St. John said he Will agree that the language is.arguable. If the County has no ordinance through which the monies can be obtained, then the monies are not obtainable through County ordinance. Until such time as the Board enacts an ordinance, it is not obtainable, therefore the clause does not apply. Mr. Lindstrom said his interpretation is that the costs are not obtainable pursuant to a County ordinance if no county ordinance has been adopted even though such action may have been enabled by the State. Mr. St. John said that is correct, therefore the clause does not apply. Mrs. Cooke said she could see no point in putting that language in the agreement. It is unnecessary language for everyone to deal with...- Mr. Henley said he is~willing to'leave the language in the agreement, but he feels as strongly as Mr. Fisher that~he will never support shifting these costs to the private owners. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks it would be a mistake to leave the language in if there is even an outside chance it might put a burden on future boards ~of supervisors. Mr. St. John said~that in his~Judgment, legislation that would enable the County to impose these costs on private owners would be unconstitutional~ under the case of Rowe vs. James City County. Mrs. Cooke said that was one more reason for not including the'language. Mr. St. John said if the City Council wants the language in the agreement, and if the Board knows it cannot do County citizens any harm, it is just a question of whether the Board will leave this excess language in the agreement to'get'the.contract signed. Mr. Fisher said he has a feeling that this language will some day'cause trouble. Hr. St. John said he has the same feeling, but that problem can be dealt With at the time it occurs. Mr. Butler said he feels the wording is unnecessary, but he feels that the Board is protected by the law, and if there is a disagreement over this language, he would rather see the language left in at this time, and go ahead and get the job done. Miss Nash asked if there were any way to write this sentence so it would be less objectionable. Mr. Agnor said he feels the City Council would be in an awkward position if it asked the County to impose such costs because they are not imposing those costs themselves. The City' recently assumed the pUbl±c ownership and responsibility for a stormwater ba~sin in the Seminole Square project on Route 29 North. They did not require the property owner to put up any funds, assuming it to be a public responsibility. Mr.~St. John said that when the City condemned the land for the South Fork Rivanna reservoir, the Judge specifically asked if the City ever expected to impose any restrictions on the surrounding properties. The judge said that if the City had any such intent, he wanted to know so that he could make them pay for the damages to the property. The City's legal staff had assured the judge that that.would not happen, and the surrounding property would-in fact be enhanced'in value by bordering the reservoir. Miss Nash asked why the City Council had included this language. Mr. Fisher said that some members of Council believe that when the property owner is. required to build one of these devices that he is doing it for his own benefit. Mrs. Cooke said. she would recommend that the Board not accept that phrase in'the agreement. She did not see that the.language does anything, in fact it may create problems, and in view of the fact that the City does not impose such restrictions on itself, she does'not feel the Council has the right to ask the Board to do so. Mrs. Cooke said she cannot support this language. Mr. Henley said this whole agreement has been kicking around for a long time. Mr'. Henley said he thinks you have to'take your~best hope, and he thinks this is it. Mr. Fisher'said if the Board goes forth with this agreement, he will state into~the record that he haS absolutely no intention of ever trying to ena'ct any part of this phrase against any private property owner in the County. Mr. Butler said he would support the same idea, but if this agreement is signed, this phrase certainly does not bind the Board to anything. Therefore, he feels he can support the agreement in its present form. Mr. Fisher said the other changes suggested by the City and the ~!bemarle County~Service Authority all seem to be perfectly reasonable and are improvements on the original draft. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the joint resolution proposed by the City and dated January 3, 1983, and amended by the Albemarle County Service Authority in their draft sent to the Board dated January 5, 198B, with the addition of the word "water" added on page B to Paragraph C of the Albemarle County Service Authority draft. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler. January 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mrs. Cooke said she supposed the Board must get on with~this matter, but would have to agree that in voting for this agreement, she will go on record as saying that she will never vote for an ordinance that will require the private owners to pay for any such~impoundments that are put on their land. Mr. St. John said he does not interpret this clause as ever requiring the Board to vote for such an ordinance. This is not a situation where the Board recognizes that this is a requirement, it is a situation where you don't read any such requirement in the agreement or the Board would not sign the agreement. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to clarify his motion. In making the motion it is with the understanding and interpretation of the County Attorney that the language suggested by the City does not make it encumbent upon the County to ever adopt an ordinance requiring a private owner or developer to pay these costs. 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. Mr. Fisher said that in the event the City Council and Albemarle County Service Authority Board of Directors will agree to the inclusion of the word "water", the Board should authorize him to sign the joint resolution. Motion to this effect was-offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconde~ by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (The Joint Resolution as adopted is set out in fuI1 below.) WHEREAS, The South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was built in 1966 by the City of Charlottesville to provide public water for residents of the urban area; and WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed in 1972 by a joint resolution of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville 'for the purpose of maintaining facilities to supply drinking water to both communities under terms set out in the "Four Party Agreement" of'1973 among the City, the County, the County Service Authority, and Rivanna; and WHEREAS, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir developed sedimentation and eutrophication problems at least partially caused by-~runoff from developed land in the watershed; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County enacted the Runoff Control Ordinance to reduce the detrimental effects of development in the watershed which ordinance requires the construction of certain devices for the protection of public drinking waters and the long-term effectiveness of these devices is dependent on the uniform maintenance and replacement of said~devices; ~and WHEREAS, in January, 1980, the County and the City jointly created the position of Watershed Management Official to coordinate, integrate and~review watershed management activities in the County relative.to protection of public drinking water impoundments and signed a contract sharing the costs of this operation on a fifty-fifty basis; and WHEREAS, the-Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority undertook, at the instance of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Council of the City of Charlottesville, to study alternative water supply sources and in June, 1982 presented a report recommending that Buck Mountain Creek be selected as a future raw water supply source and that a dam be built at the appropriate time at Site C as identified in a study by Camp, Dresser and McKee dated June, 1982, entitled "Buck Mountain Feasibility Study Phase-III Final Report, Subsurface Investigation Site C"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED BY THE COUNTY, THECITY, THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY; AND RIVANNA, as follows: 1. The periodic inspection and maintenance of the devices required by the County's Runoff Control Ordinance will be performed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority as the agent of Albemarle County, and the cost of same shall be borne by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its~water rates. The cost of inspection and maintenance, if not obtainable from the private owner or developer pursuant to County ordinances, shall be oharged to the water rates of the water system directly served by the drainage area in which the device is located. The County Engineer's Office shall send all plans for aforesaid runoff control devices to the Rivanna Water and~Sewer Authority staff for review and comment. The Rivanna Board may refuse to accept for inspection and maintenance any devices which it believes to be inadequate or improperly designed. 2. The cost of the watershed Management Official's Office shall be paid by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority through its water rates, but the Watershed Management Official shall remain administratively within the County management structure at this time. The cost of the Watershed Manage- ment Official's Office shall be prorated over the various Rivanna.water rates of the water systems~directly serving the drainage areas in-which the Official spends his time. J an 3. The City Attorney will be authorized to work with the County Attorney, if requested, in defending lawsuits directly related to the protection ~of the water supplies of the Charlottesville-Albemarle urban area, with authorization of City Council for this ~purpose being made on a case-by-case basis. 4. Pursuant to Section 4.3 of the ~Four Party Agreement, the Charlottes- ville 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. The Rivanna~Water and Sewer Authority shall finance the projeCt as follows: A. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will finance the land acquisition through the best long-term debt financing available. B. All of the yearly debt Service on the 'aforementioned financing will be paid through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's urban water rate with the exception of the revenue to be derived by the surcharges out- lined below. C. The City of Charlottesville and the Albemarle County Service Authority will, beginning July l, 1983, collect a surcharge for each new water service connection in the City and in-the urban water area of the County, respectively, according to the following table and remit said sur- charges to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority~which will use all of said surcharges to pay a portion of the aforementioned debt service. These surcharges will be in addition to any other Charges made for a new water service by the City or by the Authority. METER SIZE CAPACITY GAL/MIN FACTOR SURCHARGE 5/8" 20 I $ 200 l" 50 2.5 500 I 1/2" 100 5 1,000 2" 160 8 1,600 3" 350 12.5 2,500 4" 600 30 6,000 6" 1250 ~ ' 62.6 12,000 8" 1800 90 18,000 10" 2900 145 29,000 12" 4300 215 43,000 All Buck Mountain surcharge collections will be transferred to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority semiannually by the 15th of September and March, respectively. A report itemizing the number of connections of each size made will be submitted to Rivanna by the 15th of the month for the previous month. All such funds will be used to pay a portion of the aforementioned debt service in the following manner: surcharges collected and transferred in any fiscal year will be applied to the budgeted debt service for the follOwing fiscal year before rates are calculated. D. The surcharge described in Sub-paragraph C shall not be .required for any new water service connection which the Albemarle County Service Authority, or the City,~ is required to provide at a fixed cost, or free of cost, by virtue of any contract predating this agreement or by virtue of any court order. E. The Albemarle County Service Authority and the City reserve the right in their sole discretion to adjust, readjust and apportion their rate schedules, including connection surcharges, provided that they shall remit to Rivanna the amounts applicable under Sub-paragraph C, for all new urban area water service connections. F. In those instances where a larger meter is needed to serve an exiSting service, then the surcharge shall be the difference between the sur- charge on the existing meter size and the surcharge on the new one. G. The obligation of the City and the Atbemarle~County Service Authority to collect the surcharge shall terminate upon the retirement of the long-term debt financing-for the land acquisition. At 9:12 P.M. the Board recessed, and reconvened at 9:22 P.M. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing: Ordinance Dealing with Restrictions on Issuance of Certain Building Permits. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 22 and December 29, 1982.) Mr.~Fisher said the ordinance is the same as the ordinance previously in force. The purpose of considering readoption of this ordinance is the assumption that there is an agreement with the City Council, Albemarle County Service Authority, and Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to proceed with purchase of property for a future water supply impoundment on Buck Mountain Creek. He asked for some estimate of time needed for the survey, appraisal, making of offers to property owners, etc. Mr. Agnor said the County's staff had previously recommended a time frame of twelve months, however, he realized from Mr. Brent's letter today that the Albemarle County Service Authority is not in a position to sign the agreement until the agreement is approved by their bondholders, and then after public hearings their rate structure is changed. With all of these considerations, the staff would now recommend that the ordinance be reenacted for two years. Mr. Agnor said the first step in completing this process is the survey needed for determining the reservoir area and the buffer area which is geared to the design~of the spillway of the dam. That survey is ready to begin, but it is an aerial process and an aerial survey cannot be made when there are leaves on the ~rees. The Rivanna Authority is anxious to get started. JanuarY~Ll~83~ Night Meetin_ _ ~) 870 At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mrs. Treva Cromwell was first to speak. She urged the Board to reinstitute the moratorium for'a period of two years. She stated a concern that land values in the Buck Mountain area might increase because of some proposed development. Mr. Charles Durbin said he was concerned about areas that may be restricted from develop- ment through these two years, but yet may ultimately fall outside of the restricted area. Mr. Durbin said he does not feel that the Board's action tonight will hasten anyone to delineate the limits of ~he ireservoir, if there is anyway to lift the two-year moratorium at the time that it is known what the actual limits willbe, it would be reassuring to the property owners in the "gray" area. Dr. Michael Kovac said he owns two parcels of land in the watershed area and buffer. In spite of his honest efforts to advise prospective property owners about the proposed reservoir, he is going to have to sue a person who refused to perform on a contract when he became apprehensive about the proposed reservoir. Dr. Kovac said he will make a plea to the Rivanna Authority Board and ask them to consider purchasing land from willing sellers even before all of the details are worked out because some of the property owners are really in a bind from all of this. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked how 1 long it will take before the exact area for acquisition is known. Mr. Agnor said that once the survey is completed, the County's Comprehensive Plan can be amended to show the exact area needed for purchase. Mr. Fisher asked if such action would free any land that was not then required. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. George Williams for an estimate of the time needed. Mr. Williams said to outline Just the perimeter of the area needed would take about four months. As far as having individual plats for putting to record, that would take s somewhat longer. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the Board should pick a date and include it in the ordinance. Mr. St. John said he agreed with Mr. Agnor that December 31, 1984, or some date certain should be included in the ordinance. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Henley to adopt an ordinance adding a section numbered 5-3.1 to the County Code, said ordinance dealing with restrictions on the issuance of certain building permits~ including at the end of the first sentence, the date December 31, 1984. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Henley said he thinks the City Council acted in good faith when it submitted the last draft of the agre~ment~ and the:Board did not change but one word, so he is going to act in good faith and vote for readoption of this ordinance. 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. (Note: Ordinance as adopted is set out below.) BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Code be, and the same hereby, is, amended by the addition of a Section 5-3.1 as follows: Section 5-3.1 Restrictions on issuance of certain permits. No permit shall be issued for the construction of any building within any area identified with reasonable specificity in the Comprehensive Plan, as amended, for acquisition for development of a future public drinking water impoundment for the period ending December 31, 1984. The foregoing notwith- standing, the building official may issue such'permitin Order to prevent unnecessary hardship in the application of this section. The standard set forth in Section 15.1-495(b) of the Code of Virginia (I950), as amended, shall apply to the determination of the existence of such hardship hereunder, mutatis mutandis. For purposes of this section, a buidling shall be deemed to be within the area herein specified if the building, the sewerage system or any part of either of them shall be located within the area so identified for acquisition. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to add to any rights which may be acquired in any property subsequent to the expiration of any period of reservation set forth in the Plan. Agenda Item No. 11. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (Deferred from December 15, 1982). Mr. Tucker said there are two final things to be completed on the Comprehensive Plan. The Board had requested that a change be made in the IvY village plan to show only that area of Ivy which is already developed. Mr. Tucker presented a new map and said that there is only one area of about twenty acres (Locust Hill) shown in the village for development. Mr. Tucker said the staff could not find any way to include Murray School in the village without making the village shape very odd. Mr. Tucker explained the new boundary of the village. Mr. Fisher said he agreed with the redraft of the village boundaries.. Motion was then offe~red by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt-the map on the wall as the new map for the village of Ivy. 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. Mr. TUcker then presented the following table for a sUbstitute for the Planning Commissio] recommendation. This new table was drafted from the changes made by the Board through the December 15 work session. 571 January 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS.!0-i2-82 MAXIMUMDEVELOPMENT ~POTENTIAL -- -VILLAGES ~ ~ I.' Population ' DMe!ling Units .m~Acreage Residential.- Village (max 1 du/acre) ~-i~}878 ~ ~ Residential ,.:Low · :(1,.4 du/acre)~ I2,160 - 00 . ~: : . 320, Residential Medium (5-10 du/aCre) ._ 1,112 .. 412 Residential ~ SUBTOTAL~ - . . - ·: , 6,150 ._~ -2,278_ ~ 1,975 Commercial ~ ~- ~ , - ~ ~ "-40 Industrial :- ~ %1 ~ 70 Public . Open Space . 1,225 Undeveloped - Total ._~ 3,310 OBJECTIVE - 17 PERCENT OF NEW,RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS 12-15-82 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL -- VILLAGES ~ Population .. Dwetlin~ Units Acrea~.e Residential -'Village (max 1 du/acre) 3,688. ~. 1,366 · · 2,050 'Residential:- Low (1-4 du/acre) ~ ~135 ~' ~ 50 ~ ~ 20 Residential-. Medium Residential -~ SUBTOTAL . 4,935 1,828 2,125 Commercial 35 Ind strial ' - 60 Public - Open Space ~ . -- 1,225 Undeveloped -TOTAL OBJECTIVE - 14 PERCENT OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ~DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had recommended that seventeen percent of potential development be in villages~ and through changes-made by the Board at work sessions that percentage was dropped, to-foUrteen. The staff is recommending that ~he three percent that was lost be added to~the communities of Hollymead and~Crozet, rather than letting it be disbursed to the rural areas; the three percent is about 1200 people. Mr. Fisher said that recommendation seems reasonable. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom.to concur with the staff to increase the growth potential in communities by three percent. The motion was 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. ~ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded byMrs. Cooke, to adopt the Comprehensive Plan for 1982-2002 as amended through the Board of Supervisors work sessions on same. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs~ Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom asked if the request by the Library to locate a bookmobile in Albemarle Square Shopping Center on.a temporary basis will automatically come before this Board. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe it would.- Last night, the. Planning Commission heard a request from the Library for a temporary branch at Albemarle Square and for a permanent library branch in Crozet. The Crozet request was found to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the site plan was also approved. The Planning Commission found that the request for Albemarle Square was not in compliance with the existing Comprehensive Plan~ but did~not take action to adopt an amendment to the Plan to make it in compliance. Mrs. Cooke said she was at the Planning Commission meeting last night, and there was a big_question about this bookmobile being motorized. It was said that the engine would have to be removed and the bookmobile put up on blocks in order for it to be considered a building. If they don't do thes~ things, it would still be a mobile unit and could have only a temporary permit for ninety days. Also, once the unit is parked, it has to have electricity added. January 5, 1983 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said as he understands the situation, this request will automatically come to the Board since it has already been advertised for January 19. Mr. Tucker said even though the Planning Commission did not approve the amendment to the Plan, it was heard as a resolution of intent to amend, therefore Mr. Fisher was correct. Agenda Item No. 12. Lease Agreement - Commonwealth's Attorney. Mr. Agnor said that he needs authorization to sign a lease with National Bank for space for the Commonwealth's Attorney. Mr. St. John said Mr. Dorrier negotiated this lease, and he would not try to second guess him, but the lease only goes through this fiscal year, so in order to carry it through 1984, a paragraph reading: "can be renewed on terms mutually agreeable" was added. The words mean very little, and do not mean that the Bank cannot raise the rent, however, Mr. Dorrier is willing to rely on the Bank. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to authorize the County Executive to sign the lease. motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: The AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated December I4, 1982, from Carol Amato, Executive Director, Governor's Employment an~ Training Council. In the letter Ms. Amato states that beginning on January 6, 1983, the Governor's Employment and Training Council, in cooperation with the Region III Office of the U. S. Department of Labor, will conduct regional briefings throughout Virginia on the Job Training Partnership Act. The act was recently signed into law by President Reagan and will replace the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) on October l, 1983. The success of this new program will depend on local and state governments forming a partnership with private employers to provide training for economically disadvantaged adults and youth, for other citizens who face barriers to employment, and for dislocated workers. Mr. Fisher said there is a meeting scheduled on this Act in Harrisonburg on January 19th. There is a regular board meeting that night, but Mrs. Cooke has agreed to attend. Mr. Butler said he would also like to attend. Mr. Fisher said there was a meeting in this building on December 21 with representatives of most of the districts in Planning District 10. The Governor is looking into forming areas for receiving these funds and wants only ten or eleven such areas around the State. This means that the areas will be much larger than just a city and county, or one or two planning districts. Three alternatives were discussed: l) to divide the whole state into Congressional Districts; 2) divide the State into a combination of planning districts; or 3) divide the State by labor market and standard metropolitan statistica areas. This third alternative is similar to the old area Manpower Training Council which Mr. Fisher said he had some experience with, and it was awful. It was known as "balance of State" and was run by the Virginia Employment Commission, and no one could figure out who did what. Miss Nash asked how this new law will effect the Employment Council proposal of Francis Fife. Mr. Fisher said he had talked with Mr. Fife earlier today, and Mr. Fife did not know about this law when he made the proposal. Now that it is known how enormous this thing will be, Mr. Fife does not feel it will serve the local needs very well. Mr. St. John asked the meaning of "balance of State" Mr. Fisher said it means any area that is not classified as something else, such as a big city, big county, or Standard Metropolitan Statistical District, is combined with every other such area in the state. The city of Charlottesville receives Community Development Block Grant monies direct because it is a metropolitan area under census definitions, but Albemarle County which has more people and which totally surrounds the City is included in "balance of State". The City did not get this designation because it is a city, but because of the suburban population which helped to raise it up. Mr. Fisher also noted receiving several telephone calls from constituents concerning the recently mailed real estate reassessment notices. Agenda Item No. 14. was adjourned. At 10:22 P.M., with no further business to conduct, the meeting ~C hg~i~rma n