Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-08-12AuguSt 12, 1981 (Regular~Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, was held on August 12, 1981 at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, CharlOttesvilZ Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:10 A.M.), Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr. and F. Anthony Iachetta. Officers Present: St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order at 9:14 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting of seven items for the Board's consideration. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Item No. 2.1. Take Road into State Secondary System. Request dated July 18, 1980 was received from Mr. James M. Hill, agent for Dr. Charles Hurt, for Franklin Road in Franklin Subdiv±sion, to be taken into the State Secondary System. The following resolution was approved by the Board: 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 Franklin Subdivision: Franklin Drive: Beginning at station 4+07.40, a point common to the centerline intersection of Franklin Drive and the edge of pavement of State Route 20; thence with Franklin Drive in an easterly direction 3,651.46 feet_to station 40+58.86 a cul-de-sac and the end of Franklin Drive. 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 this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of A!bemarIe-Cou~ty-in Deed BoOk 677, pages 310 and 311. Item No. 2.2. Street Sign Request. A sign to identify Northside Drive in Northside Industrial Park was purchased by Hall & Taylor Body Shop in 1979 and needs to be taken under Highway Department maintenance. Therefore, the following street sign request was approved: WHEREAS request has been received for a street sign to identify the following road: Northside Drive (State Route 1570) at the southwest corner of its intersection with U.S. Route 29; and WHEREAS, a citizen has purchased this sign which conforms to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. Item No. 2.3. Lottery Permit. A lottery permit request from the Crozet Woman's Club for raffles for calendar year 1981 was presented and approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Item No. 2.4. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth' Attorney and Regional Jail were presented for the month of July, 1981; said statements were approved as presented. Item No. 2.5. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of July, 1981, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer; said statements being approved as presented. August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 2~6. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of June, 1981 was presented in accordance with Virginia Code section 63.1-52. Item No. 2.7. Report of the County Executive for the month of June, 1981, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of June, 1981, were also presentad as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund SchooI Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Constru~mn Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Debt Service Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 4,353.77 645,179.02 3,260,561.15 37,527.81 172,467.18 55.93 81,918.26 358.05 214,698~00 61,290.00 20,941.62 217,.146.29 $4,716,497.11 Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: May' 21 (Afternoon), May 29, June ~ (Afternoon), June 9, June 11, Juice 18, June 25, July 16 (Night), August 13, August 20 (Night), September 3 (Night), September !0, September 17, October 1, and October 8, 1980. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of May 21, 1980 (Afternoon) and noted that the word "lotting" on page 38 should be changed to "platting". He also noted several other typographic errors. Mr. Fisher had also read the minutes of May 29, 1980 and June 4, 1980 (Afternoon) and did not find any errors. Miss Nash had read the minutes of July 16, 1980 and August 20, 1980 and did not find any errors. Mr. McCann had read the minutes of October 1, 1980 and found no errors. He had also read the minutes of October 8, 1980 and noted that the first paragraph on page 320 is incorrect and should read as follows: "Mr. McCann said another matter was also discussed at the meeting. The insurance company has indicated it.s 'willingness to pay for replacement of the building, and pay for it. However, if no building is put back on this site and the County settles with the insurance company now, the settlement will probably be only one- half of the amount that could be received if the building were rebuilt." Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes of May 21, 1980 (Afternoon), May 29, 1980, June 4, 1980 (Afternoon), July 16, 1980 (Night), August 20, 1980 (Night), 06tober 1, 1980 and October 8, 1980 with the corrections noted above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and IacHetta. Mr. Fisher requested that the minutes which were not approved t~day be placed on the September 2, 1981 agenda. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Accept conveyance of right-of-way, Route 641. Mr. St. John then presented a deed to consummate the agreement made by the Board with Mr. Spencer F. Young to take the new section of Route 641 into the State System using some Rural Addition Funds if the right-of-way was donated and the road constrUcted by Mr. Young. Mr. Spencer Young was present and noted that Mr. St. John had suggested a paragraph be added to the deed whereby the County would accept the right-of-way. However, he has not yet been able to obtain all of the signatures. Mr. St. John said he felt the matter is in order and the Chairman can be authorized to sign same. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to authorize the Chairman to accept the conveyance of right-of-way on Route 641 and sign same on behalf of the County by signing the following deed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. THIS DEED made and entered into this 9th day of July 1981, by and between JOHN C. HASKELL, JR., Trustee of the Maple Ridge Land Trust, pursuant to the terms of a certain land trust agreement dated December 10, 1979; SPENCER F. YOUNG, divorCed; THOMAS S. EDWARDS and WINIFRED O. EDWARDS, husband and wife; and B.W.L. & M., INC., a Washington, D. C., corporation, the Grantors, and THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, the Grantee, W I T N E S S E T H: IN CONSIDERATION of the benefits accruing or to accrue to the said Grantors by relocation, construction or other improvements of a portion of State Route 641 along, through and over the lands of the Grantors, the said Grantors do hereby GRANT and CONVEY with GENERAL WARRANTY and ENGLISH COVENANTS 338 August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) OF TITLE unto the Grantee, each as to the land that each Grantor owns and hereby conveys, being the strip of land forty feet (40') in width, lying twenty feet (20') on each side of the centerline of the new road being shown on plat of Stearns L. Coleman, C.L.S., dated April 1, 1981, which plat is attached hereto, recorded albng with and made a Part of this deed, being shown on said plat as beginning at the northern boundary of Lot 2 and continuing down to the southeastern boundary of Lot 6 on said plat. For sources of title for the land hereby conveyed see deed to John C. Haskell, Jr., Trustee, dated December 20, 1979, recorded in Deed Book 687, page 168; deed to Spencer F. Young dated December 17, 1975, recorded in Deed Book 586, page 626; deed to Thomas S. Edwards and Winifred O. Edwards, dated September 21, 1961, recorded in Deed Book 371, page 576; and deeds to B.W.L. & M., Inc., dated June 30, 1975, recorded in Deed Book 577, pages 410 and 412. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. On April 8, 1981, the Board took action and advised him that this addition was to be done partially by using Rural Addition Funds. Therefore, if the right-of-way is in order, a resolution would be appropriate to request the construction of the road be undertaken by parties other than the Highway Department and with only $4,500 taken from the Rural Addition Funds. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt ~the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindst~om, McCann and Miss Nash. None. ~' Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is hereby requested to add a section of road beginning at a point on State Route 641 alsng the frontage Of the B'.'W.L. & M., Inc., property; thence with the new relocated Route 641 in a southerly and southeasterly direction approximately 1,350 feet to tie back into State Route 641 along the frontage of Thomas S. Edwards, to the Secondary System of Albemarle County pursuant to Section 33.1-229 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended. FURTHER RESOLVED that all construction of this road is to be uhdertaken by parties other than the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, with only $4,500 of Rural Addition funds being used for gravel; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board does guarantee the Commonwealth of Virginia an unrestricted right of way of 40 feet with necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage; recorded in Deed Book 727, page 697. Agenda Item No. 4c. Discussion: Road in Woodbrook Subdivision. Mr. Agnor noted that a great, deal of correspondence dated from 1974 to 1978 had been submitted to the Board regarding Eastbrook Court in Section 10 of Woodbrook Subdivision. Mr. Agnor then reviewed the sequence of events relating to Eastbrook Court. On August 4, 1976, a resolution was adopted by the Board requesting the Highway Department to accept Eastbrook Court into the State Secondary System. In February 1977, a letter was received from the Highway Department noting additions to the Secondary System. However, Eastbrook Court was not included. A letter from the Highway Department was sent to the County Engineer's office stating that Eastbrook Court was excepted from secondary approval and would not be eligible until there was proper service which means a sufficient number of homes on the subject road. There was a great deal of correspondence between the County Attorney's Office and the Resident Engineer regarding the amounts and dates for the release of road bonds being held on this subdivision. However, the County Attorney's office was not aware that Eastbrook Court had not been accepted into the State Secondary System. The correspondence between the two offices only referred to Sections 9 and 10 of Woodbrook Subdivision and streets were not specified. The County Attorney's office had recommended that the road bond be released since the year of performance on the roads had been satisfied. Mr. Agnor then noted that even if the County Attorney's office had be~ aware that Eastbrook Court was omitted in the acceptance there was no provision under Section 15.1-466 of the State Code which allowed the County to hold the bond money. Recently the residents on Eastbrook Court contacted the Highway Department to ask correction of washing of gravel which had occurred. It was at that time that the Highway Department advised them that the road was not in the state system and therefore they could not correct the problem. Mr. Agnor said after considerable communication between the County Attorney's Office, Highway Department and the County Engineer's Office, Mr. J. Ashley 'W~lliams, Acting County Engineer, had estimates made as to the amount of funds necessary for the road to be accepted into the State Secondary System. The work which includes clean-up of loose gravel, patching some low spots and placing a final seal coat on the cul-de-sac is estimated to cost $940.00. The maintenance fee to the Highway Department which is required by the State to the end of the fiscal year is estimated to cost $225.00 which is $25.00 per month for nine months. The Highway Department also requires a performance bond of $3,750.00. Mr. Agno? said the question now is who will pay for the work. The County Engineer's Office recommends that since the bo~d moneY.was released before Eastbrook Court was accepted, that the County is responsible. Mr. Agn0r said the County has several alternatives for handling this matter. Mr. St. John has noted that the County is not responsible because the state law did not allow the County to retain the bond money and having to return the bond money before the road was accepted in the system has no bearing on getting the road into the system. Another alternative is for the County to appropriate the funds and hire a paving contractor to make the necessary repairs and post the maintenance fee as noted above. The developer could also be required to provide the funds and there is a provision in the State Code where the County and developer participate in the costs. Another alternative is for the residences on Eastbrook Court to participate in this matter by providing some funds to have the road accepted into the system. ~k~~_~l~8_!__(_R_ e g~ lar Day__Me et ing~ Mr. Lindstrom asked who Mr. Agnor was referring to as the developer. Mr. Agnor said Equitable Insurance Company assumed the bankruptcy of the developer and even though Equitable is the responsible party in this matter, he did not feel they were aware that Eastbrook Court had not been accepted into the State Secondary System. A brief discussion then folloWed on the legal aspects of this matter. Mr. St. John restated the current provisions of the state law and those in 1978. Based on those provisions, he did not feel the County had any choice in 1978 but to release the bond. Mr. Agnor felt the County did have some responsibility in this matter and perhaps should communicate with Mr. Fitzgerald or Equitable Life for a solution to the problem. He did not feel the present homeowners should be requested to participate in solving the problem. Mr. St. John felt the County would first have to expend the funds for the necessary work before Mr. Fitzgerald or Equitable Life would'become responsible. The homeowners are the ones that dealt with Equitable and'Mr. Fitzgerald and therefore should contact them about participating in the costs. Mr. Fisher said it appears that the owners of the property and the sellers of the property are the ones responsible since the County was prohibited by State Law from doing anything different. Mr. Fisher then asked if there, were any lots on Eastbrook Court that were not built upon. Mr. Williams said one which'fronts on Eastbrook Court. Mr. Fisher then asked if all the lots had been sold. Mr. Andy Meade said yes. Mr. Agnor again stated that the only reason he felt the County had involvement in this was because Equitable was never notified that the road had not been accepted into the State System. Mr. St. John did not f~el Equitable had yet been notified. Mr. McCann said Equitable should perhaps be notified to See if they are willing to pay any of the costs. Mr. Lindstrom felt due to all the confusion ia this matter that the County should attempt to get this problem cleared. He also was unsure if Equitable had any reason to be responsible because they took over a secured positilon that they had in a bankruptcy situation. He then asked where the funds would come from to provide for this necessary work. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the funds ibe taken from the County Engineer's budget. Mr. McCann asked if the maintenance' fee co,uld b.e waived. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said !no, but the one-year performance bond could be waived since he felt the Highway Department might also have some responsibility in this matter. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that in consideration of the Highway Department's willingness to waive the performance'bond, that $1,165 be allocated from the County Engineer's budget to resolve this problem; which is $940 to have the paving work contracted and $225.00 for the maintenance fee to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and also to adopt the following resolution: 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 Section 10 of Woodbrook Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+00 on Eastbrook Court, ~a point common to the centerline intersection of Eastbrook Court and Eastbrook Drive station 21+83.15, as shown on the plan and profile of Eastbrook Court revised dated March 10, 1976, as prepared by W. S. Roudabush and Associates; thence with Eastbrook Court in a southwesterly direction 250 feet to station 2+50, the end of Eastbrook Court in Section 10 of Woodbrook Subdivision. 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 560, page 116. AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that since the developer of Woodbrook Subdivision is no longer financially accountable for this subdivision, the Board of Supervisors hereby requests that the one year bond to guarantee construction of this road be waived. Mr. Fisher then requested that the staff identify any other streets in the County which might be similar to this situation in order to resolve the problems before building permits or other transactions occur. Mr. McCann seconded the motion and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and I-achetta. Agenda Item No. 4b. ZMA-81-22. Willoughby Corporation. (Deferred from July 8, 1981.) This matter was deferred from July 8, 1981, because Mr. Roy Parks, representing the applicant, requested deferral. The request was originally heard by the Board on June 17, 1981, and deferred to July 8, 1981, in order to receive information regarding the roads in the Willoughby PUD. (See the minutes of June 17, 1981.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then reviewed the proposal for ZMA-8!-21 (Request set out in the minutes of June 17, 1981.) Mr. Tucker said the following three issues necessitated the deferral on June 17, 1981: 1) The developer wanted to eliminate a bridge proposed to connect Willoughby to private property (James River Supply) across Moores Creek. If the bridge is eliminated from the master PUD plan, is there another public dedicated road giving access to that property? 340 Augus~ i~8~ (Regu~? Da~ Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the basic issue is whether the James River Supply property has any access to Fifth Street other than through~ Willoughby. Mr. Tucker said there is an access which shows ~s an eighty foot right-of-way from Fifth Street to just across Moore's Creek, and from that point to the James River property, there is a sixty foot right-of-way. 2) Comments from the Highway Department regarding the requested reduction in road standards throughout the Willoughby development. 3) Compare long term maintenance costs of a grassy swale to costs of curb and gutter and possible potential problems with each. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if there is a legal eighty foot right-of-way serving all of the property that would have been served by this bridge. Mr. Tucker said yes; according to deed book references there is'~access from Fifth Street. Mr. Tucker said the problem he had with the PUD plan was eliminating the connection so that a person would have to go out to Fifth Street from the PUD in order to get to the commercial area. Mr. Lindstrom said the commercial area is to serve the internal needs of the people who will be living in the PUD. If these people have to go out onto Fifth Street, it reduces the commercial as part of the integral plan. Mr. Tucker said if the full seventeen acres is developed commercially "it is much more than necessary to serve Willoughby. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and noted that it was not until the Planning Commission meeting that he and members of his office were aware that there was a fifty foot right-of-way planned for the development at some later date. Mr. Roosevelt said that creates a ~robtem With the sizing of'the road. Mr. Roosevelt said if Harris Road is used a great deal then the Highway Department has to be certain that it is properly sized. If a crossover were placed at the entrance where Harris Road and Fifth Street intersect, there would not be a problem with having to go onto Fifth Street, down Fifth Street, and then back into the commercial area. Mr. Tucker said no crossover is planned for that area. Mr. Lindstrom felt elimination of the bridge would simplify the issue for the Highway Department. Mr. Tucker agreed. Mr. Fisher asked about.the development of a commercial area on Fifth Street without the connecting bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said there is quite a large amount of commercial land which could be developed which would have to use the U-turn. Mr. Roosevelt said he preferred eliminating the fifty foot right-of-way noted in Condition #6. Mr. Fisher asked if the bridge is eliminated if it would be appropriat to build a smaller structure to handle pedestrian traffic. Mr. Tucker said if the bridge is eliminat~e~d he would recommend some type o~ access for pedestrian~. ,,_. ~ ~..~ ~ - _ .... ~, ~. ~~, . . . He said when the original PUD was approved in 1976 the plan showed a much higher density then is now proposed and he questioned if the commercial area shown would ever be developed. Therefore, he felt the commercial access should be dealt with when commercial land develops. Mr. Roy Parks said it would be difficult to ever have a major commercial development in this area. Mr. Fisher then asked if it was the desire to eliminate the commercial area on the overall plan. Mr. Tremblay said he would prefer to keep the commercial area even though the property is for sale. He did not want any limitations at this time. Mr. Fisher asked if such a deletion would mean that the right-of-way could be reduced and if the decision would have any bearing on design standards for the other roads in the section. ~. Roosevelt did not feel it would. Miss hash felt that someday there will be a need for c'~'$~aial in the area. Mr. Fisher said the applicant has the property for sale and has the right to develop it commercially. Mr. Fisher then asked if a pedestrian access between the properties should be placed as a requirement at the time the commercial area is developed. Mr. Tremblay said he had no objection to such a requirement but Would like to see the commercial reserved depending on the scale of future development. Mr. Fisher suggested that if such is agreed to by the ~oard, that the applicant and the planning staff work together on the language for such a condition. Mr. Lindstrom said the only condition he saw that dealt with such is condition 6. Mr. Tucker felt a specific condition was necessary. Mr. Lindstrom asked if language such as "note a right-of-way of sufficient width to serve pedestrian access" would be adequate. Mr. Tucker felt it would. Mr. Fisher said language about commercial usage needed to be included. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested the wording "construction of the access will be required at the time the remainder of the PUD is developed". The general consensus of the Board~was that such wording would be satisfactory. Mr. Roosevelt was present and discussed the standards of the road plans for acceptance of the roads into the State System. He felt the density in this area makes the area urban and recommended that the streets have a minimum thirty foot wide roadway with curb and gutter. Mr. Roosevelt also noted that maintenance problems will be created by parking of vehicles along the front of properties. Mr. Parks said the issue of parking is critical to the plan and he would like to make some changes in the present design. Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department has seen this plan. Mr. Parks said he has only spoken verbally with Mr. Coburn and Mr. Coburn recommended acceptance of the cul-de-sac design with grassy swales. It has been mutually agreed that there are not enough parking spaces. Mr. Fisher asked if it would be possible for the Highway Department and the applicant to discuss this problem and not involve the Board. Mr. Parks said the on-site parking will be increased under his new proposal, and he felt a condition could be added requiring a grading plan for each lot with the appropriate drainage design, be provided by the developer. Another condition wou~d be that drainage design and calculations be approved by the County Engineer and the Highway Department. A condition could be added requiring the developer to post a bond to insure compliance with the intent of the plan. Mr. Parks said the most important OOndition to insure the developer' performance with the proposed plan would be to have the project monitored by the Institute of Environmental Negotiation. Mr. Fisher said that would require the County to delegate its enforcement authorization to an institution that is dependent on non-governmental funding. August 12, 1981 .(Regular Day Me~ting) Speaking next was Mr. Bruce Dotson, Assistant Director of the Institute of Environmental Negotiation. Mr. Dotson said the role of the institution as an enforcer is not what is intended, but rather that the offices provide a place to work out wordings, planning and things of that nature. A brief discussion followed on the length of time that the institute is expected to be funded and the timetable for development of this PUD. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, was present and concurred in the statements of Mr. Rooseyelt about .design and maintenance problems in the urban area. Mr. Williams .said these roads are designed to be shown across the drainage lines and they will not have the grades that require curb and gutter, but this is a large lot development and he could not see any problem with the Highway Department accepting the roads. Mr. Williams said the County Engineer recommends 18 months for the bond on curb and gutter and 18 months after all the lots are developed and accepted into the state system. Mr. Lindstrom said if the bonding is only to maintain the grassy swales, then he did not think that he was willing to agree to that proposal. If the bonding proves not adequate for the grassy swales plan, then there has to be enough money for the curb and gutter. Mr. Williams did not feel it would be a great problem because the roads would be accepted into the state highway system. Mr. Lindstrom said the County has a responsibility to provide a good selection of moderate housing but he was concerned that by waiving basic standards this area could turn into a slum within ten years. Mr. McCann was not inclined to let the developer experiment with this kind of development because it is strictly urban, and will most likely be in the City in the future. He felt the grassy swale concept was beautiful and the large lots are no problem, but he was not willing to waive a standard recommended by the Highway Department. Mr. Agnor did not feet 18 months is an adequate time to prove adequacy of a drainage system particularly, if it is dependent upon the homeowner maintaining a portion of the system. Therefore, he felt that was the reason the Highway Department recommended cupboard gutter. Even Mr. Parks recommendation for double parking on the lot does not eliminate the problem. Miss Nash agreed with Mr. McCann and Mr. Agnor. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the bond would be sufficient to cover the cost of the curb and gutter if such became necessary. Mr. Parks said the bond could be set on the basis that it would be sufficient to bring the curb and gutter to standards. A brief discussion followed and Mr. St. John felt there would be a problem with such a bonding requirement. Mr. Fisher said the general feeling seems to be that this area is urban and the roads should meet standards. Mr. McCann then offered motion to approve ZMA-81~2~,~[~!~ii~u~hby Corporation, with the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 154 duplex units on 45.0 acres. Location and acreages shall remain substantially the same as the approved plan (except where revisions are required to meet conditions contained herein). Open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved on a final plat. 2. Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect all changes, approved land uses, road alignment, recreational uses, etc. Submit three copies to the Planning Department prior to final plat submittal for Phases II and III. 3. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance by the State in accordance with the following: I. VDH&T Subdivision Road Standards (Modified by the Planning Commission on June 9, 1981) Harris Road From existing portion to A: 36 Face to Face Cat. V Pavement 50 Right-of-Way From A to B: 36 Face to Face Cat. IV Pavement 50 Right-of-Way Prom B to C: 36 Face to Face Cat. III Pavement 50 Right-of-Way From C to end of cul-de-sac: 36' Face to Face Cat. I Pavement 50' Right-of-Way Sidewalk and curb combination along north side of road with curbing on sou~h side. S-5 surface course. On-street parking allowed. Canary Lane From Harris Road to.A: From A to end of cul-de-sac: 30' Face to Face Cat. III Pavement 50' Right-of-Way 30' Face to Face Cat. I Pavement 50' Right-of-Way 342 August 12,% 19~r Da~ Meeting) 10. 11. 12. 13'. Sidewalk and curb combination on west side of road with curbing on east side. S-5 surface course. On-street parking allowed. 14. 15. 16. 17. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Roads 1-4 and 6-10: Road 5: 30' Face to Face Cat. I Pavement 40' Right-of-Way Curbing on both sides of road. allowed. 30' Face to Face Cat. II Pavement 40' Right-of-Way S-5 surface course. On-street parking 4. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention provisions prior to final plat review by the Planning Commission. 5. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service Authority. 6. Note a right-of-way of sufficient width to serve as access to the commercial and residential uses across Moores Creek from Phases I, II and III, and reduce the open space by that amount. Construction of the access will be required at the time the remainder of the PUD is developed. 7. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements to include the maintenance of recreational equipment, open space, 'drainage and appurtenant structures. 8. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval. 9. Staff approval of active recreational facilities to comply with the 50 square feet per unit requirement in the Zoning Ordinance prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Only those areas where roads, utilities, buildings, or other improvements are located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. Evidence of an adequate building site on each lot shall be provided prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat. No buildings shall be constructed on slopes greater than twenty-five (25) percent. Removal of temporary package treatment plant prior to final plat approval of affected lots. Revise the plan to allow for two (2) parking spaces per unit. Driveway entrance locations for each lot will be reviewed with the final road plans. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: Fruit Growers Site Plan. (Site plan showing Fruit Growers Complex, White Hall District, Albemarle County, Virginia, drawn by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc., dated December 16, 1980 and revised June 10, 1981.) Mr. Fisher said the following letter dated July 1, 1981, was received from Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman of the County Planning Commission: "Dear Mr. Tucker: I hereby request further consideration of the site plan submitted by Crozet Fruit Growers to the Planning Commission, and heard by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1981. At that time, the Commission approved the plan by a 3-2 vote. The plan had been before the Commission at an earlier date and was deferred until such time as the concerns of the Commission and staff had been addressed. These concerns included the establishment of a front parcel line, approval by the Health Department of several septic systems, and written agreement concerning parking arrangements with the adjacent property owners. I do not believe these concerns were sufficiently addressed by the applicant and appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, as a member of that body. I feel strongly that the businesses represented on this parcel are vital establishments within Crozet, and do not object to their presence, but I do feel they must meet the requirements of our ordinance now in place." August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 343 Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Location: Parcel 01-65, tax map 56A(1) and parcel 02-27, tax map 56A(2) located on the north side of Route 240 and the east side of Route 810 in Crozet. White Hall District. Acreage: 1.57 acres Zoning: C-i, Commercial History: VA-79-26 - On June 12, 1979, the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request for relief from Section 7-2 of the ordinance which required 40,000 square feet per use with only one public utility. VA-79-31 - The Board of Zoning Appeals allowed another public hearing for the request noted above. VA-79-64 - The Board of Zoning Appeals granted relief from Section 7-2 of the ordinance on October 9, !979 subject to the following condition: 'That no business will be changed such that will increase the capacity of sewage intake in excess of 480 gallons for the two existing systems~ which are undefined, and the 750 gallon system, and the 500 gallon system; and subject to further conditibn that when sewage does exist along the road, that the owner of the property be compelled to hook-up to the sewage line.' SP-79-69- A request for a veterinary clinic was approved by the Board of Supervisors on December 19, 1979 with conditions. VA-8t-36 - The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance of twenty-five parking spaces on June 9, 1981. The variance was granted with the conditions that any change in the parking would require a site parking and that twenty spaces could be provided on the Crozet Fire Department site based on their agreement. Proposal: To locate various exi~sting uses at the existing Fruit Growers complex including commercial, retail, office, medical and dental, library, storage, shop and craft shop uses. Topography of Area: Level to sloping in the rear of the site. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 810, from Route 240 north to Route 1216, carries 2860 vehicle per day and is listed as nonto!erable. Route 240~ from RoUte 250 east of Crozet to Route 810, carries 2880 vehicles per day, and Route 240, from Route 250 south of Crozet to Route 810, carries 3,415 vehicles per day. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna and Beaver Creek watersheds. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Crozet Community recommended for commercial uses. Type Utilities: Public water is available; sewer is not. Staff Comment: This site is currently developed with nine uses. One. additional use is proposed in building #6 which falls within the antique, gift and craft category in the zoning ordinance. Staff is concerned that several requirements of the ordinance may be difficult to meet. In a case such as this, where most of the buildings are occupied, conditions of approval may be difficult to enforce. Staff feels that the items listed below fall into this category. a. Drainage facilities: This site is exempt from the Runoff. Control Ordinance since the applicant is not proposing an increase in impervious coverage on the site (i.e. paving, new buildings, etc.). A review of the drainage facilities is required to show that drainage will not increase as a result of implementation of the site plan. b. Parking requirements per use and whether a cooperative parkin~ arrangement can be made with the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. Section 21.7.1 requires that parking spaces be located i0 feet from any public street right-of-way. The closest parking space to Route 240, shown. at the southeast corner of the site, is only about three feet from what appears to be the right-of-way for Route 250. Section 22.3 gives the Commission the authority to waive, modify, or vary th~s requirement if such action is in keeping with the character of the area and if the alternatives satisfy the public interest to an equivalent degree. The applicant has shown on the plan that the storage space proposed does not require any parking spaces. Staff feels that if the storage areas directly serve commercial or retail space (this is not specified on the plan), a minimum of two customer parking spaces should be provided for each such use. The staff has determined that a minimum of 77 parking spaces would be required for the complex if this is the case. The Deputy Zoning Administrator has determined that no parking spaces are required for the storage areas if no retail business is conducted from those areas. If the Commission agrees that no parking for storage space is required, 67 parking spaces should be provided on the site. In any case, the applicant feels that a cooperative parking agreement can be reached with the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department. c. Ownership and or dedication of right-of-way and parcels shown on the plan. The Highway Department commented that the C & 0 Rai,lroad may own the land on the south side of the site at Route 240. The Highway. Department has an agreement~ with the C.& 0 for the use of Route 240. If this is the case, permits for commercial~ entrances should be obtained from the C & 0 as well as the virginia DePartment of Highways and Transportation. Dedication for a 50 foot right-of-way along Routes 240 and 810 is required by the ordinance. d'. Health Department approval of existing septic systems and location of drainfields to be shown on the plan. Staff feels that the Health Department should review the adequacy of the existing septic systems and drainfields for each use that is located at the complex. Staff has had no indication from the applicant that this has been accomplished. August 12, 1981 ~Regular Day Meeting~ As the Commission will recall, this plan was deferred from the February 24, 1981, Planning Commission meeting to March 17, 1981, so that additional information could be submitted. The applicant requested indefinite deferral of the site plan from the March 17, 1981 meeting to gather this information. The staff requested that all of the material be submitted at least 10 days prior to the meeting the applicant wished to attend° As of June 19, 1981, the staff has only received the revised site plan. Should the Planning Commission~choose to approve the plan with the information submitted to date, the following conditions are recommended by staff: 1. Certificates of occupancy for these uses will be issued when the applicant has met the following oonditions: f. g. h. County Attorney approval of cooperative parking agreement, if needed; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and C & 0 Railroad approval of commercial entrances where needed; Health Department approval of septic systems and drainfields serving all uses on the site and note drainfields on the plan; Dedication of right-of-way for Route 810 and Route 240, if applicable, and note the centerline of Route 810 and Route 240; Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; Fire Official approval of gas pumps; Staff approval of landscaping as required in article 21.6 of the Zoning Ordinance; Dedication of right-of-way to public use on Route 240 may require the relocation of o~e parking space." Mr. Tucker noted receipt of letter from Mr. Jeffrey T. McDaniel, Sanitarian for the Health Department, dated June 17, 1981 as follows: "I have checked the septic systems for Crozet Pizza and the dentists' office. At the time of the inspection, the systems were working properly and met the needs of the proposed business. The other buildings have not been properly checked and I am not sure what type of sewage disposal they have. Mr. Rausch claims that there is a septic system~ but he also states that he can't find it. We have not received any complaints concerning this 'system', nor are there any obvious signs of leakage in the area. Unfortunately,~.~I cannot approve this system since we have no evidence of its existence. I also have no idea if there are any places available for alternate sites for the existing systems. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on June 23, 1981, approved the site plan with the conditions recommended by the staff but changing condition 1.d. to read: "Dedication of right-of-way for Route 810, if applicable, and note the centerline of Route 810." and by adding condition 1.i. to read as follows: "Size of parking spaces and aisles must comply with specifications in the zoning ordinance." Mr. Fisher asked why this site plan was appealed to the Board. Mr. Tucker said this is one of the prime locations for commercial uses in Crozet. There is a lot of space in the building and the attempt is to renovate the spaces for retail-oriented commercial uses. Mr. Tucker said every time an individual site plan was submitted there was a problem with adequate parking. Therefore, the owner of the complex decided to get site plan approval for the entire complex to avoid having this problem each time he applied for a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Fisher asked if the septic tank location is known. Mr. Tucker said there is supposedly one system that the Health Department cannot locate. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was any intent to add onto the building since the site is essentially fully developed. Mr. Tucker said no. Mrs. Norma Diehl, who appealed the site plan, was present. She noted that the Fruit Growers Complex is important to Crozet and is expected to continue growing. The Planning Commission deferred the site plan in February due to several concerns and requested the applicant to come back with more information. One particular concern was the ownership of the property on Route 240 to determine the authority to grant permits for commercial entrance and whether a fifty foot wide or a seventy foot wide entrance would be required by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Another request was health department approval of the septic systems and the location of the drainfieids to be placed on the plan. A request was also made to eliminate one parking space on the southeast corner of the site adjacent to Route 240. Mrs. Diehl then noted that the elimination of the parking space was the only request which was accomplished when the site plan was returned to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Diehl expressed concern that there is no definition of the property line in front of the property. Mrs. Diehl also noted that there are questions about whether or not there needs to be additional parking easements from the Crozet Fire Department. Mrs. Diehl also noted conflicting information about the the septic systems. Speaking next was Mrs. Benjamin Dick, attorney for Fruit Growers. He introduced Mr. Rausch, manager of Fruit Growers. M~.~. Ra~'~ch said Fruit Growers has been in business for sixty-five years. He felt this meeting is unnecessary and the basic problem is something personal between, his attorney and Mrs. Diehl. If there had been any seepage, he would have corrected the Problem. Mr. Rausch said the County approved up to four hundred gallons a day water consumption for the business and he has been careful to not have any high water consumption businesses in the complex. As for the septic tanks, he felt the old one was buried under the fill in the back of the building years ago. Mr. Rausch said plumbers have used dye to try and locate the system without any luck. Mr. Rausch then noted that there is an agreement between the County and Fruit Growers that once public sewerage is available, the complex will connect to the system. August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 345 Speaking next was Mr. Tyler, the prospective renter for the space in the back of the complex. He noted that the space would be adequate for his use and urged favorable considerati of the matter. Mr. Fisher then pointed out for the record that Mr. Dick was the County's Zoning Administrator at the time some of the uses went into the building and had ruled at that time that they did comply with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Dick felt the records would show that he had ruled that the uses were not an expansion of a nonconforming use but were new uses and therefore the certificate of occupancy was forbidden. He noted the situation with Fruit Growers when he was retained as the attorney to handle this situation. He said there is no intent on the part of the Complex to build anything new and he felt that in ten years the building will be obsolete and razed or put on a new building site. Mr. Dick further reviewed the history of the Complex's attempt to have approval of site plans. (The history of this is set out in the staff report.) Mr. Dick said in research of the right-of-way conducted by himself and Mr. Bryon Coburn, Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, the conclusion was that this right-of-way predated the highway department. There was a deed in 1972 whereby the Fruit Growers bought as much of the property as shown in the plan. Mr. Dick said he disagreed with Mrs. Diehl that the unfound septic system will be a health hazard. He also noted that the septic system which will serve this building has been approved by the Health Department and is of record. Mr. Dick then noted that the applicant will not have any need for a septic system. Mr. Fisher said if the location of the septic system is unknown, how does anyone know what will go into the system. Mr. Dick said through a process done by a certified plumber the conclusion is that there are only two toliets using that septic system. Mr. Fisher then noted that the response dated June 3, 1981 from Mr. D. W. Sandridge, Jr., President of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, does not indicate the number of parking spaces that the fire department will provide. Mr. Dick said a request was made to them for as many parking spaces as they would give and the response does state that additional parking spaces behind the fire company will be granted. However, a formal agreement will be obtained iff ~emes~ary. Speaking next was Mr. Lyle Waggoner, adjacent property owner. He said his property and the Fruit Growers property slope together and drain toward the back of the property. Mr. Waggoner said he has lived here since 1963 and never had a problem with raw sewage. noted that there is an open ditch and there is no effluent that has to go through the system. In conclusion, Mr. Waggoner said he did not have any problem with the request. Mr. Tucker said if this site plan is approved he would recommend that condition 1.c. be deleted since the Health Department has stated that they will not approve the septic system until there is firm evidence that one does exist. Mr. Dick said the entire parking lot would have to be dug up in order to determine the location of the septic system. Mr. Fisher said if the site plan is approved, then the system cannot be used. Mr. Waggoner restated that the septic system is buried under the lot and the original system is under the C & 0 lot. A brief discussion followed about the unidentified septic system and the Health Department's approval. Mr. McCann said he did not understand why the Health Department has to be involved at all. The system which has been there for years is working and handling the existing facilities. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the Health Department conditions could be waived or even require the Health Deartment to waive same because they have a statutory responsibility. However, he felt the addition of such a condition on site plans is important because it puts the owner on notice. Mr. Lindstrom said it is well known by all involved in this matter that the septic system has to be approved by the Health Department before it can be used and the condition does not add or detract from the site plan. The only thing the condition does is preclude the plan from being signed for final certificate of occupancy before the Health Department has approved the septic field. Mr. St. John then suggested that a condition be added stating that there would be no further hook-ups made onto the unidentified septic field until such has been approved by the Health Department. He did not see that the condition was actually necessary for what was being requested. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the Fruit Growers Site Plan with the conditions of the Planning Commission but amending condition 1.c. to read as follows: "No further hook-ups shall be allowed to the alleged (unidentified) septic field unless approved by the Health Department; all other drainfields shall be noted on the plan." Mr. St. John added that he felt the concern about the boundary lines and the parking spaces voiced by Mrs. Diehl could be taken care of administratively. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 4d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following letter dated July 23, 1981, from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Enginee~ for the State Department of Highways and Transportation: "As requested in your resolutions dated January 14, 1981, May 13, 1981 and June 10, 1981, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approwed, effective July 23, 1981. -346 August 12, 1981 [Regular Day Meeting) ADDITIONS LENGTH Meriwether Hills Subdivision Leeds Lane - From Route 1602 to N.W. 0.15 mile to end of cul-de-sac 0.15 Mi. Peacock Hill Subdivision Turkey R~dge Road - Extension of Route 1621 - From 0.49 mile west of Route 1620 to 0.63 mile west of Route 1620. 0,14 Mi. Turkey Ridge Road - Extension of Route 1621 - From 0.63 mile of Route 1620 to 0.74 mile west of Route 1620. 0,.~11 Mi. Big Oak Road - From Turkey Ridge Road to end of cul-de-sac. 0.20 Mi. Camellia Gardens Albert Court - From Route 1455 0.12 mile east to Route 1455 again. 0.12 Mi. Wy_~i.~g~ Subdivision From Westfield Road, clockwise 0.32 mile to Westfield Road. 0.32 Mi. Westfield Road - From Route 852 northwest .0.!4 mile. 0.14 Mi. Running Deer Subdivision Whitetail Lane - From Route 808 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.25 Mi. Totier Hills Subdivision Fieldcrest Drive - From Route 20 southwest 0.35 mile. 0.35 Mi." Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the acquisition of the right-of-way on Georgetown Road with Dr. Word and Mrs. Hathaway. Mr. Roosevelt said he had contacted Dr. Word and he has rejected the Highway Department's offer and procedures are underway for condemnation. Agenda Item No. 6. Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad Agreement. in the afternoon session of the meeting.) (To be discussed A~anda Item No. 7. utility lines. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority re: sizing of Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present and reviewed the following letter dated July 28, 1981: "Dear Miss Nash and Gentlemen: The ~oard of Directors of the Service Authority has instructed me to advise yo~ df a dilemma facing the Service Authority. On several occasions recently we have been faced with deciding how to size utility lines at the edge of our jurisdictional areas. While a pipe of a certain size may adequately serve an area within our jurisdictional boundary, a larger size line would be necessary should expansion ever take place beyond the boundary. The small cost of providing a larger pipe init'ially would only be a fraction of the cost of replacing the small pipe with a larger one in years to come. While the Service Authority appreciates the Board of Superviso.rs' intent in amending our jurisdictional areas to conform to the Comprehensive Plan it must be recognized that the useful life of a utility line (60 - 100 years) is much longer than the permanence of any boundary for development. Any decision by the Board of Directors to oversize a line at. the perimeter of a service area is certainly not intended to be an affront to the Board of Supervisors or an incentive to growth beyond designated growth areas but the exercise of good planning for the long range service ability of the utility system. We hope to influence orderly development in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan while insuring a usable utility system for generations to come. The Board of Directors would appreciate your thoughts on this matter. If I can provide any information or be of service, please do not hesitate to contact me. Mr. Fisher felt this letter should be sent to the Planning and the legal staffs for comment. He felt this is necessary because the implications should be known both for future planning and if this would compromise the attempts to channel growth into the designate growth areas. Mr. Lindstrom felt the statute which provides for a Comprehensive Plan recognizes the flexibility of such a plan since the plan has to be reviewed every five years. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel it was unreasonable to have a larger sized line. Mr. St. John said density and height regulations could change to the point where there is high density and this is a decision that should be left with the Albemarle County Service Authority Board. ~~s~t 12~ 1981 (Regular Da~ Meeting) 347 Mr. Fisher then suggested this matter be deferred to the September 9, 1981, meeting in order to receive comments from the planning staff and the legal staff. Mr. McCann felt when subdivisions are conditioned for Service Authority approval of water lines and sizing and such subdivision is not in a designated jurisdictional area, he has a lot of problem with that. He has received a lot of complaints from engineers that they cannot go to the Service Authority and pick up specifications for what is re-quired. He was unsure if the Service Authority had any connections outside of their jurisdictional boundary and he would like to know more about that. H~i~i~f~t. agree with Mr. Brent's statement that a water line would not be an incentive to growth because the Board has stated that they would like growth where utilities are. Mr. Brent said the letter stated that the Board of Directors states that it is not their intent to create an incentive to growth. Mr. McCann disagreed and felt that utilities woul~ be an incentive. With no further discussion, the matter was deferred to September 9, 1981. Agenda Item No. 8 through Agenda Item No. 11. the meeting. These items were deferred to later in Agenda Item No. 12. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program - Quarterly Report. Miss Ann Paul, Executive Director of the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program, was present to present the fourth quarterly report for Fiscal ~ear 1980-81. She also summarized the cumulative summary of the services provided by AHIP during its first five years of service, July 1976 through June 1981. Ms. Paul noted that the major work of the program is the housing rehabilitation program. She noted that 154 jobs have been completed during the five year period. She also noted that attempts are being made to educate people to care for their.homes. Ms. Paul then noted the self-help program. Ms. Paul continued to discuss the services provided and the trends and. changes with statistics which reflected the five year period. Mr. Fisher expressed his appreciation for the report and felt the information was helpful. At 12:31 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch 'and reconvened at 1:43 P.M. Agenda Item No. 13. Review of extension of natural gas service by City of Charlottesvill into certain ~areas of the County. Mr. Fisher said he had requested that the board review this matter after the Planning Commission action to insure compliance with the Board's policy of limiting utility extensions to growth areas of the County. Mr. Fisher then recognized Mrs. Elizabeth Gleason, member of City Council and Mr. John V. Berberich, III, Director of Public Works for the City. Mr. Tucker said this review is made under Section 15.1-456 to determine if the utilities are in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He then presented the following staff report: "Charlottesville proposes to extend natural gas pipelines to serve areas along Route 250 West, Route 29 North and Route 250 East. Ail lines would be located within existing Virginia Department of'Highways and Transportation rights-of-way along these highways and therefore would not affect individual properties, except in regard to entrances during construction. (Permanent application is under Highway Department review at this time.) In locations where a pipeline would cross a river, the crossing would be accomplished by attaching the pipeline to the bridge structure and therefore would not affect the river or impede canoe/boat passage. Route 250 West to Ednam Forest and Ednam PRD: This project would serve existing uses in the area as well as Ednam PRD which is currently under construction. An old line exists to the Institute of Textile Technology; it would be used as a sleeve for the new line. This project would be entirely within the Urban Area and staff recommends that the project substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Route 29 North to Badger-?owhatan and General Electric: Located along the northbound lane, this project would provide service in the Urban Area, Hollymead and Piney Mountain growth areas. Staff recommends that this project substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan. Route 250 East to the S. L. Williamson Asphalt Plant, east and adjacent to Luck Quarries: While this would be a 6" trunk line, line pressure would be low enough to serve customers directly off the line. This project would serve the Pantops area of the Urban Area as well as the number of customers outside the Urban Area. The major user on the line would be the asphalt plant which would be expected to consume large quantities during summer months. Staff opinion is that natural gas is not a growth-generating utility to the same extent as water, sewer, and electricity; natural gas is not as essential for development as these utilities. While natural gas is a locational consideration for certain industries, the Comprehensive Plan does not recommend that industries be restricted to locating in designated growth areas. Therefore, while the portion of this project outside of the Urban Area may not be clearly consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, staff would not expect the presence of this utility to cause substantial pressure for development (water and sewer are not available)." Mr. Tucker then noted that a list of letters supporting the proposed gas service expansion are on file in the Department of Planning. 348 August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr Fisher then asked if any areas which are not considered for growth in the Comprehensiv~ Plan are included in the City's proposal. Mr. Tucker said the only area is the Route 250 East line. Mr. Fisher said if the City would restrict connections to approved growth areas and this was clear and in an agreement, he would not have any problem. Mr. Tucker said there is no such agreemen~ and he was not aware of any mention of such an agreement. He then noted that the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed expansion at its meeting on August 4, 1981, feeling it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St John said water and sewer facilities are spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan but the only thing on natural gas is the paragraph on page 33 which recites the various companies that have transmission pipes in the County. Therefore, he did not feel that the Comprehensive Plan assigned gas to any particular place. The discussion he had with Mr. Roger Wiley, City Attorney, was purely on the procedural question of whether the City had to go through this process. Mrs. Fisher then asked Mr. Berberich if any sort of contract had been considered to limit service to growth areas where development is encouraged and not to expand into areas where the County does not want growth. Mr. Berberich said the City's position is that gas is fuel and that it is not beneficial to a piece of property unless water and sewer are also available. In direct answer to the question, Mr. Berberich said restrictions have not been considered as he felt that control is in the hands of the County. After a brief discussion, Mr. St. John said he did not feel this gives the City any leverage to promote growth. Mr. St. John said he would like to see some restriction on the gas line to say that they would not serve parcels of property not designated for growth even if they were developed along these lines. Mr. Fisher asked why the City was any different as a public authority then the county service authority. Mr. St. John said the only answer he can give is that the planning staff has found factually that water and sewer has a much greater impact on decision making. Development is also much more affected by water and sewer than gas. A brief discussion followed between the Board members on the proposal. Mr. Lindstrom felt the key distinction is the fact that sewer and water promote higher density and gas is an attractive asset to an area. Mr. Fisher felt that the extension of this line through the County's growth areas will help implement the Comprehensive Plan. However, he was concerned about the nongrowth areas that the line may go through. Mr. St. John said the general feeling is that this will not be a precedent which will hurt the County. Mr. McCann felt this should be handled in the same manner that electric companies are and that is that such is not the only alternative available but is the most economical. He felt this would be beneficial to the customers using the line. This will conserve energy and extends a service in other parts of the county. Mr. Fisher then asked if there were any other comments. Hearing none, he asked if Board action was necessary. Mr. St. John recommend the matter be disposed of by motion. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reaffirm the decision of the Planning Commission that the expansion is in compliance with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he was still concerned about the undesignated areas but did feel this would help in the areas desired. However, if such promotes development, then a review may be necessary. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 9. Reappropriations. Mr. Agnor then presented the following memorandum dated August 4, 1981, from Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance: "A reappropriation is a method by which monies allocated in one year are carried forward to the next year to cover an expense for a program or project which was incurred in one year and was not complete or invoiced on June 30th. Following is a list of invoices received in late July after the close of the books for the fiscal year 1981. 3201-7001 CODE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 9103-5654 Emergency Medical Services Council - Contribution $ 1,303.00 Fire Department - Equipment purchase (County share of a used rescue vehicle purchased jointly with the City) 1,250.00 91G3-5627 Tourism Bureau 2,480.18 2103 Magistrate's Office 156.76 3505 Emergency Services 444.17 2105-6003 Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court 1,249.37 1214.1-3002.04 Real Estate - Professional services- (for 1981 microfilm work) Real Estate - Furniture & equipment (for tape reader/printer to allow the use of tapes made of deed by the Clerk's office to make property transfers on tax records) Board of County Supervisors - Professional services - central police dispatch study - (consultants hired to conduct study). Total 1214.1-7002 1101-3002.06 3,500.00 4,864.00 1,545.18 $162792.66" August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 349 Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. McCann~ to approve the foregoing 'reappropriations from the General Fund and coded as set out above. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 11. Audit of Mental Health Department. Mr. Agnor said in the 1980 General Assembly, Virginia Code Section 37.1-195 which assigned the duties of performing an annual audit for the Mental Health Department to the fiscal agent, was amended. The County is the fiscal agent for the Mental Health Department and the Director of Finance is the fiscal agent. In previous years the auditors for the Mental Health Board were selected by the Region X Board. However, the firm which has performed the audit in the past has just completed the 1980 audit and the County has not yet received a copy. That procedure is unsatisfactory. Annual reports have to be submitted to the State Auditor's Office within the next sixty days and the County cannot continue to wait. Therefore, Mr. Jones requests authority to officially designate the firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox as the auditors for the Region X Mental Health Board operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1981. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the request to employ the auditing firm of Robinson, Farmer and Cox Associate~ to do the 1981 fiscal year audit for Mental Health. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 6. Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad Agreement. Mr. Agnor said when the Capital Improvements Program was reviewed in July, the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad had asked for funding for a $168,000 building project on Berkmar Drive but somehow the request was not included in the Planning Commission's review. The Rescue Squad has $90,000 of their own resources and is asking for assistance in financing the other $78,000. The Capital Program was adjusted to show the request and funding was shown in 1981'82 Capital budget at a level of $62,500. The difference between the request and the recommendation was based on the current level of appropriations made to various rescue squads. Other such requests have been calculated on the current level of funding in order not to force an increase in the level of funding. At the July meeting, the Board requested that an agreement be drafted and this has been done. After a meeting with Rescue Squad members, the agreement was rewritten around the Squad's ideas of repaying the financing in advance of a 10 year period of time and increased to $78,000. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that before any action is taken that the Board go back to the level of funding that is provided for the other squads. Mr. Fisher said the County has been putting pressure on the Rescue Squad to build the building on Berkmar and now that they are trying to get the money together, he would hate to keep them from proceeding. Mr. McCann suggested that the Squad borrow money like they have done in the past. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve the following agreement between the Count~ and the Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad for the payment of $78,000 to the rescue squad and authorize the Chairman to sign same. Mr. McCann asked i£~ this was for repayment of the funds over longer than 10 years. Mr. Lindstrom said the Rescue Squad evidently anticipates reimbursing the County in the first year for more than the amount that their County allocation would be. Mr. McCann did not favor doing more than what has been done for other volunteer Rescue Squads and Fire Departments because he felt ten years is a long time for repayment. Miss Nash suggested changing "repayments" in the~ last line of the third paragraph to "contributions." Miss Nash then seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he will not support the motion. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. THIS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of August 1981, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, (the "COUNTY") and the CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE RESCUE SQUAD, INC., a Virginia corporation, ("Rescue Squad'S); W I TNE S SETH: Factual Background: (a) Citizens of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, have organized a volunteer rescue squad designated as the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad, Inc., whi'ch currently is providing rescue squad services in the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. (b) The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has entered into a lease with the Rescue Squad, dated August 9, 1979, for that parcel of land located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia, off Berkmar Drive, containing two acres, more or less, and designated as Parcel X, Parcel ¥, and that portion of Parcel Z which adjoins Parcel Y and lies south of a red line, as shown on a site plan entitled "Satellite Station for Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad and Fire Station for Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department", by Samuel E. Darnell, Architect, dated November 21, 1978. The Rescue Squad proposes to build a headquarters building on this site. 3'50 August 12, 1~981~ (Re~gular Da~ Meeti~_~ (c) The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County wants to insure that essential rescue squad services continue to be provided to citizens living in Albemarle County. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and obligations herein contained, the County and Rescue Squad agree as follows: 1. Services Provided. The Rescue Squad agrees, beginning July 1, 1981, and continuing thereafter for a period of ten (10) years through June 30, 1991, to construct a Rescue Squad building and operate a rescue squad therefrom on the leased site referred to above for the citizens of Albemarle County, Virginia. 2. Payment for Services Provided. In consideration of the services to be provided by the Rescue Squad pursuant to this agreement for the fiscal years 1981-82 through 1990-91, the County shall pay to the Rescue Squad the sum of $78,000.00. Such payment shall be in lieu of future annual payments to the Rescue Squad for the fiscal years 1981-82 through 199.0-91. Payment of the $78,000.00 shall be made as needed by the Rescue squad from a draw-down account held by the Director of Finance of the County. 3. The Rescue Squad, at its option and without any legal obligation so to do, may elect to reimburse the amount contributed by the County, $78,000.00, to the County at any time during the term of this agreement. At the time of such reimbursement, the County may reinstitute annual contributions to-the Rescue Squad. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to prevent additional appropriations by the County to the Rescue Squad, at the discretion.of the Board of Supervisors of the County, to augment the serv±ces to be provided by the Rescue Squad. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Public Hearing Date to Amend an Ordinance for real estate tax exemptions for Elderly and Handicapped persons. Mr. Agnor noted that the DirectOr of Finance has requested an amendment to the ordinance on real estate tax exemption for certain elderly and handicapped persons to provide that mobile homes shall be real estate for the purposes of this ordinance provided that certain conditions are met. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom and seconded by Mr. McCann to set September 9, 1981 as the public hearing date. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 11. Department. Review of Operating and Capital Budgets for Data Processing Mr. Agnor said there was an appropriation request in July in the amount of $350,000.00 from the Capital Budget for the start up costs of hardware, software, and supplies for the new Data Processing Department. Questions were asked at that time as to whether a decision had been made on purchase or lease of the equipment. Mr. Fred Kruger, Data Processing Manager, has drafted a response dated August 7, which was mailed to the Board. Mr. Agnor said the total cost for the next two years of getting the department in operation is estimated at $471,650 and this amount should come from the Capital Budget. Mr. Agnor said $85,187 is also needed as an adjustment to the Data Processing operating budget. Mr. Agnor then recommended an appropriation from the Capital Fund in the amount of $271,650 for the Data Processing Department and also an amendment to the 1981-82 budget in the amount of $85,187 for various line items in the operating budget with the combination of the two being $350,000. Mr. Fisher said almost everyone he knows is leasing equipment and he did not understand why the County was considering purchasing. However, he would rely on Mr. Agnor's opinion. Mr. Agnor said the equipment has been ordered but the purchase contract has been left open on whether to buy or lease the equipment. Mr. Jones is attempting to analyze what the return on the County's investment would be if the County did not tie up money in a capital purchase but instead went the lease route and kept the money invested. With the uncertainity of what future investment income will be, Mr. Agnor said he is inclined to go the purchase route. Mr. Agnor reiterated that all is dependent on what the interest rates will be. Mr. Agnor said due to the closeness of the options, he was inclined to accept the consultant's recommendation of two years ago and purchase the equipment. Mr. Agnor said a final decision has to be made this month and if the staff determines that the investment benefit would be greater by keeping the capital invested, then the staff will lease the equipment and he favored the staff having that option. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $271,650.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund Capital Outlay to Code 9700-7060.02--Data Processing. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. August 12, 1981 (Re~u~r Day Meeting) 351 Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $85,187.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund Capital Outlay to Code 1210--Data Processing for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1982. Roll was called on the ~_egoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and !achetta. Agenda Item No. 14. Annual Review of Pay/Classification Plan (General Government Employees only). Mr. Agnor said the Pay an~ Classification is reviewed annually by his office for any changes determined to be necessary. He then presented the following amendments recommended for inclusion in the plan, effective August 1, 1981: "1 · Reclassifications: Data Processing: Hiring experience and market surveys indicate that four Of five classified positions in this department should be reclassified as follows: Position Range Manager Pro~rammer/Analyst Operations Supervisor Computer Operator Data Entry Operator Present Taxable Salary Proposed Range Taxable Salary. 24 20,995-29,659 26 23,147-32,787 16 14,201-19,993 19 16,449-232147 16 14,20~-19,993 19 16,449-23,147 12 11,683-16,449 No Change 6 8,6~7-12,271 8 9,582-13,515 New C&assifications: Data Processing: A secretarial position planned for this department is an existing classified job, entitled Secretary II, Range 9, taxa~le-'s~y $10,070-14,201. Specialized responsibilities cen~red around documentation of programs and their controls makes this position sufficiently different from the present classifications to justify a sepe~e classification specifically for Data Processing. It is th~r~e:~ecommended t~at a position be added entitled Secretary/Documentationist, Range 10~ taxable salary $10,583-14,909. Reorganization: Parks/Recreation: The current classified positions of the Parks/RecreatiOn~ Department a~e.'~as follows: Position Range Director Recre~a~on Programs Coordinator Parks Manager (2) Greenwood Center Director Equipment Operation (2) Groundskeeper (2) 22 13 ~3 9 9 7 The operations have been organized around four parks divided between two managers, plus recreation programs coordinated among numerous sites. The department has been administered for some time between the Recreation Coordinator and the two Parks Managers. It is proposed that a reorganization be affected between these positions and among existing employees, which will result in the department being divided into the two operating divisions as its title indicates, the Parks being combined under one manager, who will share equal responsibilities to the recreation coordinator, as follows: Position Director Recreation Coordinator Park Manager Park Foreman Present Range Taxable Salary 22 19,039 - 26,788 ~3 12,271 - 17,280 13 12,271 ~ 17,280 None Proposed Position Range No Change Recre&~ion Supervisor 16 Parks Superintendent 16 Park Foreman 11 Taxable Salary ~4,201 - 19,993 14,201 - 19,993 11,683 - 16,449" Mr. Agnor said the position of a director of parks has been vacant for two years waiting on a committee recommendation on the coordination and/or combination of the city and county parks department. However, since no request has been received, he recommends tha~' ~h!s pom~ti~n be filled. Mr. 'McCann expressed concern that a position reclassified could increase fourteen to fifteen percent. He asked if this meant that a person would immediately go up another jump in salary over their salary at the beginning of the year. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Agnor further explained the procedure involved in reclassifications and noted that by rearranging the jobs in the Parks and Recreation Department, that budget will be cut by $7500. 352 August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the above amendments to the Pay and Classification Plan with same being effective August 1, 1981. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 15. Vehicle Usage Policy. Mr. Agnor said the Board has been concerned for a number of years about the utilization of County vehicles and the way in which they are made available to the employees. The use of vehicles was examined by the consultants when the Pay and Classification Plan was reviewed two years ago. However, the use of a vehicle was assumed to be included in the responsibility of the job. Mr. Agnor said in previous discussions with the Board, he had recommended that the facilities at the new County Office Building would provide the capability of having a centralized motor pool. One reason being the availability of a vehicle during the working day for people to use and ample space for overnight parking. Mr. Agnor said a committee of employees was appointed to work on a usage policy. The committee was composed of general government employees. The School System was also invited to participate. However, they elected to wait until the committee had completed its work. A draft was composed by the committee and reviewed by the department heads. The department heads suggested to the committee that a paragraph be added referring to disciplinary action. Mr. Agnor said his recommendation is to adopt the following policy with same being effective on October 15, 1981. The reason for the two months delay in the adoption is to allow those persons now driving county vehicles home at night time to make other transportation arrangements. County owned vehicles are to be furnished for use on official county business. PersonNel who are required to perform county business (including meetings) after regular working hour will be furnished county vehicles, or be reimbursed for any approved use of their personal vehicle. C. Temporary Assignment: County vehicles may be parked at an employee's residence or other prearranged location on occasions when the department head determines that the employee has need of it for county business after normal working hours, when the employee is subject to emergency calls after normal working hours, or when the department head determines for some other reason that it would be in the best interest of the county. D. Permanent Assignment: County vehicles are not to be used solely for commuting purposes by any county employee. Employees who are permanently subject to emergency after hours calls (for example, sheriff's department, fire prevention officer), with the approval of the department head and county executive, may be assigned a county vehicle that can be regularly parking at his/her residence or other designated spot. A department head, with the approval of the county executive, may determine that it is in the best interest of the county for an employee in his/her department to be allowed to regularly park his/her vehicle at his/her residence or other designated spot. County vehicles are to be operated with due regard to safety, traffic laws, courtesy, common sense, proper maintenance, and in a manner that would reflect proper conduct for a county employee. F. Disciplinary Action: An employee who wilfully violates this policy shall be disciplined as follows: First offense - letter of reprimand in employee's personnel file, probation on vehicle use and operation for one year. Second offense - within twelve months of first offense - demotion and loss of use of vehicle, if assigned. 3. Third offense - within twelve months of second offense - dismissal. Mr. Fisher asked if the intent of paragraph A is that county owned vehicles will be furnished only on official county business. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the word "only" be inserted between "use" and "on" in paragraph A. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested that the words "for such after hours work" be inserted at the end of paragraph B in order to clarify that language. Mr. Fisher felt paragraphs A and D are subject to broad interpretation. Mr. McCann did not feel that paragraph D(1) was necessary. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Mr. Agnor said a person would be allowed to use a vehicle to go to a meeting and then go home in the vehicle. Mr. McCann felt it would be simplier to reimburse the employee for the mileage driven in their personal vehicle and preferred the County vehicles be kept off the road because he has heard a great number of complaints. Mr. Lindstrom felt paragraph C covers the commuting aspect and therefore paragraph D(1) could be eliminated. Mr. McCann was concerned about deputy cars and asked if the Board had any control over use of those vehic es. Augu. st 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 353 M~. Agnor said legally the Board does not have any control over those vehicles, but the Sheriff has said he will participate in this policy. Mr. Fisher then asked about paragraph D(2) and D(3) pertaining to the use of a vehicle with the approval of the county executive; in specific, if there was some mechanism requiring the assignment of a vehicle to be reviewed periodically. Mr. Agnor said that would be done annually when the budget for the department is reviewed. Mr. McCann felt it wouid be helpful to have a list of those people who are permanently on call. Mr. Fisher then asked about the use of vehicles by social service workers. Mr. Agnor said they are normally compensated. Mr. Fisher then asked about those persons having temporary or permament assignment of a vehicle being permitted to carry county or noncounty riders. Mr. Agnor said inclusion of such a statement has been recommended for the personnel handbook; passengers other than county employees would be prohibited. Mr. Fisher expressed concern about paragraph F(2) and asked if a person'is assigned a vehicle as specified under Part D and commits a second offense, would the person loose his job particularly since the job requires the vehicle. Mr. Agnor said no, F(2) refers to the person being allowed thin,park the vehicle at his/her residence. Mr. Fisher then suggested the words "under Part D" be inserted at the end of paragraph F(2) to clarify the matter. A brief discussion then followed on the commuting of school buses from the bus drivers home to the school. Mr. Agnor noted that this policy does not apply to the school system unless the Schoot Board so desires to adopt the policy. Miss Nash felt the wording should be clarified as to whom the policy is applicable to. Mr. Agnor said that could be done. Mr. Fisher suggested leaving the policy as it is because the School Board may also desire to adopt same. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the foregoing vehicle usage policy to be effective October 15, 1981, with.the following changes: insert the word "only" in paragraph A between "use" and "on"; insert "for such after hours work" after "vehicle" at the end of paragraph B; delete paragraph D(1); and insert the words "under Part D" at the end of paragraph F(2). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16a. Appointments: BOCA Code Board of Appeals. Mr. McCann nominated and offered motion to reappoint Mr. L. A. Lacy to the BOCA Code Board of Appeals with said term to expire on August 21, 1986. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item'No. !6b. Appointments: Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Fisher said this pos±tion is for an at-large member and since two Board members are absent today, he would prefer to wait until the entire Board is present. The members present concurred. Agenda Item No. 16c. Appointments: Jordan Development Corporation. Miss Nash offered motion to reappoint Mr. Walter Oslin to the Jordan Development Corporation with said term to expire on August 13, 1982. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16d. Appointment: Land Use Classification Appeals Board. Mr. Fisher said the term of all three of the present members serving on the Land Use Classification Appeals Board expire on September 1, 1981, and he would recommend ~eappointment of all members. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reappoint Messrs. Dan Maupin, Samuel Page and Montie Pace to the Land Use Classification Appeals Board with said terms to expire on September 1, 1983. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16e. Appointment: Welfare Board. Miss Nash offered motion to appoint Mrs. Regina G. Withers to the Welfare Board as the replacement for Mr. J. D. Johnson. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mr. Agnor asked if Mr. Johnson had spoken with any of the Board members about a recommendation he had. The Board members had not heard from Mr. Johnson. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if this vacancy had been advertised. The Clerk said this was not included on the list for advertisement. Mr. Lindstrom felt if some vacancies are advertised then all should be. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would prefer to check with Mr. Johnson on his recommendation. Miss Nash then withdrew her motion as did-Mr. McCann his second and the appointment was deferred to another meeting. 3:54 August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 16f. Appointments: Other. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. Richard G. Roane to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals with said term to expire on November 21, 1986. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. Fisher 'said several weeks ago the Board assigned him with the responsibility of making appointments to a committee to be known as the Crozet Interceptor Committee. The committee was to be comprised of two Board members, the County Executive and the Watershed Management Official. Mr. Fisher said he would like to add the Director Of Planning to the committee because some of the questions concern planning aspects. Mr. Fisher said Mr~ Henley has requested that he not be appointed. Since the idea for the committee was Mr. Lindstrom's, he would ask him to serve as chairman. Mr. Fisher said his district is in the route of the proposed Crozet Interceptor, so he wouid like to serve on the committee. Mr. Lindstrom said he would suggest that the committee meet after this meeting today. Mr. Agnor then recommended that Mr. William A. Sullivan be appointed as the Director of Staff Services. Mr. Sullivan is presently an employee of the County Inspections Department and has applied for this position. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to appoint Mr. William A.. Sullivan as the Director of Staff Services with said appointment effective this date. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. Agnor said more time is needed to recruit a County Engineer. Since Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, has been acting as county engineer for the last six weeks, he would recommend that Mr. Williams be appointed interim Acting County Engineer until the vacancy is filled. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of Mr. Agnor. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 17. Request Authority to have transcript of Central· Virginia Electric Cooperative suit typed. Mr. St. John samd the Central Virginia Electric CoOperative/case has been concluded and Judge Berry's opinion is lengthy and involved. In o~de~ t~/=---draw the final order and mzens o e Bo ~¢~ the s m ms needed of explain the decision to the cit' and t th ard, a ~ u't ' these observations. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to authorize Mr. St. John to have the Central Virginia Electric Cooperative suit transcribed. Mr. Agnor noted that when the costs of this are known, a request for a special appropriation will be made. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr~ Agnor said arrangements have been made to move to the new County Office Building on September 25 and 26, 1981. Unpacking will be done on September 26 and 27 with business to be resumed on September 28, 1981. This means that the offices which are being moved will be closed on September 24, 1981, at 5:00 P.M. and not be reopened until September 28, 1981. Mr. Agnor then requested authority to close the offices which will be involved in the move on September 25, 1981. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr. McCann seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom said recent reductions and eliminations of federal and state funding for programs will affect the County significantly. Therefore, he felt the County should develop some criteria to handle funding requests. Mr. McCann objected to the County funding any more social service programs than it currently funds and agreed that some method of evaluation is needed. Mr. Fisher agreed that a concept is necessary~ but said the staff is not in a position to make policy decision. Miss Nash noted that the Planning District Commission is working on something similar. The Planning District staff is requesting the administrator of the jurisdiction to review programs to determine ~hat demands might be made to the General Assembly for state funding. August 19, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) August 12, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 355 Mr. Lindstrom t~en requested that the staff review social service agencies and obtain the following information: A review of all agencies offering social service programs to see if there is duplication of programs. An evaluation of current programs that might suffer funding cuts from the Federal government in the future. 3. A criteria to evaluate programs on a consistent basis. The Board concurred in the request for the above information. Miss Nash then expressed concerns about possible plans that the Charlottesville Housing Foundation is contemplating by combining the elderly care facility in the Scottsvilie area with low income nonelderly people. Mr. Agnor understood the plans are a substitution of the elderly project. The Charlottesville Housing Foundation is placing an emphasis on low income housing in the Scottsville area. Mr. Agnor said the Charlottesville Housing Foundation is moving off in a direction that the county has some concerns about. Miss Nash said it was impossible to put' the two groups together. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated July 27, 1981, from Mr. Harold King, Highway Commissioner: "This is in response to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors' resolution of October 10, 1979 requesting industrial access funds to serve State Farm Insurance Companies in Albemarle County. Your request has been reviewed in detail by all appropriate staff members and discussed with Mr. William B. Wrench, the Culpeper District Commission member, as well as with Mr. Larry Johnson of the Governor's Division of Industrial Development. Ail are in unanimous agreement that this facility does not qualify for industrial access funds within the prevailing criteria of the Commission policy and access law by virtue of the fact that it is an office facility, which is expressly ineligible under the policy. It has not been officially acted upon by the Commission in deference to a request by Mr. D. T. Zimmerman of State Farm Insurance Companies that it be delayed to allow him to discuss the matter with area members of the General Assembly. Subsequently and very recently, this has been the subject of considerable correspondence between the Department, members of the General Assembly, and principals interested in the project. However, no additional conditions have been brought out that change the status of the request. Usually when requests such as this are so clear-cut that favorable action by the Commission is remote, it suffices to notify the governing body of the Department's position. However, in this instance, if the Board wishes, we will put the matter on an early future agenda, but it will have to be with a recommendation for denial. I believe that past experiences with industrial access requests in Albemarle CouNty vividly point out our eagerness to cooperate with the Board within the framework of the law and policy. We remain willing to cooperate in this manner and do not close the door on th~ possibility of future qualifying industry in the Pantops Subdivision. Therefore, unless the Board expressly requests that this be formally presented to the Commission, you may consider the request denied." Not Docketed. At 4:26 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session to discuss legal matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. MCCann, to adjourn into executive session as requ~ested by Mr. Fisher. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Iachetta. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:55 P.M. Agenda Item No. 19. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. ~IRMAN August 19, 1981 (Regular Night Meeting) The regular meeting of August 19, 1981 was cancelled by vote of the Board on June 3, 198~