Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-07010 January 1981_(R~gular Night ~e~b~T~a~ 19~0-~w~ 0w Meeting) (Clerk's Note: Listed below is an abstract of votes cast in the County of Albemarle at the ~pee~al election held on January 6, 1981; 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~) Me~er of the House of Delegates Mitchell Van Yahres - 3,002 Thomas E. Albro - 3,2~8 James L. Ford '- 368 January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 7, 1981, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta~ C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann 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., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. At 7:33 P.M.~ the meeting was called to order by the County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Agenda Item No. 2. Election of a Chairman. Motion to nominate Mr. Gerald E. Fisher by acclamation was'offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 3. Election of Vice-Chairman. The name of Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. was placed in nomination for Vice-Chairman by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Miss Nash. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS' None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4, Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerks. Motion to approve Miss Lettie E. Neher as Clerk, and Mrs.~ Linda W. Leake and Mrs. Barbara J. Flammia as Deputy Clerks was offered by Dr. Iachetta and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Set meeting times, dates and places for calendar year 1981. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by MrJ Lindstrom, to continue the same schedule as that used in 1980. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Agnor said it has been suggested by Miss Neher that the fourth Wednesday of each month be added as a regular meeting, to help reduce the length of the night meetings. It was the concensus of the Board that they did not wish to add this additional night meeting at this time. Agenda Item No. 6. Set dates for hearing Zoning Text Amendments. Mr. Agnor read the following.memorandum from Mrs. Linda W. Leake, Deputy Clerk, dated January 2, 1981: "Mr. Tucker has suggested the first meeting in June, 1981 and the first meeting in December, 1981, as the dates for hearing Zoning Test Amendments from the general public. The Board itself can initiate zoning text amendments at any time." Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the recom- mendation of the Director of Planning. Mr. McCann said with the new zoning ordinance, he would anticipate a great number of changes, and hoped'the Board would entertain such changes whenever needed. Mr. Fisher said the staff is already collecting several possibl~ changes which will be presented within the next few weeks. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher,.Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Januar 7~81 (Rear Night Meetin~g~ 011 Agenda Item No. 7. Rules of Procedure. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to readopt the Rules of Procedure presently in use. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZTA-80-05, Andre H. Arguad (Deferred from December 17, 1980). Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred in order for the applicant to be present. Mr. Tucker then noted that Mr. Agnor did not seem to be present again tonight. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant or his representative was present. There was no response. Mr. Fisher said the Planning staff and Planning Commission both recommended denial, and he would assume the applicant has decided not to pursue the matter. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny this request. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. McCann said he would support the motion, adding that if the applicant is not interested enough to be present at the hearing it should not be considered. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-80-70. Ralph A. Taylor. Request to locate a mobile home on 6.43 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the south side of Route 688 approximately 1200 feet east of the intersection of Routes 688 and 689. Tax Map 71, Parcel 33D1, Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 18, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Request: Mobile Home Acreage: 6.43 acres Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Location: Property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcel 33D1, located on the south side of Route 688 approximately four tenths of a mile east of the intersection of Routes 688 and 689. Character of Area: The immediate area surrounding the applicant's property is rural in character with much of the land used for pasture. There are a half dozen conventional single-family homes located within a quarter mile of the applicant's property; almost all are visible from parcel 33D1. There are numerous outbuildings located on the adjacent properties. A small mobile home park with six mobile homes is located approxi- mately one-half mile from the applicant's property. There is also a temporary mobile home 500 yards south of this parcel. Staff Comment: Applicant was issued a temporary mobile home permit in September, 1978. Due to the lack of progress toward construction of a permanent home, the permit was net extended and an application for a special use permit was recommended by the Zoning Department. The mobile home is visible from Route 688 from several adjacent and nearby conventional residences, and from the temporary mobile home. It is not visible from the mobile home park. Objections to this application for a special use permit come from several adjacent property owners. Applicant does intend to begin construction on a home as soon as possible and will remove the mobile home following occupancy of the new home. Among the alternatives the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may want to consider: 1. Denial of special use permit. Approval of special use permit and compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of special use permit and compliance with Section 5.6.2 and the following condition: -expiration of special use permit five years from the date of issuance. Recommendation to Zoning Department for issuance of a new tem- porary mobile home permit. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 6, 1981, unanimously recommended that this special use permit be approved with the following conditions: (1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 and the following condition: -expiration of special use permit two years from the date of issuance. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission recommends this permit be issued for two years, and asked if after that time the mobile home must be removed. Mr. Tucker said that is the intent of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. McCann asked if the applicant could reapply at the end of the two years. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked if the original permit was issued with the intent that the applicant construct a permanent home on the site. Mr. Tucker said that was the intent, but that the only progress made has been the digging of the foundation. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing open and first to speak was Mr. Robert Huff, attorney, representing the applicant. Mr. Huff said the applicant has no objection to~the two year limitation suggested by the Planning Commission. He said Mr. Taylor has applied for this permit in good faith, and that the only cause for the delay in construction of a permanent home has been the inability to sell his present home. Mr. Taylor reiterated what Mr. Huff said and added that until his present home is sold, he will not have sufficient funds to continue construction of the new home. Mr. J. Benjamin Dick said the original approval was given under section 11-14.3, which allows the administrative issuance of a permit. Mr. Dick said this permit is valid until September, 1981, and that possibly this request is premature. Mr. Purcell Tomlin said he sold Mr. Taylor the lot on which the mobile home is now located. He said he likes Mr. Taylor and would like to see him construct a permanent residence, but stressed that he did not want a permit issued for a permanent mobile home, only a temporary mobile home permit. Mr. Roger Pielke said he is an adjacent property owner and is opposed to a permanent permit but not opposed to a temporary permit. Mrs. Sarah Rogers said the Taylor's are good neighbors, but she and her husband are both opposed to the issuance of a permanent trailer permit. She said she is not opposed to an extention of a temporary permit. Mr. Steve Glime said he is in the same economic circumstances as Mr. Taylor and felt it only fair to extend his temporary permit. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this request, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said it sounds like both the neighbors and the applicant are in agreement that a two year permit would be sufficient. Mr. Fisher said he would recommend that the Planning Commission's recommendations be accepted and that the mobile home be removed upon completion of the permanent home. Motion to approve SP-80-70 with the following conditions was offered by Dr. Iachetta: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 and the following condition: -- expiration of special use permit two years from the date of issuance. -- Mobile home be removed upon completion of the permanent home. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-80-75. Roger R. Fuller. Request to locate a mobile home on four acres zoned A-1. Property located on the north side of Route 53 approximately two miles from Simeon. Tax Map 93, Parcel 15C, Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 18, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: R~quest.: Mobile Home Acreage: 4 acres Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Location: Property, described as Tax Map 93, Parcel 15C, located six- tenths of a mile off of Route 53 approximately two miles from Simeon. Character of Area: The immediate area surrounding the applicant's property is primarily forest land composed of both deciduous and non-deciduous trees and some brush. There are no single family residences located on any of the contiguous properties with the exception of a vacant mobile home on Parcel 15. The mobile home has been vacant for 14 months. A half dozen single family homes are grouped near the intersection of the dirt road and Route 53; the nearest one to the applicant's pro- perty being at least a quarter mile away. Planning Department files indicate that other residential development in the surrounding area includes: 23 single family homes have been constructed northeast of the property in Milton Hills Subdivision; five single family homes have been constructed southeast of the property in Ashmere Subdivision. A 115,000 volt transmission line passes to the east of the applicant's property. January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Staff Comment: Applicant was issued a temporary mobile home permit in September, 1977. Due to the lack of progress toward construction of a permanent home, the permit was not extended and an application for a special use permit was recommended by the Zoning Department. Since there is no residential development on any of the contiguous properties, visibility of the mobile home is presently not a concern. The mobile home is also not visible to any existing development in either Milton Hills or Ashmere Subdivisions. Objection to this application for a special use permit comes from the owner of parcel 101 which lies north of the applicant's property. The mobile home could be partially visible to this piece of property. Applicant proposes to begin construction on a home by the spring of 1981. Among the alternatives the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors may want to consider: Denial of special use permit. Approval of special use permit and compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Approval of special use permit and compliance with Section 5.6.2 and the following condition: -expiration of special use permit five years from the date of issuance. Recommendation to Zoning Department for issuance of new temporary mobile home permit. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 6, 1981, unanimously recommended that this special use permit be approved subject to the following conditions: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 and the following condition: -expiration of special use permit two years from the date of issuance. Mr. McCann and Miss Nash questioned Mr. Tucker about the exact location of the road which serves this parcel. Mr. Tucker, with the aid of a map, indicated the existing road. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Roger Fuller, applicant. Mr. Fuller said he purchased the property from the late Mr. John Hudson, and that it was his intent to build as soon as he can obtain some financing. Mr. Fuller indicated that he has already dug the basement. Mr. McCann said he.went out to attempt to find the proposed location of the mobile home, and after a substantial effort, finally located it. Mr. McCann indicated that if he did not know where the mobile home was to be located, it could-never be seen from the lot of the objecting neighbor. Mr. Ralph Hemorick said he lives off the dirt road off Route 53 to the left of the parcel and has a single family home. Mr. Hemorick said Mr. Hudson's property was a blight. He said he was concerned about his property value. Mr. Hemorick said he would not oppose an extension of the temporary permit, but would strongly oppose a permanent mobile home on this site. Mr. and Mrs. Robert Goode said they live next to Mr. Fuller's property and would never have purchased this property if they had realized a mobile home would be going on the lot next to them. They requested this permit be denied if it is for a permanent mobile home. Mrs. Sharon Hart said she sold Mr. and Mrs. Goode~their property and felt the Goode's would never have purchased the property if they had known about this mobile home. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. McCann said he cannot see denying someone a place to live even though he can understand the way most people feel about having a mobile home on an adjacent lot. Mr. McCann said he was not totally in favor of the limitation to two years, but offered motion to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and approve SP-80-75 with the following conditions: Approval of special use permit and compliance with Section 5~.6.2 Expiration of special use permit two years from date of issuance. Mobile home to be removed when new home occupied. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher said the~applicant has stated his intent to build a permanent home, but this permit could be extended if applied for. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann. and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 11. SP-80-73. Glenwood Shifflett. Request to locate a mobile home on 2.0 acres zoned A-1. Property is located just southwest' of Route 810 at Nortonsville. Tax Map 8, Parcel 35K, White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 18, 1980.) Mr. Tucker proceeded to read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Request: Mobile Home 0,14 January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax Map 8, parcel 35K, located south of Route 810 in Hatfield Farm Subdivision near Nortonsville. Staff Comment: This site was a portion of property involved in a sub- division violation. On December 2, 1980, the Planning Commission approved the Parrish/Loker subdivision, which will extinguish the subdivision violation when the new plat is recorded. In the interim, the County Attorney has advised the County that no building permit or other County approvals can be lawfully granted. Therefore, the Zoning Administrator has declined to administratively issue the mobile home permit. The application has been referred to the Commission and Board to provide the applicant additional opportunity through the public hearing process to obtain approval of the permit. Staff would present two aspects for consideration in this matter. First, as approved by the Planning Commission, no alteration of the Hatfield Farm Subdivision is required. That is to say, the Hatfield Farm plat would stand as previously approved by the County. Second, legal and financial problems have deterred the L. C. Parrish estate from proceeding with the recordation of the new plat (Kermit Parrish, executor of the estate, died during the subdivision review process. His sister, Frances Gibson, was subsequently designated executrix). Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this application, staff recommends compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance as a condition of approval. Note: Staff would also note that a special permit for a mobile home (SP-80-77 John & Audrey Knight) is pending on Tax Map 8, Parcel 35M, also in Hatfield Farm Subdivision. This application is tentatively scheduled for administrative approval on January 14, 1981.) Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 6, 1981, unanimously recommended to approve this special use permit with the following two conditions: (1) Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. (2) Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said no objections to this permit were received so it could have been approved administratively. He added that although Mr. Shifflett's lot is not actually a part of the actual violation, the property is part of the subdivision which has been determined in violation, therefore the lot is tainted. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John his opinion regarding this matter. Mr. St. John said ideally the Parrish estate would record the new subdivision and solve the whole matter, but since this cannot be done it creates a problem. He added that Mr. Shifflett is not tainted and he has rights involved which are also not tainted. Mr. St. John asked if the Parrish estate would be filed promptly. Mr. Tucker said it would be at least another month before it could be put to record. Mr. St. John then asked if the lot boundaries of Mr. Shifflett's property would be altered in any way. Mr. Tucker said no they would not be altered. Mr. St. John then recommended that the Board of Supervisors consider this special permit request on its merits without regard to any previous subdivision and not treat it as being tainted. Mr. St. John further recommended that condition two be omitted. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Shifflett's lot was ever in violation. Mr. St. John said no. Miss Nash asked exactly what the subdivision violation was in this case. Mr. Tucker said this subdivision was illegally recorded. The lots are less than five acres, the pipestem did not have the required frontage, and the residue from this subdivision was discovered as part of the Parrish plat. Miss Nash asked if.it would not be easier to just scrap the whole subdivision. Mr. St. John said it could be done, but then the innocent third parties (such as Mr. Shifflett) would have to attempt to recoup their losses through the courts and there would be no guarantee that they would succeed. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. Glenwood Shifflett. Mr. Shifflett said the land was sold to him in good faith. He added that he is presently living in a mobile home park waiting this permit and he hoped it would be approved. Mr. John Knight was next to speak, stating that he has purchaSed lot #3 in the same subdivision and hoped approval was granted in both cases. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this petition, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he felt this request should be considered as recommended by the County Attorney since the lot boundaries are identical in the original and the soon-to-be-filed subdivision plats. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed and offered motion to approve this request with Condition #1 as recommended by the Planning Commission, but delete condition #2 as recommended by the County Attorney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Miss Nash asked if Mr. Shifflett ever wanted to build a permanent home, if he would be allowed to obtain a building permit. Mr. St. John said that point would be moot and the decision would be strictly up to the Zoning Admin- istrator. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 015 Agenda Item No. 12. SP-80-79. Innisfree, Inc. Petition to allow a group home for the developmentally disabled on 372.38 acres zoned RA Rural Area. Approval of the petition would bring the existing development into conformance with the zoning ordinance and would permit expansion of the same. Property, described as Tax Map 14, parcels 2, 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C and 10 is located on Route 765 near Montfair. White Hall District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 24 and December 31, 1980.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report and the recommendation of the Planning Commission as follows: Request: Acreage: Group home for the developmentally disabled 372.38 acres. Zoning: RA Rural Areas Location: Property, described as Tax.Map 14, parcels 2, 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C and 10, is iocated on Route 765 near Montfair. White Hall District. Character of Area: This property is located in a rural area of the County adjacent to the Shenandoah National Park. Innisfree Village is a working farm which also includes workshops, housing and eating facilities for the developmentally disabled. Staff Comment: The Code of Virginia requires all localities to make zoning provisions for group homes in order to provide the developmentally disabled with the "benefits of normal residential surroundings." The Code also states that "conditions may be imposed on such homes to . assure their compatibility with other permitted uses, but such con~ ditions shall not be more restrictive-than those imposed on other dwellings in the same zones unless such additional conditions are necessary to protect the health and safety of the residents of such homes." Innisfree, which has operated in this location for several years, is seeking approval of this petition in order to conform with the new zoning regulations and to expand its residential and dining facilities. Staff opinion is that the supplementary regulations in the Zoning Ordinance which require Fire Official review are adequate in this case, therefore, Staff recommends approval. Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission at its meeting of January 6, 1981, unanimously recommended that this petition be approved subject to the following condition: (1) Special Use Permit limited to Tax Map 14, Parcels 3A, 10A, 10B and 10C. Mr. Tucker then referred to a memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated January 5, 1981, as follows: "I noticed on the January 7th agenda that the above property is under consideration for a special permit. I feel that you should be aware of the following: 1. The tract of 372.98 acres consists of seven parcels. Four of the seven parcels are currently tax exempt (Parcels 14-10A, 2.6 acres; 14-3A, 1.0 acre; 14-10C, 10.0 acres; and 14-10B, 2.86 acres) consisting of 16.46 acres and includes the housing and service buildings of the handicapped facilities. The other .three parcels consisting of parcel 14-10, 220.54 acres, which is the farm; parcel 14-3, 130.0 acres, which is mountain land, and parcel 14-2, 5.38 acres, are all under the Land Use Tax Program. I have two concerns in this matter. First, if the entire tract of 372.98 acres is approved under the Special Permit, they would lose the Land Use Tax status and second, does the Special Permit extend the tax exempt status on that portion approved by you. I cannot visualize how a farm or mountain land could be used "exclusively" for treatment of the handicapped. It must be used "exclusively" if tax exempt. Approval of the Special Permit on the four parcels designated in number two above would not complicate the property tax issue." Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Dr. Heinz Kramp, Director of Innisfree, Inc. Dr. Kramp said the last time he was before the Board he stated that he hoped to someday expand to 150 residents and staff. He said that figure has been revised downward to about one-half that figure in order to retain the farm and village atmosphere without becoming an institution. Dr. Kramp indicated he did not understand the significance of Mr. Jones' memorandum as read by Mr. Tucker. Mr. Fisher asked if parcels 3A, 10A, 10B and 10C are contiguous parcels. Dr. Kramp said no, they are not contiguous, but in line with each other and having a small strip of land between them. (Note: Mr. McCann left the meeting at 9:00 P.M.) Mr. Henley stated that he felt Dr. Kramp did not thoroughly understand the implica- tions of the tax exempt and land use status as mentioned by Mr. Jones, and suggested this public hearing be deferred until such time as Dr. Kramp has had the oppurtunity to meet with Mr. Jones. Mr. Fisher agreed and added that he would like more detailed maps showing the ~ro~osed uses at Innisfree. Mr. Fisher also asked Dr. Kramp if he would have any 016 January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) objection to the Board limiting the special use permit to about 75 as the total number of persons using the facility. Dr. Kramp said he would have no objections to that condition, since this figure was a limitation Innisfree has already decided on. There was no one else present to speak either for or against this special permit. Mr. Fisher said he would like to continue this hearing until January 14, 1981, and arrange for Dr. Kramp to meet with Mr. Ray Jones to discuss the tax exempt status of Innisfree. Motion to that effect was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 14. Western Albemarle Rescue Squad--Request for Financial Assistance. (Note: Mr. McCann returned to the meeting; 9:07 P.M.) Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum of December 30, 1980, regarding Western Albemarle Rescue Squad's request for financial assistance: "I have met with officers of the three rescue squads to discuss their organization, mutual aid, and financial needs. The meeting was well attended, and was beneficial, I believe, to all participants. The squads currently provide mutual aid to one another on an informal basis, informal meaning there is not an organization similar to the Jefferson Country Firemen's Association. Ail three squads are considering forming such an association. The three squads are experiencing difficulties with fund raising efforts to mee~ their increasing costs of operations and replacement of equipment. Ail three advised of their intent to seek annual contributions from the local governments of the areas they serve, and periodic contributions for specific equipment needs. Unlike volunteer fire departments, the rescue squads are interjurisdictional. Considerable discussion was held on the contributions provided volunteer fire departments by Albemarle County, as compared to rescue squads. For your information the contributions are: 1980-81 1975-76 Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Scottsville Rescue Western Albemarle Rescue Volunteer Fire Companies (7) 3,000 2,500 5,500 -0- 7,500 Not formed 22,000 7,200 (each) (each) Discussion was also held on the contribution to rescue squads by Albemarle County as compared to other jurisdictions. The Charlottesville/Albemarle Squad has not requested an annual contribution from the City, but plans to do so. The Scottsville Squad has requested funds from adjacent counties for specific needs, and has received such funds. The Western Albemarle Squad serves only Albemarle County. Both Scottsville and Western Albemarle have received Federal funds through the County to purchase one vehicle each. Ail three squads have received Federal funds for communications equipment through the Emergency Medical Services Council. Ail three squads have adequate manpower in spite of increased training requirements. None believed that local government contributions would diminish the effectiveness of their fund raising efforts, only supplement those efforts, and indicate to the citizens support of their volunteer organizations. Members of fire companies confirm that belief. The Scotts- ville and Charlottesville/Albemarle officers confirmed the need for the unit which Western Albemarle wants to purchase; expressed the opinion it could not be purchased on the used equipment market because of its equipment; agreed that interest rates on loans would cut deeply into operating expenses; and stated that Albemarle County responding to the Western Albemarle request would not result in similar requests from other squads, unless a vehicle was lost in an accident and had to be replaced quickly with their insurance providing coverage of depreciated value. The officers summarized their needs as follows: 1. An annual donation from all of the jurisdictions they serve, increasing Albemarle's donation to some level commensurate to fire company contributions. 2. Periodic unified equipment funding requests, from the three squads to the jurisdictions they serve, for other needs identifiable to all squads, such as the folding water tanks provided the fire companies. 3. An advance of annual funds, with payback from annual contributions, for capital needs that require resources beyond the squad's capability. Recommendations: 1. The County Executive should discuss with the administrators of adjacent jurisdictions the annual donation need and consider this need in the current budget preparation cycle, with the desire to increase Albemarle's level of contribution and seek participation by other jurisdictions on some equitable basis. January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) 2. Any unified equipment request or other similar request be considered with the annual budget request and handled similarly to number one. 3. Funds be provided from the unallocated balance of the General Fund to Western Albemarle Squad for their vehicle purchase with a written agreement that provides payback in four years beginning with the 81-82 contribution, with the County retaining approval of the sale, trade, or replacement of the vehicle until the payback is completed." Mr. Agnor said a draft agreement has not yet been prepared because he wished to hear the desires of the Board of Supervisors before having the agreement prepared. Mr. Fisher said he was in agreement with the County Executive's recommendation and was prepared to go forward with the request, but wanted to know the opinion of the volunteer fire companies regarding this financing. Mr. Agnor said he has not met with the fire companies, but if fire company requests are to be considered by the Board, he would recommend such requests be for land and building needs only. Mr. Agnor added that fire companies have very specific equipment needs and he would recommend that such equipment be funded by the fire~ companies through their own fund drives. Dr. Iachetta Said inflation has hit all rescue type operations very hard, in some cases tripling the cost of essential equipment. Dr. Iachetta mentioned that the County had purchased land in the Route 29 North area for $175,000 for the possible location of an additional rescue squad station and this has not been discussed in over a year. He suggested that all needs for both fire and rescue squads be discussed simultaneously and then a decision could be reached. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that there should be a comprehen- sive approach to volunteer rescue operations. He said the public is no longer able to meet the needs of such squads with their donations. Mr. Fisher said the need is real and he recommended the Board accept the recommen- dation of the County Executive and have a draft agreement prepared for the Board's con- sideration. Mr. Fisher added that undoubtedly other.rescue squads and fire companies will also start bringing similar requests before the Board and he felt the Board should begin setting aside money in the Capital Improvements Program to cover such needs. Dr. Iachetta said funds are available through the State Department of Transportation for rescue squads. Mr. Henley said ~t will be difficult to get all the volunteer companies to agree on priorities for County funding. Mr. McCann said he was concerned about the possibility of seeing these volunteer companies becoming more and more government supported and stated that unless the community continues to support these volunteer squads, someday they may be entirely supported by local governments. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the County Executive to have an agreement prepared with the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad and bring it back to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 9:25 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a brief recess. The meeting reconvened at 9:32 P.M. Dr. Iachetta did not immediately return to the meeting. Agenda Item No. 13. Work Session: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding Parks and Recreation. (Parks and Recreation Interim Plan, 1980-1983) This document is intended as an interim, policy oriented plan, which, upon adoption, should be used pti, marily by the Parks and Recreation Department in establishing capital expenditure and program priorities for the 1981-82, and 1982-83 fiscal years. It includes: (1) a review of current park facilities and recreational programs; (2)'a review of demand and need for both numbers of facilities and recreational programs as determined by both the Commission on Outdoor Recreation and the standards found in the Comprehensive Plan; (3) an analysis of different policy alternatives for providing park services; and (4) a Set of recommen- dations based on the preceding analyses. At this time, it is difficult to establish acceptable goals and objectives dealing specifically with parks and recreational services. Such an effort requires extensive participation by interested citizen groups committed to the establishment of balanced recreational services for the entire community. Thus only the~Comprehensive Plan's goals and objectives, that deal in general terms with the provision af adequate service facilities and the maintenance of the quality of life, have been adopted at this time._ However, some potential goals and objectives are included herein for future reference. Mr. Robert Tucker read the following list of recommendations for expanding parks and recreational services in the county at a minimum cost: (Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting): CAPITAL PLAN 1. Highest priority for funding: a community action program combined with Department efforts to upgrade and develop existing County land, pri- marily comprised of school sites, in an effort to provide an initially low- cost, rudimentary system of parks and playfields within the groWth areas. This recommendation is based on the Planning Commission's feeling that more should be done with existing County facilities in terms of upgrading and maintenance, before new park land is brought into the~system. Past methods of soliciting ideas and assistance .from local parent/teacher organizations for improving school sites should be continued. Parks and Recreation Department efforts to improve playfields for recreational leagues should be supported. Specifically, softball fields, which could be used by. the. regional softball league, should be considered at the following sites: Burley Middle School Field McIntire School Building Field 018 January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) The Whitewood Road site, presently held in reserve by the Education Depart- ment, should be made available to the community for small-scale pathway and picnic facility improvements as a first phase for improvements for the entire site serving the densely developed Hydraulic-Rio Road loop. 2. Continuation of informal contacts between local, school-centered, neighborhood organizations and the Parks and Recreation Department for evaluating the provision and maintenance of recreational facilities at existing sites. Citizen requests for improvements should be made to the Parks and Recrea- tion Department, which will then coordinate their implementation. 3. Initiation of a lease-type arrangement with Lake Reynovia for oper- ation of their picnic and swimming facility. Planning Commission concern for providing regional park service to the southside of the County suggests that the County seek continuation of operations at the Lake Reynovia site. This is supported by the land use plan amendments for Neighborhood Four. 4. Consideration of programs for providing swimming facilities to County residents in the extreme southern portion of the County (lying outside the ten-mile service radius for Lake Reynovia); such programs to include possible expansion of the existing part-time shuttle program, granting of fee waivers at existing County swimming facilities, or actual construction of a new, preferably self-supporting swimming facility in the Scottsville- Esmont-Covesville areas; The Planning 'Commission feels that if capital expansion and site acqui- sition is to be supportable at this time, it should answer the need for a regional facility in the Scottsville-Porters-Covesville area of the County. A regional revenue-producing facility will place the lightest burden on county taxpayers. 5. Coordination of all mini- and neighborhood park locations with the County's Pathways Plans (under preparation), with new park construction undertaken only after or at the same time as sufficient pathways are provided serving developments within the park's service district; and 6. Adoption of the priority listing for mini-park service districts as follows: Neighborhood 1-Site 4 (Whitewood Road Site), Neighborhood 7-Site 2 (North of Barracks Road between Old Salem Apartments and Georgetown Road) ,Neighborhood 5-Site 2 (Oak Hill, Southwood Mobile Homes, Sherwood Manor and Country Greene Apartments area), Neighborhood 2-Site 5 (Branchlands PUD, Squire Hill area off Rio Road), Neighborhood 7-Site 3 (01d Ivy Road), Scottsville, and Neighborhood 2-Site 2 (Westmoreland and Northfields Subdivision area) as high priority, with the presently undeveloped dis- tricts in Crozet (C3 (Proposed Lickinghold Creek Impoundment), and C5 (on Powell Creek)), North Garden, and Piney Mountain as secondary priority to be reviewed under the next update. These last two recommendations point beyond the planning period covered by this plan (1980-1983) and to the problems of supplying recreational ser- vices to an even larger population than now exists. Serious consideration should be given to pathway development over the next five years before new park construction is undertaken. The locational analysis given in this plan should assist in setting priorities at that time for determing cost- effective sites for both mini and neighborhood parks. The needs that will have to be met at these new locations include: basketball areas, picnic areas, tennis courts, softball and large playfield areas, playgrounds, and walking and jogging paths. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROGRAMMING The following recommendations present general guidelines suggested by the analyses found in this plan. Programming should respond primarily, how- ever, to citizen interests and requests, and department constraints, thus growing naturally in response to natural pressures for expanding services. 1. Concentration of recreational programming for the elderly in the rural service districts of Crozet, Stony Point, North.Garden and Scottsville and urban districts 1.4 and 5.2; 2. Establishment of a formal arrangement between the Parks and Recreation and Education Departments making available County school sites (including all operating schools, abandoned or idle buildings, and outdoor facilities and playfields) as well as school buses for recreational use; A formal arrangement for scheduling Parks and Recreation activities in school buildings may bring about more efficient utilization of available space. 3. Establishment of cooperative agreements between the City and County~ for scheduling of athletic leagues with common membership; Mutual support of regional at'hletic leagues offers the best opportunity for City-County cooperation in the area of Parks and Recreation. 4. Utilization of differential pricing for admission to regional parks for non-county residents, or revenue sharing agreements with the City of ~h~.r~ott~sville and Greene County. for the ~ur~ose of financing additional January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 11, 1980 voted to recommend adoption of this as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. McCann said the recommendations proposed in the plan seem more far-reaching than he would be willing to support. Mr. McCann said he was~not aware there was sufficient demand from the public for such expansion of recrea- tional facilities, and was hesitant to place such commitment into the Comprehensive Plan for future tax dollars. Mr. Tucker said the implementation phase of the proposed plan is not necessarily three years as the report presented may seem to indicate. Mr. McCann added that he would support recreational projects if they would become self-supporting. He said he did not like what the County did with the Greenwood Community Center. Mr. Fisher said he has felt for some time that a regional park in the extreme southern end of the County was necessary. Mr. Fisher referred to recommendation number three regarding a lease-type arrangement with Lake Reynovia to fill a regional park need, but said he felt it was physically too far removed from those who want to use such a facility. Miss Nash commented that Lake Reynovia would make a fine secondary project, but felt it would draw a great deal of its usage from the urban area and the City of Charlottesville. Mr. McCann said he would support a facility on the order of Chris Greene Lake, then asked if Chris Greene Lake were a "break-even" facility. Hr. Agnor said the swimming area, between May and September, makes money, but those funds do not cover the total expense of running the entire park for a full year. Mr. Agnor said the park roughly generates about one-half of the revenues needed to operate for a full year. Mr. Fisher referred to item #4 under "Capital Plan" which states "consideration of programs for providing swimming facilities to County residents in the extreme southern portion of the County (lying outside the ten-mile service radius for Lake Reynovia); such programs to include possible expansion of the existing part-time shuttle program, granting of fee waivers at existing county swimming facilities, or actual construction of a new, preferably self-supporting swimming facility in the Scottsville-Esmont-Covesville area". Mr. Fisher said he would not favor a shuttle program or waivers of fees, but he would seriously consider the construction of a new regional park in the extreme southern end of the County. Mr. McCann said he would support Mr. Fisher's idea of a-regional park in the southern part of the County, because he felt it only fair that those citizens also have a park which is accessible. Dr. Iachetta asked if anything has ever come of the facility proposed by the Town of Scottsville at the Mink Creek Flood Control Impoundment. Mr. Fisher said he has discussed this with Mayor Thacker and Re feels that the Town of Scotts- ville would be unwilling to transfer that property to the County. Mr. Agnor added that the Health Department expressed concern that there would be~insufficient water flow to allow use of the facility for swimming noting that since it was to be constructed as a flood control dam the water level would purposely be kept very low in order to accommodate flood waters when necessary. Mr. Lindstrom said he was very impressed with the plan, and although he felt it was something the County would have to "grow into, he was impressed with the concept of using land presently owned by the County to a greater extent and would support the adoption of Chapter five (recommendations set out above). Mr. McCann said he wouldn't mind seeing Chapter five put into the Comprehensive Plan and used as a policy guide. Mr. Fisher suggested this plan be set for a public hearing sometime in February. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to set a public hearing on the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Interim plan for February 18, 1981. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded'vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fishey, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he wished to call the Board's attention to a request received from the Covesville Rur±tan Club re- questing that the old Red Hill School building be retained as ~ community center. Mr. Fisher"said he spoke to members of that club and indicated that he was sure the Red Hill School plans were too far developed to change. Mr. Fisher suggested this letter be forwarded to the School Board for its comments. Dr. Iachetta said it would be up to the School Board since the School Board has total control of school property. Motion was offered by Miss Nash and seconded by Dr. Iachetta to forward this requeSt to the School Board and request its response as soon as possible. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: ~'None. Mr. Tucker said he would like to take this opportunity to introduce Mr. Keith Mabe, who was hired to replace Mr. Doug Eckel as principal planner. Agenda Item No. 15. Take Road into the State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said a request has been received from Mr. James M. Hill, representing Dr. Charles W. Hurt, to take a~.road in the Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision into the State Secondary Road System. Mr. Agnor said a description of the road has been prepared by Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, and recommended the Board consider adoption of the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the ~irginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby~e~n~sted to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision: January 7, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) Beginning at station 0~10 of Thrush Road, a point common to the centerline of Thrush Road and the edge of pavement of Whippoorwill Road (State Route 839); thence with Thrush Road 2,817.94 feet to station 28+27.94, the end of Thrush Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 694, page 545. Motion to adopt the resolution as suggested by Mr. Agnor was made by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Lottery Permits. Hr. Agnor presented the· following lottery permit applications for calendar year 1981: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Parents and Friends of the Children's Rehabilitation Center University Union of the University of Virginia Incarnation Catholic Church Dogwood Festival Board of Directors Earlysville Volunteer Fire Department Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company B.P.0. Elks, Lodge No. 389 American Cancer Society Crozet Volunteer Fire Company Claudius Crozet Park, Inc. American Legion Post #74 Camp Saponi, Limited Brownsville P.T.A. Thomas Jefferson Civitan Club East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department St. Anne's - Belfield Parent's Auxiliary Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the lottery permits in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not On The Agenda: Dr. Iachetta said the Hydraulic Road Homeowners Association appealed to him to have the Board reconsider the changes made in the Plan for Hydraulic Road improvements. Mr. Fisher said this matter is already set for the day meeting agenda, and Mr. Roosevelt is being notified to prepare a report on the situation. Mr. Fisher noted that there is now an emergency first aid guide in the Telephone Directory due to the efforts of Dr. Richard Edlich of the University of Virginia and the Thomas Jefferson Emergency Medical Council. M~. Fisher said he received a request from the Virginia Electric and Power Company to nominate someone to the "Customer Advisory Board" in this region. Mr. Fisher said an appointment form has been enclosed with the request and if Board members had any sug- gestions, the form could be completed and returned. Mr. Fisher said he has received notification from the Virginia Landmarks Commission that it is reviewing Emanuel Church in Albemarle County for possible recommendation on the National Register of Historic Places, as well as the addition of Ednam to the State Historic Register. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. Jack C. Smith, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to Mr. Donald Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County: "Petroleum Marketers, Inc., a Virginia corporation which operates as an independent petroleum product distributor, with its principal office in Richmond, Virginia, has applied to the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (The Roanoke Authority) for assistance in financing the acquisition of. between 18 and 22 filling stations located in a triangular area between Christiansburg, Lynchburg and Charlottesville, Virginia. These stations are to be abandoned by a major oil company and Petroleum Marketers, Inc. has estimated that its acquisition will save~between five and seven jobs per filling station. It is anticipated that the purchase of the facilities would be financed through the issuance by the Roanoke Authority of its debt obligation in an amount of approximately $2,800,000. Five of the filling stations are located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia. Three are located in your jurisdiction. The Roanoke Authority would not consider financing the facilities without your consent and consequently, I am asking that you consider the benefits to your community of the acquisi- tion and operation of the facilities by Petroleum Marketers, Inc., and to communicate your consent that the Roanoke Authority include them in the proposed financing." Mr. Fisher said his reaction to this request is negative. Mr. Lindstrom said he had recently seen a special on the television program "60 Minutes" which claimed that as much as two billion dollars yearly are from taxes because of these authorities. Mr. Lindstrom asked if another authority would have the right to finance a project in Albemarle County. Mr. St. John said he did not believe there were any restrictions to preclude such, that authorities could finance projects anywhere in the State. Mr. Lindstrom said he was totally against supporting the issuance of such bonds for private enterprise whether it be from the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority or the Authority in Roanoke. Mr. McCann said if Roanoke wished to support this project it was fine with him, especially since it was not going through the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County. Mr. St. John said he felt Mr. Holden would not respond to this request without some contact with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. John said it is up to the Board to either consent or not consent and forward that statement back to the Roanoke Authority as soon as possible. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that a letter be forwarded to the Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, stating that it is the desire of the Board of Supervisors that no such consent be given toward the issuance of bonds for the purpose of financing Petroleum Marketers, Inc. through the Roanoke Industrial Develop- ment Authority. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher requested a brief Executive Session to discuss legal matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session. Mr. McCann asked it Mr. Fisher intended to discuss the problem with a certain parcel in Key West Subdivision which was changed to RA zoning. Mr. Fisher said that was not his intent. Mr. McCann asked if he could discuss this problem brought to his attention by the property owner of that parcel. He said the land was originally zoned R-1 and A-1 and has subsequently been changed to RA. It was the concensus of the Board that the motion which created this zoning change be brought back to the Board at the next meeting (January 14) so that the intent of the motion can be reestablished. Mr. Fisher requested a verbatim transcript of that motion and any other information regarding this vote be gathered to facilitate the solving of this issue. At 10:48 P.M., roll was called on Mr. Lindstrom's motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters, which motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. At 11:05 P.M. the Board reconvened into open session and immediately adjourned. Chairman