Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-05-132t2 May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 13, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesvill( Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at 9:47 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:15 A.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present': County Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher who announced that this is Youth in Government Day for Albemarle High School and Mr. Agnor will be bringing students to tha meeting later. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: May 14, 1980 and May 21, 1980. Mr. Henley had read the minutes of May 14, 1980 and found no errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of May 14, 1980 as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. Since the minutes of May 21, 1980, were assigned to Dr. Iachetta and he was not present, they were deferred to later in the day. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Take Roads Into the State System. Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant, said the Board on September 10, 1980, adopted a resolution to take Big Oak Road and the remainder of Turkey Ridge Road in Section II of Peacock Hill Subdivision into the State Secondary System. The geed book references for the drainage easements were not available at that time but have now been received. Therefore, the resolution is ready to be readopted. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highays and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Section II in Peacock Hill: Beginning at stati'on 25+72.60 of Turkey Ridge Road, a point common to the centertine intersection of the end of maintenance of Turkey Ridge Road (State Route 1621); thence in a northwesterly direction 1,296.45 feet'to station 38+69.05, a cul-de-sac, the end of Turkey Ridge Road in Peacock Hill. Beginning at station 0+I0 of Big Oak Road, a point common to the centerline intersection of Big Oak Road and the edge of pavement of Turkey Ridge Road; thence in a-southwesterly direction 1040 feet to station 10+50, a cul-de-sac, the end of Big Oak Road in Peacock Hill. 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 easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 589, pages 212-219 and Deed Book 630, pages 63 and 64, and Deed Book 713, pages 511-514. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Mc~ann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. Mrs. Moon then presented request dated August 6, 1980, from Mr. Caleb N. Stowe, Director of Holkham Associates, Ltd., requesting Holkham Drive in Phase-I of Lewis Hill RPN, be taken into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ~AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. 213 May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Phase I, Lewis Hill RPN: Beginning at station 0+12 of Holkham Drive, a point common to the centerline intersection of Holkham Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 678; thence with Holkham Drive in a northeasterly and southeasterly direction 3,431.19 feet to station 34+43.19, a cul-de-sac, the end of Holkham Drive in Phase I of Lewis Hill RPN. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 and 60 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 695, page 344 and Deed Book 708, page 122. Mrs. Moon then presented request dated February 9, 1981 from Mr. James M. Hill, Jr., agent for Vi~gi~.ia Land Company, for acceptance of Westfield Road and Minor Ridge Road in Phase I of Wynridge Subdivision into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Phase I, Wynridge Subdivision: Beginning at station 10+79..63 of Westfield Road, the centerline intersection of Westfield Raad and the edge of pavement of Commonwealth Drive (State Route 8520); thence with Westfield Road in a northwesterly direction 712.90 feet to station 17+92.53, the end of Westfield Road in Phase I of Wynridge. Beginning at station 0+18 of Minor Ridge Road, a point common to the centerline of Minor Ridge Road and the edge of pavement of Westfield Road opposite station 14+06.50; thence with Minor Ridge road in a clockwise direction 1,707.68 feet to station 17+26.68, the edge of pavement of Westfield Road opposite station 17+25.89, the end of Minor Ridge Road in Wynridge, Phase I. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 56 foot unobstructed right of way on Westfield Road and a 50 foot unobstructed right of way on Minor Ridge Road and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office'~of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 677, page 179. Mrs. Moon then presented request dated March 4, 1981, from Mr. Robert. H. Blodinger, attorney for Mr. William F. Kirby, for Whitetail Lane in Running Deer Subdivision, to be taken into the State Secondary System of Highways. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following ~ road in Running Deer Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+10 of Whitetail Lane, a point common to the centerline intersection of Whitetail Lane and the edge of pavement of Running Deer Lane (State Route 808); thence with Whitetail Lane in a southeasterly direction 1,295.33 feet to station 13+05.33, a oul-de-sac, the end of Whitetail Lane. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways ~nd 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 674, page 288. May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 214 Mrs. Moon presented request dated May 11, 1981, from Mr. J. S. Lee, developer of Camellia Garden, for Albert Court in Camellia Garden Subdivision to be taken into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called on the motion and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Camellia Garden Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+11 of Albert Court, a point common to the centerline intersection of Albert Court and the edge of pavement of Whitewood Road (State Route 1455); thence with Albert Court in a clockwise direction 632.58 feet to station 6+43.58, the end of Albert Court and the edge of pavement of Whitewood Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40 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 706, page 692. Agenda Item No. 3b. Letter from Highway Department re: Hollymead Drive. ? Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated April 7, 1981, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, regarding Hollymead Drive in Hollymead Subdivision: "In reviewing the Hollymead Subdivision file in my office it has become apparent that certain agreements were made in 1972 concerning the construction and future upgrading of Hollymead Drive and Woodburn Road as development occurred. My files are incomplete but it appears that as a part of the approval of the Hollymead PUD the developer was required to increase the cross section and base of Hollymead Drive as actual traffic volumes using that street approached certain volumes. It appears that Hollymead Drive was added to the state highway system with 8" of aggregate base and 2" of plant mix in place. At the time of addition this was equivalent to a Category IV base and surface and capable of carrying up to 3,000 vehicles per day. My reading of the agreement indicates that when traffic volumes approach 3,000 vehicles per day, Hollymead Drive will have its shoulders and ditches widened and additional surface placed to bring the base and pavement design in line with what was then classified as Category V. Traffic counts taken on Hollymead Drive in 1980 indicate traffic volumes in the 1500 to 2000 vehicle per day range. It would appear that with the recent development of the apartment complex beyond Hol!ymead School and the proposed rezoning of the land north of the Hollymead Dam, that traffic on Hollymead Drive could well exceed 3,000 vehicles per day when recounted in 1982. The purpose of my letter is to request that the County review the requirements included in the approval of the Hollymead Planned Community and advise me concerning the County's position regarding the upgrading of Hollymead Drive." Mr. Fisher said he requested the Planning Staff to review the matter as requested in the above letter. Letter dated May 8, 1981 (On file in the Clerk's Office), from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was received in response to the request. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:15 A.M.) Mr. Tucker indicated that the Hollymead PUD, Phase I, was reviewed and he agrees that Hollymead Drive was built to carry 3,000 vehicle trips per day and the latest traffic volume on Hollymead Drive is in the 1500 to 2000 vehicle trips per day range. Therefore, Mr. Tucker feels that the 1000 to 1500 vehicle trips per day margin allows ample t±me for reviewing and requiring the necessary road improvements when the next request for a~subdivision plat or site plan is submitted for final approval. However, Mr. Tucker does feel that the question of the status of the road improvement conditions should be addressed by Mr. St. John since the PUD was approved prior to the Hylton decision. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Roosevelt if the response was satisfactory. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. Mr. Roosevelt did not feel the developer was required to do any more than he had done according to the minutes of May 8, 1972 when the Hollymead P~ was approved. He noted concern that the PUD was approved for 740 dwelling units which could generate 5,000 vehicle trips per day and the pavement is designed for 3,000 vehicle trips per_~day. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. St. John to comment on the matter. Mr. St. John did not feel any requirement was clear in the minutes of May, 1972 when this PUD was approved. However, he did feel a strong argument could be made that the memorandum from Mr. Robert Warner, Resident Highway Engineer, set out in those minutes was part of the conditions for the PUD. 215 May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) ~After a short discussion on the status of Hollymead Drive, Mr. Fisher stated that he did not feel this matter could be resolved today and suggested that the Highway Department work with the Engineering, Planning and Legal staffs to determine if any Board action is necessary. Agenda Item No. 3c. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt dated May 5, 1981: "Reference is made to the Board of Supervisors resolution passed at the April 8, 1981, day meeting concerning the closing of the first crossover north of the south fork of the Rivanna River on Route 29. The Department has reviewed your request and approved the temporary closing of this crossover. In anticipation of the start of the construction on the River Heights we will take steps to close the crossover in the near future." Mr. Fisher asked if the closing of the crossover would be delayed until some construction begins on the River Heights Hotel site, which is on the west side of Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt felt the consensus of the Board at the April 8, 1981 meeting was to close the crossover regardless of the hotel project. Mr. Fisher agreed. Mr. Fisher then noted receipt of letter dated April 23, 1981 from Mr. A.~S. Brown, State Secondary Roads Engineer regarding the designation of $150,000.00 of the County's Revenue Sharing Funds to be applied to Project 0637-002-169, C50! as requested in resolution from the County on April 8, 1981. Mrs. Moon then presented the following letter dated April 7, 1981 from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer for the State Department of Highways and Transportation: "As requested in your resolution dated March 11, 1981, the following abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective April 7, 1981. ABANDONMENT Route 653 from its south intersection with Rt. 601 to a point 0.16 Mi. East of Route 601. LENGTH 0.16 Mi." Mr. Roosevelt then noted letter dated May 8, 1981, sent to the Board outlining allocation~ for Secondary System construction for Fiscal Year 1981-82 along with background data indicating the basis for the distribution of funds. Mr. Roosevelt said according to a meeting he attended last week in Richmond on the Highway Department's financial problems, the determining factor on advertisement of improvement projects will be the cash flow that the department has in hand and not money indicated as available on the printout of monies distributed to the counties. The funds available to counties will be taking a back seat to the amount of money in the State Department of Highways and Transportation. The overriding factor in the advertisement of projects is going to be how far the dollars in the Department's bank account can be stretched. The only way that the dollars can be stretched is to match them up against some other funds; primarily federal funds. Therefore, it appears that during the next several years, the only projects that are going to be advertised by the Highway Department are those that can be matched by federal funds regardless of which highway system the road is in. Mr. Roosevelt felt the proposed Albemarle County road budget for next year needs to be reexamined and some changes made in what was originally proposed. He then presented a list of options. The amount advertised for the public hearing next week was $767,320, and is within $15,000 of what was anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said if the plan is adhered to, sixty-four percent of Hydraulic Road would be financed and only thirty- eight percent of Park Street. Hydraulic Road is a state funded project and Park Street is a federal project. Under the circumstances, Mr. Roosevelt did not feel Hydraulic Road can be advertised during the next year as long as it is a state funded project. The State Highway Department will not advertise a $2,900,000 project and use that amount of state funds when that money could be matched with Federal funds and a five or six million dollars job could be advertised. Mr. Roosevelt reviewed the options and particularly noted that the Hydraulic Road project has been deleted from the proposed budget and the Park Street Bridge inserted with the full amount of $101,820. Mr. Roosevelt also felt it may be necessary to transfer funds currently available for Hydraulic Road to the Park Street Bridge in order to place that project in a favorable position. Mr. Roosevelt said "favorable position" means one of three things: 1) Ready for advertisement, which it is; 2) Federal Aid project, which it is; and 3) Seventy percent of the money available on paper to finance it which would be possible if some funds were transferred from Hydraulic Road. In conclusion, Mr. RooseveLt felt the first step necessary is to have as many funds as possible for the work on the Park Street Bridge and the only way to do such is to revise the proposed budget. Mr. Fisher felt more changes will be needed and such should be taken up after or during the public hearing on May 20, 1981. Mr. Roosevelt felt the Board should understand that he is going to recommend that the budget be revised as he has suggested today which is deleting Hydraulic Road and inserting the Park Street Bridge project. Without any further comments, the Secondary Budget will be presented at the public hearing as advertised. ~a~l~l~(Regular Da_~ Meetin~ 21G Mr. Roosevelt said he would send all the information he has on the earth dam on Woodburn Road in Hollymead to the Board members (ZMA-79~33). Mr. Henley then noted appreciation for work done on several roads in his district. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letter dated April 23, 1981, from Mrs. Josephine Feggans appealing the road viewers recommendation of denial for rural addition funds for 0.30 miles off of Route 723. Mr. Roosevelt said he and Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, are to meet with Mrs. Feggans on May 15, 1981, to stake out the one rural addition on the roadway that was approved and he will discuss with Mrs. Feggans at that time the reason for denial. Agenda Item No. 4. Sale of County Property. This matter regarding the sale of County property known as the Berkeley Sewer Plant site was deferred from April 8, 1981, in order that the County appraisers could reappraise the property based on the proposed sales contract from Dr. Hurt, specifically the reservation of the easement involved in Section 9 of the sales contract. Mrs. Moon said Mr. Agnor received a call from Mr. Jim Hill~ agent for Dr. Hurt, yesterday and indications are that Dr. Hurt is willing to pay the $5,000 which is the latest appraisal from the County Real Estate Department. However, Dr. Hurt desires to pay $2,500 as an option which will run until road construction is completed. The closing on the sale of the property and the remaining $2,500 will then occur at the completion of the road construction. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he was aware of this proposal. Mr. St. John said no. Mr. Fisher then requested Mr. St. John to discuss this further with Mr. Agnor to determine if this proposal is possible and if resolved, to be discussed at the May 20, 1981 meeting. Agenda Item No. 5. Resolution: Youth Services Center. Mr. Fisher asked the reason for another resolution when one was adopted on June 11, 1980, and an appointment has been made to the Youth Services Citizen Board and the Youth Services Center' is included in the County's current budget. Miss Amy Melville, Director of the Youth Services Center, was present and said several specifics were included in the June 1980 resolution which are no longer applicable. One of the specifics was the allocation amount and the desire is to have that amount deleted in order that the Center is not bound to that amount. Another item included was that the Youth Services Center would be under Family Services and that Board would act as the Youth Services Center Board. A transition has been made for a Youth Commission to identify, plan and coordinate services for the youth and to oversee the functions of the Center. Miss Melville said the proposed resolution for the Board's consideration today is hopefully general enough that the Center will not have to return for another._resolution. Mr. Fisher felt the proposed resolution is basically a housekeeping procedure and he was not opposed to the adoption of same. Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Lindstrom AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is supportive of~the establishment of an Office on Youth, hereafter the Youth Service Center, and a citizen's board, entitled the Youth Commission, that will f~ter wholesome youth development and the prevention of juvenile deli~uency; and WHEREAS, the County is desirous of establishing ~nd sponsoring a Youth Commission which will serve as a policy making and governing board for the Youth Service Center to identify, develop and provide comprehensive integrated youth services and a delinquency prevention program; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County will jointly appoint with the City Council of Charlottesville a nine (9) member Youth Commission to identify, plan and coordinate services for youth and oversee the functions of the Youth Services Center. This Commission shall be composed of private citizens, youth representatives and professionals, such that the majority of members shall not be employed by local or state youth-serving agencies or be an elected governmental official. Appointments shall be for a three (3) year term. The responsibilities of the COmmission shall be those listed in the Minimum Standards for the Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act (Sections B.3.a. and B.4.a.). Mrs. Judy Gough from the Finance Department then introduced four students from Albemarle High School visiting that department for Youth in Government Day. Agenda Ztem No. 6. Resolution: Monticello Community Action Agency. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Ken Ackerman, Executive Director of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency, has submitted a resolution asking that the Board endorse the continuance of Federal support of the Community Action Agency. Mr. Fisher felt uncomfortable with adoption of this resolution since this would indicate that the Board felt this a higher priority than any other federal funding which may occur. Therefore, he preferred not getting into a situation of picking and choosing federal funding priorities. Miss Nash did not feel May_13~ 1 8~eg_ular Davy Mee%i_ng)~ the resolution would do any harm because it would put people on notice of what the necessities are. Mr. Henley was unsure of what he would be voting on because he had no knowledge of what the national anti-poverty policy referred to in the resolution is. Mr. Fisher said with the consent of the Board he will respond by stating that the County supports the activities of the Community Action Agency but prefers not to support one program for federal funding out of all the other possible programs that the County may be asked to support. Mr. McCann felt similar requests will be made and preferred waiting until it is known which funds will be cut and what the needs may be. He also expressed concern that if this resolution is supported then the County may have to provide the funding lost. The general consensus of the Board was for Mr. Fisher to respond as indicated above. Mr. Agnor arrived at 9:46 A.M. and introduced a group of students for Youth-In-Government Day from Albemarle High School assigned to the Board of Supervisors and County Executive. Agenda Item No. 7- AHIP: Quarterly Report. Miss Ann Paul, Director of Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present and summarized the third quarter of Fiscal Year 1980-81 for AHIP. Five major rehabilitations were completed during the third quarter, one minor rehabilitation and one HUD indirect job. Mr. Gary Oliveria then presented a slide presentation of the projects during the third quarter. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board will visit the Self-Help project at Bishop Hill today at 1:30 P.M. Mr. Fisher .then extended the Board's appreciation for AHIP's efforts and the report. Agenda Item No. 8. Decision on Route 29 Bus System. Mr. Fisher said four alternatives for the Route 29 North Bus System were presented at the Board meeting on April 8, 1981 and deferred to this date in order to allow the Board an opportunity to study the matter further and make a decision on whether to continue the Route 29 Bus System. Mr. Jim Skove reviewed his presentation of April 8 and noted that some minor revisions were made in the bus schedule in February. He also noted that the ridership figure for April was 3,000 and this is a ten percent increase over the March figures. Mr. Fisher summarized the four alternatives and the costs estimated for same. He asked if the estimates were for a twelve-month period. Mr. Skove said yes and noted that the estimates are based on the assumption that the Federal funding will be fifty percent of the operating deficit at least through September 1982. After that period of ~ time, funding is doubtful. Mr. Skove also noted that the fares cover only about thirty percent of the total operating cost of the bus service. Mr. Skove said seventy percent of the ridership goes to the Fashion Mall/Albemarle Square area. Dr. Iachetta felt alternative three, extending the Charlottesville Transit Service trunk route to the Fashion Mall/Albemarle Square area, would provide a better projection of ridership and aid in determining if the system should be continued for another year. Mr. Skove felt~alternative four, extending the route to the high density areas, was a drastic change and would show a decline in ridership. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any support had been indicated from the commercial businesses served by this system. Mr. Agnor said in discussing this with representatives for the Fashion Square Mall and Albemarle Square merchants, the feeling was that the system is not beneficial to their employees due to the bus schedules. The general feeling for customer use is to continue the service but the representatives pointed out that the parking at both facilities is designed for adequate free parking and not for bus service. Mr. Agnor said the representatives also indicated that they were not interested in providing funds for the system since they did not feel there was sufficient benefit to warrant such support. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the industrial facilities benefit from the system. Mr. Skove said very few people ride to the industrial sites such as Sperry and Stromberg. Mr. Fisher then noted that some comments had been received supporting the continuation of the system. Mrs. Hazel Hollmann, Vice President of the League of Women Voters, was present and noted that the League supports continuation of the bus system. The League supports, the system primarily due to the savings of energy and the decrease of traffic in the already congested Route 29 North Corridor. Mrs. Hollmann also noted that the system should be publicized more in order to promote ridership. Mr. McCann felt the County needs to decide whether it wants to go into the public transportation business or not. A very select portion of the County is served by this system and the main route is to shopping facilities where the merchants are not willing to participate in the costs. Therefore, Mr. McCann did not support funding the continuation of the system and was concerned that the entire cost may be placed on the County if the federal funding is deleted. He restated his original feelings that the government does not have any business providing public transportation. Dr. Iachetta said there would not be any bus systems in the United States if that were true because private enterprises cannot economically operate a bus system. Mr. Fisher felt the area, at least to Albemarle Square, has reached a density of commercial development that requires availability of public transportation. Therefore, he felt alternative 3, extending the Charlottesville Transit Service trunk route to the Fashion Mall/ Albemarle Square area, is one that he could justify trying for a year to May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 218 determine the amount of ridership. This alternative reduces the total mileage from what the system currently offers but retains approximately seventy percent of the ridership. Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Fisher and felt the system should be given another year to determine its feasibility. Mr. McCann again emphasized that he did not support the system. Mr. Henley noted that he was not that excited about the system originally and felt enough experimenting had been done in the one year of service. Therefore, he felt the system should be discontinued now. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel it is true that people who drive their own cars pay their own way. He felt that if government did not subsidize transportation, no one would get any place. Mr. McCann disagreed because everYthing that is paid for by the government is paid for by tax dollars and is not a subsidy as such to maintain a bus line. Mr. Lindstrom did agree that the idea of a bus system is to serve people and enable them to get to jobs but he was unsure of the necessity of transporting shoppers. However, he did feel it should be recognized that this system will not only be subsidized by the local government for at least another year, but also by the federal government. Therefore, Mr. Lindstrom felt financially speaking.the return on a dollar is something justifiable to him at this point. Mr. McCann did not feel there will be any return on the dollar because one dollar ~¢e~v~a~rom the federal government, will mean another local dollar will be added to it. After considerable discussion of the Route 29 North Bus System, Mr. McCann offered motion to discontinue the bus service when the grant funds are used up. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor then noted that a message has just been received from the Chairman of the Albemarle Square merchants that the merchants have asked that the service be continued for another year and more advertisement be displayed about the service. However, they are not in a position at this time to provide any funding for the system. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt alternative #3 which is: "Trunk Extension. The City's trunk route which presently operates to and from the Downtown Mall, the University of Virginia, Barracks Road Shopping Center and K-Mart, ~Q~td be extended to Albemarle Square. The route would operate six days a week on 30-minute headways during the midday period and on Saturdays. Hours of operation would be from 6:30 a.m to 7:30 p.m." for one more year. Mr. McCann felt the County should buy its own buses and start a system. Mr. Henley felt the schedule could be cut down and have less buses running in order to save money. Mr. Fisher said that is an alternative which could be included in the agreement. Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Henley and felt that if the system is going to be operated, it should be done in the most economical way. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. Mr. Fisher then suggested a formal proposal be presented to the County Executive, County Attorney and to City Council for review in order to get this matter resolved. Agenda Item No. 11. Adjustment of Parks and Recreation Fee Schedule. Mr. Agnor presented his memorandum dated May 6, 1981, regarding an adjustment in parks and recreation fees: "As you know, the FY 81-82 budget anticipates increases in Parks and Recreation fees over FY 80-81. The staff has studied how these revenues can be realized, examined the schedules of fees with the cost of the programs and facilities, and compared the fees with other recreation activities in the area, both public and private. Currently the County derives revenues from (1) program or class fees paid by participants, (2) swimming fees from two lakes collected via seasonal passes and daily usage fees, and (3) by rental of the Greenwood Community Center building. (1) Fee Based Activities: For FY 81-82, it is proposed that program or class fees be established according to the estimated costs associated with the activity involved on a case-by-case basis. The activities will be calculated to be self-supporting, as a minimum, and some will generate revenues that ~xee~d..~p~s.~for use in supporting the activities that are not revenue producing. It is estimated that $15,000 in additional revenues can be realized over the 80-81 revenues of $32,300. (2) Swimming Fees: For FY 81-82, it is proposed that swimming fees be increased, and that a new fee be established for Non-County residents, as follows: Present Proposed Proposed Dai~y Fee: Ail Users County Resident Non-County Resident Adult $1.25 $1.75 $2.00 Child .75 1.00 1.25 Season Pass: Family $40 $50 $60 Adult 20 25 30 Child 15 15 20 It is estimated that $23,500 in additional revenues can be realized over the 80-81 revenues of $72,000. May 13, 1981 [Regular Day Meeting) (3) Greenwood Center Building Rental: The rental fees are calculated according to the type of activity and the extent of the hours and custodial work involved. It is not a significant revenue producer, and is estimated to provide $1500 in FY 81-82. (4) Shelter Reservations' For FY 81-82, it is proposed that reservations for private parties for picnic shelters include a fee of $25. Reservations have been provided for a number of years without any fee. Such reservations usually involve company picnics or family reunions. Guaranteeing the availability of a shelter removes that shelter for a period of time from use by others. The reservations in County parks average between 150 to 200 per year, and could provide $3500 - $4500 in new revenues. (5) Park Gate Fees: The staff considered recommending a gate fee for the use of the parks in lieu of the swimming fee, or in addition to the swimming fee. It is recommended that such a fee be postponed for future consideration as a revenue measure after experiencing the results of the above recommended changes, and after comparing these revenue changes with the expenditure changes. Such a comparison would be a process of the next budget cycle, and a movement toward fees for usage of parks would therefore be a consideration in the FY 82~83 budget, if the Board agrees with this recommendation." Mr. Fisher asked if the reduced fee was still in effect for swimming after 5:30 P.M. Mr. Agnor said yes; from 5:30 P.M. until closing it is one-half of the daily fee. Mr. Henley did not feel the fee should be reduced after 5:30 P.M. because other than on weekends, 5:30 P.M. until closing would be the prime usage during the day. Mr. Fisher then asked what action is necessary by the Board. Mr. Agnor said concurrence of the f.ee schedule is requested and then an ordinance would have to be drafted and brought to the Board next week for action on an emergency basis since the swimming fees are set out in a County ordinance. Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any other charge per person for the rental other than the shelter charge. Mr. Agnor said no. Dr. Iachetta felt it would not be unreasonable to have a minimum charge per person for the users of the shelter since it is a public facility and when reserved, the general public cannot use same. Dr. !achetta then offered motion to adopt the County Executive's recommendation for the fee schedule. Miss Nash asked if the reduction of fees for swimming after 5:30 P.M was part of that motion. Mr. Agnor said such is included in the Parks and Recreation Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta then amended his motion to include that the fee be the same regardless of what time a person arrives. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom asked what percentage of the total operating costs of the Parks these fees would pay. Mr. Agnor said about sixty percent or $170,000; the total operating budget of the Parks and Recreation Department is $320,000. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the proposed fee for use of the shelters is comparable to other public facilities. Mr. Agnor said the City does not charge a fee but some other areas charge by the hour or by the size of the crowd. Mr. Lindstrom felt the staff should examine the possibility of a higher fee for use of the shelters since such would be unavailable for use by the general public. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same c~arried by the f~ollowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Electoral Board. Mr. Richard Florence, representing the Electoral Board, was present. He noted that the recent change in the magisterial districts has created a problem because Broadus Wood School, which was a polling place in the Rivanna District, is now in White Hall District. Therefore, he requested that the Board consider Ho!lymead School as the polling place for that portion of the Rivanna District. The other change Mr. Florence requested is that the area moved from the Scottsville District into the Samuel Miller District, particularly for the area south of Charlottesville, that Interstate 64 be used as the dividing line between the two precincts. The voters in the Samuel Miller District would then go to Red Hill School rather than to Ivy. Mr. Florence said Mr. McCann does not object to the change in the Rivanna District. However, he was unsure about the Red Hill School change. Mr. Fisher said he had not had a chance to review the matter. Mr. Florence said the voters are closer to Ivy than to Red Hill but Ivy has 2,630 voters and North Garden has only 756. Mr. Fisher said he did not have any objection to the change and asked what action is necessary. Mr. St. John said a resolution is necessary with same being submitted to the Justice Department. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby establish on the recommendation of the Albemarle County Electoral Board that the polling place for the Rivanna District be changed from Broadus Wood Elementary School to Hollymead Elementary Sohool. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does establiSh the boundary between the North Garden Precinct and the Red Hill Precinct within the Samuel Miller District will be Interstate 64. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. 220 May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 9. Appeal: Helen A. Pitts Final Plat. (Plat showing survey of Parcel A and Parcel B, being a portion of Tax Map 130-?arcel 38, Children of Helen A. Pitts Property Parcel B to be added to the land of Katherine Pitts Phillips, Tax Map 130- Parcel 38A, Situated in the Scottsville Magisterial District, drawn by Wm. Morris Foster, Land Surveyor, dated February 13, 1981.) Mr. Fisher said a number of letters have been received regarding this plat but before discussing them he has been advised by the County Attorney that there are limits to the legislative authority that the Board of Supervisors has in dealing with subdivision matters. He then asked Mr. St. John to summarize the issue and the powers the Board has. Mr. St. John said he. does not find any authority in County ordinances or the State Code for the Board to exercise architectural review or review of the architectural matters in this case. He felt such is the main concern in the correspondence received and that was the reason he had advised the Chairman of the Board's authority in this matter. Mr. Fisher asked if this means~that the Board does not have the power to control the design or the size of a building. Mr. St. John said yes. A brief discussion then following on the Board's power to approve or disapprove a subdivision plat. Mr. St. John did not feel the Board had any power to disapprove a subdivision plat if the subdivision complies with existing ordinances and if the building proposed on the plat can meet setbacks, etc.. The Comprehensive Plan does address historical sites and the efforts to preserve the surrounding area and the compatibility of historical sites but such regulations have never been implemente¢ in the County Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the legal status of the Comprehensive Plan is simply as set out in Section 15.1-456 respecting public' facilities, sewer, water, roads, etc. Mr. Bernard Chamberlain was present. He felt the location of the building is an issue~ec~e the statutes do not state that the Board cannot decide where the building is placed. Mr. St. John said he could find nothing in the ordinances that gives the Board power to locate a house in a place different than the place that the owner desires. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following staff report: "Location: A portion of Parcel 38 on Tax Map 130. Scottsville District, located on the south side of Rt. 1302 (Warren Street) and west of the intersection with Harrison Street in Scottsville. Acreage: 2.51 acres and .56 acres with 126.1 acres in residue. Zoning: Village Residential. Proposal: To divide a 2.51 acre parcel from 126.1 acres and add a .56 acre parcel to an adjacent lot. Topography of Area: Gently rolling. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Rt. 1302 currently carries 402 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to be tolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: This property l~es within the Scottsvi!le Village area and is recommended for medium density development (5-10 du/acre). School Impact: There is a total projected enrollment of approximately one student. Type Utilities: Public water is available from an 8Tv line along Rt. 1302 (Warren Street). Public sewer is also available, but in a limited capacity. (Mr. Tucker said in discussing this with the Albemarle County Service Authority, indications are that.since there would be just one dwelling, there is adequate capacity to attach same onto the sewer line.) Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that a private street commercial entrance will be required. Mrs. Virginia Moore, an adjacent property owner, has informed the staff that a designated historic home, C!iffside, is located across the street from the proposed division. Mrs. Moore owns Cliffside and is concerned with the visual impact of a new home. The staff understands that she is requesting that the Planning Commission require a deeper building setback from Rt. 1302. Presantly, there is a twenty- five foot building setback. This plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the staff recommends approval with the followimg conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Certification of a 30,000 square foot building site; b. Location, area and dimensions of building site; c. Signature of Scottsvit!e Planning Commission; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on April 21, 1981, recommended approval of the plat with conditions lb and Id of the staff and amended conditions as follows: la. Determination of a building site; lc. Approval of the plat by the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said the Town of Scottsville has approved the plat and the reason for their review was because a portion of the property is in the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Tucker said a letter of approval has been received from Mr. Thomas Bruce, Chairman of the Scottsville Planning Commission, with the following conHition: "No building, residence, garage or any other permanent structure shall be alloweH either in whole or in part on any portion of that land located within the corporate limitsl of the Town of Scottsville without prior approval of the Town Planning Commission and the ~own Historic District Architectural Board and the Town Council of Scottsvil!e." Mr. Tucker Ithen pointed out on the plat the proposed location of the dwelling. He also peinted out ithe steeper topography near the rear property line where the drainage swale is located. May!13, 1981 (Regular Day Me~ting) Dr. Iachetta said the plat shows the dedication of right-of-way and asked if ~uch would be dedicated to the state highway department. Mr. Tucker said that has already been taken into account and the two and one-half acre parcel is exclusive of right-of-way. Miss Nash said according to the County Zoning Ordinance there is space for another building site on parcel A. Mr. Tucker said the density would permit another dwelling but the site has not been examined to see if it is a buildable site. With utilities available, zoning would permit two units on that property. The following letter of appeal was then noted from Mrs. Virginia Moore, dated April 27, 1981: "Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Commissioner Department of Planning, Albemarle County Charlottesville, Virginia Dear Mr. Tucker, I wish to appeal to the Board of Supervisors the Planning Commission's approval of a subdivision on the Helen Pitts estate directly across from this historic landmark, Cliffside, my house for 52 years. The house which Mr. Fred Schneider proposes to build close to the road, therefore to the house at Cliffside, would degrade Cliffside aesthetically and monetarily. It is incompatible. Since the Board of Supervisors has more power of discretion, more leeway, I am told, I have great hope." Mrs. Virginia Moore was present and noted that Cliffside is an historic landmark and on the Virginia and National Registers for protection of historic structures. She noted objection to the proposal unless the setback or building line is adjusted. She had been assured by other attorneys that the Board does have discretion in this matter by reason of the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman of the Planning Commission, had suggested she appeal this plat to the Board since the Board has certain powers of discretion so the placement of the building could be discussed. Mrs. Moore then requested the minimum setback be one hundred feet and felt this was reasonable considering the size of the lot. Mrs. Moore then reviewed what the applicant, Mr. Fred Schneider proposes to do. She also noted that Mr. Schneider intends to have his entrance opposite her entrance and she objects. Mrs. Moore felt there were many advantages such as better air and more privacy if the house were set back further from the road. She stated that the road is very dangerous and when the road is improved, the minimum right-of-way required will be fifty feet. If the road is ever widened, it will be at Mr. Schneider's front door. She then continued toi point out the advantages of having the house further back from the road. Mrs. Moore noted letters have been submitted for basically the same reasons as she has stated which is degradation to the historic landmark, Cliffside. The letters were from Messrs. William T. Stevens; Robert K. Spencer, President of Scottsville Historic Landmarks Foundation; Floyd Johnson, restoration architect; Jeff M. O'Dell, architectural historian; and Kingsley Hughes,~ resident on Warren Street. In conclusion, Mrs. Moore said she understood that the Board had the power of discretion in the matter of setbacks and she feels C!iffside deserves protection. Mr. Bernard Chamberlain said he would like to address the legal issue of the Board actions. He felt the Board has discretionary powers in the public interest which powers are set out in the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. He then reviewed those goals. Mr. Chamberlain discussed the general provisions in the Zoning Ordinance particularly Sections 1.4.3, 1.4.5, 1.5, and 1.6. Mr. Chamberlain said the Board is being reque~Hd'~to require the applicant to place the house further back from the road, and he felt such is an advantage for the applicant and would not reduce the historic value of Cliffside. Mr. Chamberlain again stated that he felt the Board has the power to do this according to the Comprehensive ~lan and felt the Board should make a minor change here regarding the setback. Mrs. Randolph Phillips, one of the heirs of the Helen Pitts estate, spoke next. She felt this is a chance to limit intensive development in the area. She did not feel there was any historic confrontation and felt the screening and setback were adequate. In conclusion, Mrs. Phillips felt the house would be built in a manner that would not devalue Cliffside. Mr. Morris Foster, surveyor for the applicant, was present and felt the issue is the subdivision plat. He felt the objectives of the Comprehensive plan and the Zoning Ordinance are to promote growth. Mr. Fisher then asked how far back the house could be located on the property. Mr. Foster said the lot has a very small frontage and the back of the lot follows a ravine. Therefore, he felt that at fifty feet from the building setback line there would be a considerably level site. Mr. Foster then noted his understanding from Mrs. Phillips that the intent of the deed is to limit the use of the tract of land to one dwelling. Mrs. Phillips said the deed will have the restriction of one dwelling unit for the two and one-half acres. Mr. Fred Schneider, applicant and registered architect, was present. He felt the plat meets all the requirements for Village Residential zoning according to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Sc~hneider noted approval from the Scottsville Planning Commission and the unanimous approval of the Albemarle County Planning Commission and he urged the Board to uphold the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Schneider then discussed the landscape of the property, the historic quality of Scottsville and the style of his house. He then pointed out reasons for locating the house in the proposed location and noted that the site slopes steeply farther in from the property. Since the northern end of the house is along the road and in an open area, this will contribute to its solar advantage and have no real impact on public appearance. Mr. Schneider said he has considered the best solar orientations and disagreed with Mrs. Moore about the appropriate location of the house. In conclusion, Mr. Schneider requested approval. Mr. Fisher asked the minimum setback proposed. Mr. Schneider said the building line as shown on the plat is set back twenty-five feet from the property line as required by the Ordinance. The house itself sits anywhere from two feet to twenty feet from that setback because the house is at an angle to the road. He felt a larger setback would limit the solar aspects of the house. ~May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 222 Mr. Benjamin Dick, counsel for Mr. Schneider, was present. He said this area is not an historic district and there are no lawful guidelines to enforce such a district. He agreed with Mr. St. John that the Board has no jurisdiction to deny the subdivision or to require a greater setback than required by the Zoning Ordinance. He felt Mr. Chamberlain's reference to the Zoning Ordinance was to general provisions, not specific provisions and did not apply to Mr. Schneider. In conclusion, Mr. Dick did not feel there was any lawful provision for the Board to impose on Mr. Schneider and the plat should be approved. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr'. St. John if the Board had any power to control the location of a building on a site. Mr. St. John said no. He did not feel the Board could impose a greater setback than the Ordinance prescribes. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel it was within the Board's authority to override the laws of the State or the County and felt the only way to protect historic sites is to have an ordinance regulating historic districts. Mr. Lindstrom felt what has been proposed is much better than what the zoning allows by right on the property. Therefore, he did not see any grounds, technical or otherwise, to reverse the Planning Commission's approval. Miss Nash agreed. Mr. Fisher said this request points out that an historic district is needed. Mr. Fisher said without a motion to change the conditions of the Planning Commission, their approval stands. Agenda Item No. 14. Destruction of Paid Bonds and Coupons. Mr. Agnor then presented the following resolution and requested Board approval of same as well as the authorization for a Committee to be comprised of the Director of Finance, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to destroy paid bonds and coupons in accordance with Virginia Code Section 58-919.3 as amended: WHEREAS, the Director of Finance for Albemarle County, Virginia, has petitioned this Board for authorization to destroy all bonds and coupons currently on file which were paid prior to June 30, 1975; and WHEREAS, Virginia Code Section 58-919.3, as amended, enables this Board to designate a committee of three persons to supervise and witness the destruction of such bonds and coupons and to thereafter execute a certificate setting forth the means by which the same were destroyed, together with the issue, series, number and maturity date of the paid bonds so destroyed, and the fiscal year in which paid, and said certificate shall set forth the amount of the coupons paid in such fiscal years; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, be authorized to proceed with the destruction of such bonds and coupons as aforementioned, and for the purpose of supervising and witnessing the destruction of such bonds and coupons, the Director of Finance, Ray B. Jones, together with the Clerk to the Board and Chairman of the Board are appointed to the committee for such purpose; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said committee shall execute a certificate meeting the requirements as set out above, causing such certificate to be executed and acknowledged by them in the manner prescribed for acknowledgment of deeds. Such certificate shall be prepared in duplicate, with the original being made a part of the minutes of this Board, and a copy retained as a permanent record in the office of the Director of Finance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the foregoing resolution. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. i0. Petition: re: Chris Greene Lake. Mr. Fisher noted petition dated May 13, 1981, from Mr. Paul O. Scott, representing property owners on Route 850 and Mr. Meredith C. Leake, representing property owners on Route 606. The petition detailed problems resulting from the Chris Greene Lake Park. The basic problems stated in the petition were excessive speed, failure to lock the park gate at dark, and misuse of alcoholic beverages. (Copy of petition on file in the Clerk's office.) Mr. Paul Scott was present and noted problems such as traffic hazards, safety hazards, noise and litter on Route 850. The feelings of the community is that these problems are related to Chris Greene Lake. He then summarized the petition and noted that a similar petition was also submitted in July 1979. Speed limit signs were posted as a result of that petition. However, the residents feel that forty miles per hour is too high for Route 850. Mr. Scott felt the park is not opened or closed on a regular basis as set out in the County Code specifically at sunrise and sunset. Mr. Scott said the parking in the park is also a problem because on a sunny day, people are parked on the hillsides and in the boat ramp area. Disorderly conduct is a problem and the park is not oriented anymore for family use due to excessive noise and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Scott said litter is a problem. He also noted excessive noise from loud speakers. Mr. Scott concluded by stating that the citizens signing the petition desire to have some type of control on entry into the park such as a gate with a fee charged. 223 May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Meredith Leake representing the property owners on Route 606 was present. He supported the statements given by Mr. Scott. Mr. Leake also noted property damage suffered from People leaving Chris Greene Lake. He suggested some type of warning device for the stop sign at the intersection of Routes 606 and 850. He also suggested that the speed limit on Route 606 to its intersection with Route 850 should only be thirty-five miles per hour instead of forty-five miles per hour. In conclusion, Mr. Leake stated that a uniform system needs to be established for the opening and closing of the park. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to comment on the request. Mr. Agnor said most of the tools are available to improve the situation with the exception of the entry gate. This has been a problem for a long time because the gate is continuously torn down once it is locked. Mr. Agnor said that closing the park has been assigned to a deputy in the area and this has been done on an irregular basis due to the possibility of that deputy being called to another area at closing time. Mr. Agnor said consideration has been given to having a parks employee assigned to the opening and closing of the park but the necessary funds for a vehicle and compensation of that person are not justified at this time. Mr. Agnor said that recently a parks employee was deputized to help handle some of the disorderly conduct problems. However, even though arrests are made, the penalties are not severe enough to make much of an impression. Mr. Agnor said as for the loud music, there is now an adopted noise ordinance that should help particularly after 11:00 P.M. However, there is no ordinance to prohibit noise during other hours. Speeding is an enforcement matter and is dependent on the Sheriff's schedule for radar detection. He has had conversations with Mr. Roosevelt about the erection of a warning sign for the stop sign but was unsure if that will help. Mr. Agnor said a report is forthcoming on authority to close the parks on Saturdays and Sundays only and generally between 11:00 A.M. and midafternoon once the park is filled to a certain capacity. Mr. Agnor concluded by stating that with the increased enforcement of speeding, a warning sign for the stop sign at the intersection, and arrests for disorderly conduct, some of the problems may be alleviated. After a brief discussion, Mr. Fisher expressed his desire for some mechanism to be established in order that the gates be opened and closed at the appropriate times. Mr. McCann felt the County has created these problems and should do something to assure the rules are adhered to. Dr. Iachetta felt a parks policeman was needed in order to maintain the park and agreed with Mr. McCann that the County had committed itself to this operation and should be certain that the rules are enforced. Mr. McCann felt the property owners deserve the maximum protection that can given. Mr. Fisher agreed and requested a report be made in June on these issues. Sheriff Bailey was present and favored the speed limit on Route 606 being reduced to thirty-five miles per hour. Mr. Fisher said that issue has been battled before and did not feel there would be any success in requesting such a change. Sheriff Bailey felt it would because the area is now a residential district. Dr. Iachetta suggested requesting the Highway Department to lower the speed limit. Mr. Fisher said hopefully some action can be taken to correct the problems and requested a report at the June 10, 1981, meeting. Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said the following request has been received from Dr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Education, for an appropriation: "SUBJECT: Appropriation Request for Woodbrook Repairs The bids on the repair work for the Woodbrook School building were opened on May 7, 1981, and the low bidder was R. E. Lee and Son. This project has been expanded because of a requirement based on accommodating handicapped students, the fact that the roof project was delayed and because it was discovered that five sections of walls needed to be replaced instead of just two. The work to be done in this project is outlined below. Replacement of the bricks in all of the walls in the Woodbrook building except the cafeteria and gymnasium. The latter will be repaired, but replacement is not necessary. $166,336 Handicapped facilities improvements including three outside entrances to classrooms and renovation to toilet facilities for the handicapped. 13,164 Replacement of the roof. This project was slated to have been done last spring, but because of the masonry problems that was discovered the project was delayed. 110,000 Total $289,500 The appropriation request that is being made by the School Board amounts to $179,500. An explanation of this amount is reflected in the outline below. Total Project Cost $300,000 Funds already appropriated for the roof in 19.17 and 17K-603 Planning funds previously appropriated in 19.31 Appropriation Request in 19.31 110,000 10,500 $179,500" May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 224 Mr. Fisher said with this request, there will have to be a reduction in School Construction funds. Dr. Iachetta asked if any Literary Funds are available for this type of repair. Mr. Agnor did not feel so. Mr. John Massie from the School Office was present and said Literary Funds are available for extensive renovation work. After a brief discussion about the shortage of funds, Dr. Iachetta asked if this request had to be approved today. Mr. Agnor said this is work which must be done during the summer and the School Office is ready to let the contract. Mr. Bob Vickery, architect, was present and said the work must be finished before the school reopens in ~ the fall. Therefore, the contract has to be let soon. He also noted that the walls could fall in if this repair is not done. Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Agnor recommended approval of the appropriation. Mr. Agnor said yes, out of the General Fund Unallocated Balance. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $179,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund Unallocated Balance and Coded to 19.31 for Woodbrook School repairs; FURTHER RESOLVED that $108,000 be transferred as follows: From Code !9.17K to 19.31, $38,220.02 and from Code 17K-603 to 19.31, $69,779.98. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 12:42 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:30 P.M. Agenda Item No. 25. Znspect Bishop Hill Subdivision and meet with the Soil Conservation Service at Ash Lawn. The Board left the County Building at 1:30 P.M. and returned to the meeting at 3:11 P.M. Agenda Item No. 13. Code. Set Public Hearing to Amend Two Sections of the Albemarle County Mr. Fisher said he discussed with Mr. St. John several weeks ago, the necessity of changin the names of zoning categories in Section 13-9 of the County Code and in the Noise Ordinance. This change is necessary in order that the zoning categories in the County Code conform with those in the recently adopted Zoning Ordinance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on June 10, 1981, amendments to the above two sections of the County Code.~Roll was called on the motion and same carried by ~h~!~f~l~o~ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriations. Mr. Agnor said in August 1980, action was taken by the Board for a $1.76 million addition to Red Hill School. The project was to be funded by $760,000 in local funds and $1,000,000 in Literary Funds. The Literary Fund loan has been approved, allocated and is expected to be received during this month. Therefore, Mr. Agnor said action is necessary to approve an appropriation of the $1,000,000. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,000,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Construction Fund to Code 19.27--Red Hill School Renovations. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Agnor said an oversight occurred last July in reappropriating funds for the purchase of school buses. There was an outstanding encumbrance on June 30, 1980, in the amount of $74,740 for this line item. Mr. Agnor said the bus bodies were ordered in the last fiscal year but are being paid for in this fiscal year. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $74,740 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and coded to 17D1-400, Replacement of Buses. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, !achetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS:. None. Mr. Agnor said the next request is for $11,000 to the refund account on tax relief for the elderly and handicapped. This is requested to reflect the adjustment in the income levels that were approved in the summer of 1980. At that time, the amount which would be required was unknown. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt the following resolution Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: May 13, 1981 ~Regular Day Meeting) AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $11,000, be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 9201-5803.13, Tax Relief for the Elderly and Handicapped. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. Mr. Fisher noted letter received from Mrs. Katya Gothie accepting her appointment to Youth Services Board. He also noted letter received from Mr. R. Douglass Horn, Chairman of the Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board Nominating Committee, suggesting that Miss Ellen V. Nash be appointed to the Community Action Board. Miss Nash said she would accept the appointment. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint Miss Nash to the Monticello Area Community Action Board of Directors for an unspecifie~ term. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Receipt of Audit: County Clerk and Clerk of Circuit Court. Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of the audit for the County Clerk and Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County for calendar year 1980; said audit received from the Auditor of Public Accounts for the Commonwealth of Virginia. (Audit on file in the Clerk's Office.) Agenda Item No. 18. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of April, 1981, were presented. On motion by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as read. 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. 19. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of April, 1981, was presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, this statement was approved as read. 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. 20. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of April, 1981, along with summary statement of prisoner days and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, were presented. Motion to approve the statements as presented was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash~ NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1981, was presented for the Board's information. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of April, 1981, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund. Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund · own of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Debt Service Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 110,371.77 572,475.38 1,828,755.42 50,293.83 374,641.80 50.14 63,700.47 352.89 247,876.27 172,599.90 35,477.23 130,548.51 $3,587,143 61 Agenda Item No. 22. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of March, 1981, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. May 20, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) May 13, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 228 Agenda Item No. 23. Set public hearing to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional map (Candlewyck Subdivision). Mr. Agnor said recently the Albemarle County Service Authority has discovered that the Candlewyck Subdivision (formerly called Westview) was left out of the Service Authority's jurisdictional area for water. The subdivision was constructed and the water was there when the jurisdictional area map was revised. Therefore, the Service Authority has requested a public hearing to consider the above omission. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise for public hearing on June 1.0, 1981, at 1:30 P.M., an amendment to the project area map of the Albemarle County Service Authority in order to correct an omission of the Candlewyck Subdivision on Old Ballard Road from the Service Authority's water utility system. 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. 24. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said action needs to be taken to change the June 3, 1981 meeting from 7:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. since the Board will be attending the Jack Jouett celebration at Castle Hill. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta~ seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to change the time of the June 3, 1981 meeting from 7:30 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, MoCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Fisher then noted letter from the County Attorney regarding the County's liability insurance and requested that the Board review the correspondence. Mr. Fisher then asked if Dr. Iachetta had read the minutes of May 21, 1980. Iachetta said no, but would attempt to have them finished by next week. Dr. Agenda Item No. 26. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 3:26 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session in the County Executive's Conference Room 'to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash None. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:32 P.M. Agenda Item No. 27. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ~HAIRMAN May 20, 198~ (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle county, Virginia, was held on May 20, 1981, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, CharlOttesville, Virginia. Present: Mes.srs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. Officers Present: Counby Executive, Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. George R. St. John; and County Planner, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Coldspring Hill Preliminary Plat Appeal. (Plat showing Coldspring Hills, Rivanna Magisterial District, owner and developer Richard Muller, land planning and engineering by Cox, McKee and Harrover, dated November, 1980.) Mr. Fisher noted that the plat was appealed by the applicant's attorney, Mr. J. Benjamin Dick and deferral was requested by Mr. Dick on March 18, 1981. (See minutes of March 18, 1981)