Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-12-09December 9, 19~1 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 9, 1981, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #'7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom, Layton R. McCann and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: None. Officers Present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to order. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Mr. Fisher who stated that a group of persons interested in the Crozet Interceptor had attended ~ a meeting of the State Water Control Board in Richmond yesterday. This delegation consisted of Thomas J. Michie, Mitchell Van Yahres, Jim Murray, Elizabeth Gleason, George Williams, Mr. Fisher and a group of private citizens from Crozet. Their purpose was to try and convince the State Water Control Board to retain the funding for the Interceptor in the priority order that their staff has recommended for the 1983 fiscal year. Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted that there had been a change from the tentative agenda in that receipt of the 1980-81 County Audit has been removed from the consent agenda and placed on the main agenda and will be discussed later in the meeting today. Item 2.3. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for November 1981. Item 2.4. Statement of Expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of November, 1981, along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of the Jail physician, classification officer and paramedic salaries. Item 2.6a. Lottery Permit for American Legion Post 74, Inc. for games to be held during the Calendar Year 1982. Item 2.6b. Lottery Permit for Faculty Professional Association of Piedmont Virginia Community College for a raffle to be held on May 15, 1982. Item 2.6c. Lottery Permit for B.?.O. Elks No. 389 for games to be held on Wednesday nights from 7:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. during the calendar year 1982. Item 2.6d. Lottery Permit for the Brownsville PTA for a raffle to be held on a Saturday in either April or May 1982. Item 2.6e. Lottery Permit for Scottsville Volunteer Fire'Department, Inc. for games to be held each Saturday from 8:00 to 11:00 P.M. during the calendar year 1982. Item 2.6f. Lottery Permit for Virginia Wing Civil Air Patrol for a raffle to be held on March 5, 1982. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the above items as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Item 2.1. Letter re: Brownsville Wastewater Treatment Facility. "November 23, 1981 Mr. Guy Agnor County Executive County of Albemarle County Office Building Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Dear Guy: Reference is made to your request for information on reducing the phosphate contibution from the Brownsville Wastewater Treatment facility. We have considered three options for achieving a reduction as follows: 1. Construction of an advanced wastewater treatment facility. 2. Modification of the existing facility to provide for chemical addition including coagulation and sedimentation. 3. Reduction of phosphate contribution at the source. While no detailed design work has been done, it is fairly obvious that option one and two above would be expensive and, in light of the short term nature of the facility, probably not justified. However, the most effective procedure in this case would be to use an established public health principal and attack the problem at the source. Since the vast major%ty (greater than 90%) af wastewater into this facility is generated at Western Albemarle High School, Brownsville ElemenTary School and Henley Middle School, the quickest and least expensive way to achieve a significant reduction (50 - 70%) would be to request the School Board to ban the use of phosphate based detergents at these three facilities. After considering cost and benefits of the three options, it would appear that this is the logical approach in this case. 468 December 9,1981 (Regular Day Meeting) If I may be of assistance in this matter, please let me know. Sincerely yours, (Signed) George W. Williams Executive Director" Mr. Lindstrom said he felt this Board should request the School Board to ban the use of phospate based detergents at the three schools mentioned in Mr. Williams' letter. He offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Item 2.2. The following letter dated November 12, 1981 from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was noted as being received. "As requested in your resolution dated August 12, 1981, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective November 12, 1981. ADDITION WOODBROOK SUBDIVISION LENGTH Eastbrook Court - From Route 1417 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.05 Mi." Item 2.5. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of October, 1981 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Item 2.7. Report of the County Executive for the month of November, 1981 was received as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Also received were claims against the County which had been certified, allowed and ordered paid by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of November, 1981. Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 951.66 621,831.19 2,062,506.01 80,243.54 355,680.04 9,298.89 74,629.35 ,379.34 129,353.53 612.16 200,315.7~ $3,535,801.45 Item 2.8. Financial Statements of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board for the year ending June 30, 1981 were received as information. Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes: October 6 (Afternoon), October 13, 1980, January 7, January 27 and March 2 (Afternoon), 1981. Dr. Iachetta had read the minutes of October 6 (Afternoon) and October 13, 1980, and found no errors. Mr. Henley had read the minutes of January 7 and January 27, 1981, and found no errors. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of March 2, 1981, and found no errors. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway'Matters: Request for street name change. Petition dated October 16, 1981, was received from residents of Rivanwood whose properties are served by a street named Harrison Drive. The petition requests that the name of the.street be changed to Rivanwood Place. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Dr. Iachetta. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, the name of Harrison Drive in Rivanwood Subdivision be changed henceforth to Rivanwood Place. that The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) .69 Agenda Item No. 4b. Highways Matters. Vacation of right-of-way in Woodbrook Subdivision (deferred from November 11, 1981). Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a memorandum from Thomas W. Hurlburt, Clerk of the School Board, in which it is stated that the School Board adopted the following resolution at its meeting on November 24, 1981. The Albemarle County School Board has no objection to the vacation of the road set forth in the proposed ordinance, but requests the Board of Supervisors to require that a ten foot access easement be reserved for use by the school system as a walkway to Woodbrook School. Mr. Fisher asked if the County retained a ten foot easement in the vacated right-of-way, if that had to be shown on a plat and the plat then recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Mr. St. John said this vacation will take place through adoption of an ordinance and the easement can be described in that ordinance. He suggested adding a paragrapk in the ordinance stating "A ten foot public easement is reserved for use by pedestrians within ~he boundaries of the existing twenty foot utility easement for ingress and egress to Woodbrook School." With the suggested changed, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance. "AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE PORTIONS OF CERTAIN PLATS OF WOODBROOK SUBDIVISION, SHOWN ON RECORDED PLATS AS A PORTION OF "WILDWOOD ROAD": THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON PLATS RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 358, PAGE 297; DEED BOOK 374, PAGE 113; AND DEED BOOK 382, PAGE 287. WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land lying in Albemarle County has heretofore been subdivided under the name of Woodbrook Subdivision, the plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 358, page 297, as amended by plats of record in Deed Book 374, page 113 and Deed Book 382, page 287; and WHEREAS, Joseph J. Oswald and Serafina B. OsWald, husband and wife, are the owners of a certain lot in the said subdivision abutting a portion of a road shown on the said plats as "Wildwood Road"; and WHEREAS, the "Wildwood Road" has not been constructed and the said Oswalds have petitioned the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County that the said plats be vacated insofar as it effects the aforementioned street; NOW THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: 1. That the subdivision of Woodbrook Subdivision shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 358, page 297, Deed Book 374, page 113 and Deed Book 382, page 287 be, and the same hereby are vacated as to that portion of the said subdivision shown on the said plats as a public street~ shown thereon as "Wildwood Road", being all that portion of the said road remaining after a certain ordinance of vacation recorded in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 407, page 548. 2. The vacation set forth in Section ! of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded in the aforementioned plats. 3. Pursuant to Section 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plats the word "VACATED", and also shall make reference on the same to the volume and page on which the instrument of vacation is recorded. 4. A ten foot public easement is reserved for use by pedestrians within the boundaries of the existing twenty foot utility easement for ingress and egress to Woodbrook School. 5. Such vacation of a portion of the aforesaid plats shall be effective on December 9, 1981." The foregoing motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by'the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone knew when the CATS Study would be presented. Dr. Iachetta said that Ken Lance in Richmond is putting together all of the changes just made by the policy committee. As soon as that is done, a document will be prepared for City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Agnor noted that Wallace Reid, Chairman of the CATS Study Committee, had called to ask if Mr. Agnor would coordinate setting a joint meeting of the Board and Council possibly for. January 7, at 7:30 P.M. for presentation of this study. Mr. Henley noted that on the Millington Bridge going toward Free Union, someone had knocked the railing loose. Dr. Iachetta said that the contractor putting in'the gas line On Route 29 North is doing an atrocious job of regrading after the pipe is buried. He asked if the Highway Department could intercede to see that a better job is done. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked about the pedestrian pathway on Georgetown Road. Mr. Ashley Williams said he is supposed to talk to Ms. Gay Blair again after the first of the year. Dr. Iachetta said that he had recently been at the Ivy Creek Natural Area and there is some loose earth at the entrance which could be washed into the ditches and then into the reservoir if there were a hard rain. He asked if someone would check into this matter. Mr. Spencer Young was present to request that the Board abandon the public right-of-way in a portion of Route 641 that goes through the middle of his barnyard. Mr. St. John said he thought that the last time the Board discussed this matter that there was still work to be done on the new road which is replacing the road through Mr. Young's barnyard. Mr. Roosevell said that the Highway Department had supplied the stone for this new road under the Rural Addition law. Not all of the grading has been completed, but Mr. Young has said that when he brings a bulldozer in, he will complete the work. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the appropriate resolution for this abandonment be drawn and that this matter be placed on the Board's agenda in January, 1982. Agenda Item No. 4c. Appeal: Village Square Preliminary Plat (Village Square Preliminary Subdivision Plan, drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc. dated September 10, 1981, revised October 20, 1981. Property located on State Route 631, Rio Road, Rivanna Magisterial District.) and Phase I Final Plat. (Subdivision Plat of Phase One, The Village Square, located on State Route 631, Rivanna Magisterial District. Plat drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc., dated September 15, 1981, revised October 16, 1981.) Mr. Tucker noted that these plats had been appealed by Mr. Robert L. Van de Castle, an adjoining property owner who was present and would speak later. Mr. Tucker then read the following staff report: "VILLAGE SQUARE PRELIMINARY PLAT: Location: Parcels 180 and 181, Tax Map 61, Rivanna District, located on the west side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road East), south of the intersection with Rt. 768 and north of the Stonehenge development. Acreage: 19.272 acres. Zoning: R-4 Residential. History: The Oliver Heights preliminary and final plats were approved on this site by the Planning Commission on November 22, 1977 and February 28, 1978 respectively. This approval was for 46 lots with an average size of 13,974 square feet. Proposal: To divide the 19.274 acres into 91 lots intended for 25 single-family detached units, 14 duplex units, 30 triplex units, and 22 townhouse units. Topography of Area: Gentle and moderate slopes. Condition of Roads Serving 'Proposal: This section of Rt. 631 carries 9058 vehicle trips per day and is considered nontolerable. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils on the site have a sandy texture with rock at 48 inches. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located in Neighborhood Two of the Urban Area and is designated as low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre). School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 42 students which will require two additional teaching positions and spaces at the elementary and middle schools and an additional bus may also be required. Type Utilities: An 18" water Iine is located on the west side of Rio Road. The Meadow Creek interceptor is located on the opposite side of the creek. Waiver Requested: The applicant has requested that the Planning Commission waive the portion of the private road provisions that requires a State road (18-36(b)(4) & (5)). The townhouse portion of the plat is located on a privately maintained road off the end of the State road. Should the Planning Commission choose to grant this waiver, the following ~y~;,sUp~ort the decision: (a) Towne Lane leading to the townhouse section is proposed to be State maintained; (b) The design of the townhouses and parking areas prohibits acceptance by the State; and (c) Towne Lane is not a through road. Staff Comment: The County Engineer has given preliminary approval of the stormwater detention plan, stormwater drainage plan, and road plans and profiles. Also, the Fire Official has given preliminary approval of the fire flow and hydrant locations. Final approval of all these items is recommended in the following conditions. The applicant is proposing a 4550 square foot play area to meet the requirment for the provision of recreational area. In addition, two landscaped gazebo areas are proposed and a walking and bike path. The play area consists of a see saw, swing set and monkey bars and is proposed to be completed prior to approval for Phase II. The plans for the pathway are proposed to be submitted with the application for Phase III. Staff feels that the above recreational provisions are sufficient to meet the needs of the deYelopment. The applicant is requesting approval of bonus provisions to allow for a density of 4.72 dwelling units per acre (4.0 dwelling units per acre are allowed by right). The bonuses proposed are: dedication of 1.706 acres to public use not otherwise required; location within one-half mile of the Vocational Technical School; maintenance of existing wooded areas; and provision of significant landscaping. The maximum density increase permitted within the bonuses totalling 50% is 38 units. The applicant is proposing to use only 14 of these bonus units. December 9, 1951 (Regular Day Meeting) The applicant has submitted a plan noting the wooded areas to be maintained. These comply with the definition of wooded areas in the zoning ordinance. A plan for "significant landscaping" has also been submitted. Staff recommends approval of this plan with the addition of at least one street tree along the frontage of lots 7, 8, 9, 18-22, and 25 of Phase I, subject to Staff approval. Staff has also recommended a condition to save street frontage trees along the frontage of lots 10-17, Phase I. The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Recommend Conditions of Approval: 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation ~approval of road plans for acceptance into the State system; this includes the provision for on-street parking on Towne Lane, urban curbing, a sidewalk on the south side of both streets and the private entrance designs; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; internal plumbing and mechanical plans and specifications shall be approved by the Cross Connection Control Program; d. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plan, stormwater drainage layout; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; f. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant locations; g. Board of Supervisors acceptance of 1.706 acre parcel dedication for the McIntire Road Extension; h. County Attorney approval of homeowners agreement to include the main- tenance of stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures, landscaping and wooded areas; i. Staff approval of pathway specifications prior to approval for Phase III; j. Correct the bonus for location within one-half mile of the Vocational Technical School from 15% to 5%; k. Street trees shall be maintained on the frontage of lots 10-17, Phase I, subject to Staff approval and street trees shall be provided along the frontage of lots 7-9, 18-22, and 25 (at least one per lot), subject to Staff approval; 1. Street signs shall be provided. e Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the requested waiver of Section 18-36(b)(4) and (5), Staff recommends that the following conditions be added to #1: me County Engineer approval of pavement specifications for the privately owned portion of Towne Lane; County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the private portion of the road. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 27, 1981, approved the Village Square Preliminary Plat with the conditions recommended by the Staff including the waiver request to allow twentytwo townhouses to be located on a private road, however had dropped condition #f. Mr. Tucker continued by giving parts of the staff's report for the Village Square Phase I Final Plat. Most of the categories had similar wording and only those with differences are set out below. "Proposal: To divide the 8.54 acres into 25 lots with an average size of 8820 square feet, intended for singlefamily detached units leaving 10.73 acres in residue. The proposed density is 2.92 dwelling units per acre. The 8.54 acres includes the following: 2.14 acres in open space (25%); 1.34 acres in roads. Staff Comment: The plat showing Parcel X, 1.706 acres to be dedicated to public use for the extension of McIntire Road, is also being presented for the Planning Commission's information. This is for one of the bonus provi- sions requested by the applicant. Other bonus provisions include: location within one-half mile of the Vocational Technical School; maintenance of existing wooded areas; and provision of significant landscaping. Staff recommends approval of these bonus provisions with the addition of at least one street tree along the frontage of lots 7-9, 18-22 and 25, and to save street frontage trees along the frontage of lots 10-17. We have recommended that both of these be subject to Staff approval. This plat for the Phase I cluster requires the use of the bonus provisions because the average lot size is smaller than 10,890 square feet (four dwelling units per acre) due to the provision of open spa'ce. The density, however, is 2.92 dwelling units per acre. The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Reco~ended Conditions of Approval: 1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State system; this includes the provision for on-street parking on Towne Lane, urban curbing, a sidewalk on the south side of both streets, and the private entrance designs; 472 December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) do f. g. h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; internal plumbing and mechanical plans and specifications shall be approved by the Cross Connection Control Program; County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and stormwater drainage layout; Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant locations; Board of Supervisors acceptance of 1.706 acre parcel dedication for the McIntire Road Extension; County Attorney approval of homeowners agreement to include the main- tenance of stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures, landscaping and wooded areas; Street trees shall be provided along the frontage of lots 7-9, 18-22 and 25 (at least one per lot), maintenance of trees along the frontage of lots 10-17 subject to Staff approval; Street signs shall be provided." Mr. Tucker said that on October 27, 1981, the Planning Commission had also approved the Village Square Phase I Final Plat with the conditions recommended by the staff and set out above. Mr. Van de Castle was present and noted that he had appealed this plat because of the condition of Rio Road. He does not feel that the road can absorb additional traffic from more units. Mr. Van de Castle then elaborated on this appeal contained in a letter dated November 6, 1981, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. He also suggested that the Board put a moratorium on additional subdivision lots on Rio Road until some improvemenv is made to the road. Mr. Bill Roudabush, Mr. Horne and Mr. John Dezio were present to represent the applicant. Mr. Roudabush said this plan has not been criticized but rather has been complimented as showing a unique use of the Zoning Ordinance. Rio Road has been a problem for a long time and he does not think that this property should be singled out as the one which "breaks the camel's back." He said that knowing the alignment of the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway, he had suggested to the owners that they set aside property for the right-of-way so the land would be available for the construction of that road when needed. Ail recommendations of the Highway Department for improvements to Rio Road have been considered. He did not think that a moratorium on development in the area will solve any traffic problems on Rio Road. Mr. Fisher said the zoning already exists on this property. This site plan is for development under existing zoning. He said that under state law the Board has to have compelling evidence that some provision of the County's ordinances has been violated or that there is something wrong with the plat as presented. Both plats will stand approved by the Planning Commission unless this Board takes action to the contrary. Mr. Lindstrom said that this area of the County is shown in the Comprehensive Plan for development. He does not believe the Board can deny the plat just because of the condition of Rio Road. He is bothered by the fact that there are inadequate roads in the urban area, and in some of the communities, where growth has been slated. If the County has to wait for the Highway Department to come up with the money, the roads will never be fixed. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that at some time in the future, for the public's health, safety and welfare, the Board will have to think of some way to come up with road improvement funds locally. Mr. McCann said that this property lies in his district. He has talked to a lot of people who live along Rio Road and knows their feelings about City densities closing in around them. However, he did not think the problem of Rio Road will be solved at any time in the near future. He felt the Board should speak to its representatives in Richmond since these people are responsible for coming up with the funds needed for highway improvements. He did not feel the Board should take any action on this appeal and let the plat stand approved. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the County is approaching a critical point on roads in the urban area because higher zoning densities have been shown in the Comprehensive Plan where utilities are already in place. It seems as though the County will either have to make some drastic change in the Comprehensive Plan or come up with the money for repair of the highways. Mr. Tucker asked if the Board could take some action to indicate acceptance of the 1.706 acre parcel as noted under condition #g. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to support the Planning Commission's approval of these plats and to accept the dedication of the 1.706 acres for the Meadow Creek Parkway as shown on the final plat of Village Square as being the residue of parcels 180 and 181, Tax Map 62, located off State Route 631 in the Rivanna District, said plat drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc. and received in the Planning Department October 20, 1981. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Not Docketed. At this time a group of students involved in the 4H Youth-In-Government Day from Western Albemarle High School appeared at the meeting. Mr. Agnor noted that all of the students live in the Samuel Miller District and he then'introduced Beth Reilly, Jeff Moore, Carol Short, Gloria Mahanes, Dave Evekan, John Coopersmith and Dave Gillenwater. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting)~ 473 Agenda Item NoJ 5. Public Hearing: An ordinance to vacate plats of Section I and Section II, Miran Forest Subdivision. Mr. Fisher noted that there had been a mistake made in the advertisement of this ordinance so same could not be heard today. He suggested that this matter be deferred until January 13, 1982. Mr. Munger, attorney for the applicant, said that the CoUnty Attorney had studied the ordinance which he had prepared and had some objections to some of the language, therefore he had revised the ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if the new advertisement should state that it was a different ordinance. Mr. St. John said that did not make any difference since the clerk would distribute copy of the new ordinance at the proper time. Dr. Sam Caughron, one of the petitioners, was present. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer the public hearing on this request until January 13, 1982. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. '~ Agenda Item No. 6. Request to Transfer Self-Help Housing Funds. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the following memo from Russell Otis dated December 3, 1981: "In the County's 1978 application for Community Development Bloc Grant Funds (B-78-DN-51-0037), two activities were proposed. The first of these was that $150,210 be utilized to provide for the installation of wells, septic systems and bathrooms in approximately 26 low and moderate income households. The second activity proposed that $120,000 be spent for land acquisition and development for 15 to 20 residential lots. These lots were to be made available to low and moderate income families who wished to participate in the construction of their own homes, with technical assistance made possible by a Farmers Home Administration Self-Help Housing Grant. The County's Housing Coordinator and Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Director wish to amend that 1978 Grant by transferring $67,208.40 from the self-help activity to the housing rehabilitation activity. This amendment would reduce the number of families benefiting from the self-help activity by eight and would increase the number of families benefiting from the activity by eight to ten. This transfer would provide decent, safe and sanitary housing for these eight to ten families whose home would be provided with complete plumbing, without the necessity of additional federal funds as required by the self-help program. Additionally, the balance of the 1978 CDBG funds could be effectively expended within six months as opposed to the minimum of 18 months required for completion of a self-help program. The County must have this money spent within this time frame in order to be eligible for Community Development Bloc Grant funding in this year's round of applications. Furthermore, Albemarle Housing Improvement Program was originally established as a mechanism for rehabilitating owner-occupied houses in the County. Their present organizational structure is best suited for rehab work and allows for a much more efficient use of these funds in an expansion of the ongoing bathroom installation activity. Two public hearings were advertised and conducted by the County's Housing office on November 9 and November 10, 1981, to obtain citizen concerns regarding this transfer. No comments were received opposing or supporting the change of activities. It is therefore recommended and requested that the County Executive be authorized to sign this program amendment." Ms. Ann Paul, was also present from AHIP in support of the request. After a brief explan- ation to the Board of the necessity for the transfer, motion was offered by Dr. Iaehetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recommendation for a transfer. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Court Square. Employment of an architect for renovation of County buildings on Mr. Agnor noted that earlier in the year he had been authorized to negotiate for the renovation of the buildings recently vacated on Court Square. Negotiations were limited to the firm of Johnson, Craven and Gibson because that firm had already done preliminary design work a number of years ago for those buildings. A description of the project was sent and Mr. Johnson responded through the following letter: "3 December 1981 Mr. Guy Agnor, Jr. County EXecutive County of Albemarle Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Agnor: I write in response to your November 23, 1981 letter requesting a fee proposal from Johnson, Craven & Gibson for Architectural Services in connection with the renovation of the Circuit Court House Building and the adjacent former County Office Building. 474 December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) A review of your attached description of the scope of the project convinces us that it would be impractical and immature for us to submit a fee for the work to the Board until after the development of a program for the project which you indicate will be a part of the retained architect's responsibility. May I respect- fully suggest the following procedure for arriving at a professional fee for your consideration? 1. We will perform the study and prepare a program for the work in accor- dance with the requirements stated in Paragraph two of your 23 November letter attachment on a cost plus basis with a guaranteed maximum fee of three thousand dollars. ($3,000.00). a. After the scope of the work has been established, we will be pleased to negotiate a contract for professional services in accordance with the Commonwealth of Virginia's Manual for the planning and execution of Capital Outlays (The Blue Book), Chapter V, Architectural & Engineering Fees, Section 50.05 E. REMODELING. b. Furthermore in consideration to our past involvement with studies and drawings on file for alterations and additions to the two structures, we would be agreeable to negotiate a reduction in fee for such material used that will reduce our time envolvement in preparing the contract documents for the work. We will be pleased to comply if the Board requires additional information relative to this important work. Sincerely yours, (Signed) Johnson, Craven & Gibson By: Floyd E. Johnson" County of Albemarle, Virginia Court Square Renovation Project "Albemarle County plans to remodel the two County-owned buildings in Court Square (the Courthouse and the former County Office Building) to accommodate the space needs of the Circuit Court, the General District Court, the Clerks of these two courts, the Commonwealth's Attorney, and the bailiffs and process servers of the Sheriff's Department, including facilities for securing prisoners awaiting trial proceedings. The County's objective is to house the Circuit and General District Courts and other court-related offices in County-owned buildings, eliminating the rental of space for offices which the County is required to provide, and concen- trating the Circuit Court, General District Court, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, and court-related activities in close proximity to one another for the con- venience of the County citizens and the efficient operation of the County courts. Professional services will be required to develop a program for the location and space needs of the Circuit Court, General District Court, Circuit Court Clerk, General District Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, and Court officers of the Sheriff's Department. The architect will confer with the judges of the two courts, and with the principal officers of the several offices in assimilating the information needed for allocating space and preparing the floor plan design. The'development of the program should include the interrelationships of the offices On a daily basis, their access to the public, including the handicapped, the movement of people in and around the buildings, and the security of the employees, records and facilities. Following development of the program and space needs, the professional services shall include the preparation of plans and specifications for the renovation and remodeling of the two existing buildings including cost estimates and time schedules, the development of a site plan and the preparation of documents for submittal to the City of Charlottesville for reviews and approvals as required by City codes." Mr. Fisher said that he felt Mr. Agnor's description of the project should contain some wording which would definitely limit the scope of this project to the two existing buildings on Court Square. Mr. Fisher said he was upset because he had heard people say the County would have to build an addition to these buildings and the existing space has not really been investigated at this time. Mr. Henley said he shared Mr. Fisher's concern. Dr. Iachetta said that the Building and Properties Committee did not contemplate any major addition to either structure, only that the building be renovated as usable space for the courts and the Clerk of the Circuit Court. Mr. Fisher said that was his understanding, but he felt the matter should be clarified. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to authorize Mr. Agnor to enter into a contract with the firm of Johnson, Craven & Gibson to do the work as outlined in Mr. Agnor's scope of the project. Mr. McCann asked if this was for the study only and if negotiations for final plans are not successful with this firm, if the project can be advertise Mr. Agnor said that was correct. At this time, the motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8. Appointment: 1981, from Mr. Agnor was received: Building Official. The following memo dated December 3, "Mr. Hartwell Clark, who has served as Building Official for a number of years, retired on November 30. It is recommended that Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director of Inspections, be appointed Building Official to replace Mr. Clark. This appoint- ment will place the responsibilities and the authority of the Building Official's duties with the department head's position, as was planned in the reorganization of the department in 1977. The department head will delegate the work activities to a staff member of his choice, with the approval of this office. It is further recommended that the Pay and Classification Plan be amended as follows: 1. Director of Inspections position be reclassified from a Range 26 to Range 27. ~ 2. Building Official position be retitled Assistant Building Official, and reclassified from a Range 20 to Range 18." Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to accept the County Executive recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Smoke Detector Ordinance (An ordinance to amend Chapter 5 of the Code of the County of Albemarle by adding Section 5-6.1 relating to the installation and maintenance of smoke detectors in certain structures). Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 1981. Mr. Fisher made some brief opening remarks explaining the purpose of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Official, was present and spoke in favor of adoption of the ordinance. At this time, the public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. pon Wagner from Great Eastern Management C~orporation. He said they manage several hundred ~ apartments in the County and are in favor of installation of smoke detectors. Mr. Wagner said the City had considered a similar ordinance the other night, but had deleted a section which referred to "the owner of each unit which is rented or leased at the beginning of each tenancy and at least annually thereafter shall furnish the tenant with a certificate .... " He said that a certificate is furnished to the tenant at the beginning of each tenancy and then the maintenance of the unit is up to the tenant. He said this eliminates the bookkeeping problem for the managers who would have to be conscious of getting out a certificate annually. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a tenant leased for three years, if that time period would be considered the tenancy, even if the lease is renewed annually. Mr. Wagner said an inspection is done each time a person moves in an apartment in order to make a list of what is wrong in the apartment so there can be no questions about damages. Mr. Lindstrom asked the County Attorney if that is the way tenancy is interpreted. Mr. St. John said he did not believe that renewal of a lease on an annual basis is considered a new tenancy. Mr. Wagner asked if the local governing body would be allowed to adopt an ordinance less stringent than the State enabling legislation, Mr. Fisher said he would ask the County Attorney to consider that question while he continued with the hearing. Mr. Howard MillS~of University Heights Apartments said that smoke detectors were installed in tho'se apartments in 1979'. He also was concerned that the landlord would be ~required to make an annual inspaction of t~e smoke detector and give out a certificate. He said they have 426 apartments and it.is an expensive operation. He feels that smoke detectors are similar to seat belts in aUtomobiles because a lot of people do not use them. He has found that people take down the ~moke detectors or disconnect the batteries bedause the detectors are continually being~set~Off by smokers. He has instructed his maintenance people to check the smoke detectors each~ime they go into an apartment for any maintenance purpose. They have found that about one-half of all the smoke detectors are never hooked up. Dr. Iachetta said the ordinance requires that the tenant give the landlord written notice that a smoke detector is in need of service, repair or replacement. He asked if there were any change in the insurance ratings of the apartment owners from the installation of smoke detectors. Mr~Mil[ said no. The smoke detectors also take special batteries, and to operate and maintain them costs about $1500 per year. Mr. Fisher asked if there were more than one smoke detector in an apartment. Mr. Mills said no. The one smoke detector is in the ceiling of the bedroom fartherest from the front door. Mr. Ted Armentrout, Chief of the Stony Point Fire Company, was present. He said that smoke detectors are reliable in detecting both visible and invisible particles of combustion. They are basically maintenance free except for changing a battery and making sure that they are kept clean. The whole process of checking a smoke detector should not take but about 5 minutes and he felt that the annual inspection is important in making the detector a useful item in the home. At this time, with no one else rising to speak for or against adoption of the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney to comment on the request to amend the ordinance by deleting the words "and annually". He asked if that would create a conflict between the County ordinance and the State enabling legislation. Mr. St. Johr said that normally when enacting something pursuant to State enabling legislation, it is best to st~ck to the wording provided under that legislation. Unforeseen questions can arise from any word substituted for the words in the enabling legislation and he would recommend that the Board adopt the ordinance just as written and not tamper with the words. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the ordinance as proposed. He had no problem with the suggestion of Mr. Wagner because he agrees that if the smoke detector is in operation at the time a tenant takes possession of the apartment, it is reasonable to feel that it is the tenant's responsibility to follow through thereafter. However, he said he would defer to Mr. St. John's precaution. He then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meet±ng) "AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SMOKE DETECTORS IN CERTAIN STRUCTURES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended by the addition thereto of a Section 5-6.1 as follows: Section 5-6.1. Smoke detectors in certain buildings. There shall be installed smoke detectors in the following structures or buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the Uniform Statewide Building Code: (i) any multi-family building containing four or more dwelling units, (ii) any hotel or motel regularly used, offered for, or intended to be used to provide overnight sleeping accomodations for one or more persons, and (iii) rooming houses regularly used, offered for, or intended to be used to provide overnight sleeping accom- modations and which contain more than four '~nit$. Smoke detectors installed pursuant to this section shall be installed in conformance with the provisions of the Uniform Statewide Building Code. Any such smoke detector may be either battery operated or AC powered. With respect to multi-family buildings containing four or more dwelling units, the owner of each unit which is rented or leased~, at the beginning of each tenancy and at least annually thereafter, shall furnish the tenant with a certificate that all required smoke detectors are present, have been inspected, and are in good working order. Except for smoke detectors located in hallways, stairwells, and other public or common areas, interim testing, repair and maintenance of such smoke detectors shall be the responsibility of the tenant; provided, however, that the owner shall be obligated to service, repair, or replace any malfunctioning smoke detectors within five days of receipt of written notice that such smoke detector is in need of service, repair, or replacement. In any event, the initial installation of any required smoke detector shall be the respon- sibility of the owner." The foregoing motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Agnor said no effective date had been discussed for the ordinance but he has learned that the City adopted their ordinance with an effective date of January, 1983. Mr. McCann agreed that some period of time should be given for the smoke detectors to be installed. Mr. Henley did not think that the Board needed to wait that long. Mr. Cortez said that he had contacted some absentee landowners and some of the larger owners, in order to go through channels to get the money allocated, will need several months lead time. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to make the effective date of the ordinance July I, 1982. Miss Nash accepted the amendment and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. At 11:38 A.M., Dr. Iachetta left the meeting to teach class. reconvened at 11:55 A.M. The Board recessed and Agenda Item No. 10. Report: Management of Meadows Community Center. The following memorandum dated December 4, 1981, from Guy B. Agnor, Jr. was noted as received for the record: "In September, 1981, an appropriation was approved for $1850 to fund the operations of the Meadows Community Center for three months (October - December) under the continued administration of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging. During that three month period the staff was assigned the responsibility of examining alternatives to keeping the center open, and the programs on-going. The Senior Center expressed an interest in assuming the administrative respon- sibilities of the facility, and their representatives met with JABA officials and County staff to examine that possibliity. The conclusion of the Senior Center representatives was that they were interested in operating the Meadows Center, but could not assume, that responsibility or make a commitment at this time due to their present commitment to renovations of the McIntire Library building. The Senior Center did request an opportunity to consider such a commitment in three to six months after settling in their new quarters and reviewing their expenses and finances. The JABA Board has voted to discontinue their management of the Meadows Center after December 31. Discussions with representatives of JABA indicate their decision is irrevocable. The staff has therefore pursued the alternative of the Parks and Recreation Department assuming the management of the Center beginning January 1. In our opinion, management can be assumed by existing staff, and the costs absorbed in the current Parks and Recreation budget. Of the $1850 allocation made earlier, approximately $1500 was for personnel costs. Using existing staff, supplemented by part-time activities director's costs, the personnel costs associated with the management and coordination of the Center can be reduced to $650 per quarter, which added to $350 for building operational costs, is an amount that can be absorbed in the current budget. JABA has indicated it has funds of $1200 available for transfer to the agency that takes over the Center. It is recommended that a request for these funds to be transferred to the County be authorized, and that the Parks and Recreation Department be assigned the responsibility for the Center beginning January 1. At a later date, if the Senior Center or other organizations are interested in the management of the facility, that option can be considered." December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said he had met with Mr. Agnor and a representative of the Senior Center. He had hoped the Senior Center or some other agency would be able to take over operation of the Meadows Community Center but he is convinced that there is no way that can happen at this time. He feels that the Meadows Community Center should stay in operation. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. Mr. McCann said he supports the recommendation and feels that this is a move in the right direction. The building is available for use by citizens and maybe they will be able to formulate and carry out their own activities without a lot of planning by the County staff. ~ Mr. Roy Patterson was present at the request of Blair Funkhouser.who is Chairman of the Crozet Advisory Group to the Meadows. He expressed disappointment that the Jefferson Area Board on Aging is withdrawing support of the project. Although he realizes there are quite a number of meeting places in Crozet, this meeting place might be developed and be a better asset to the community. He hoped that at some time in the future the Senior Center or someone equally qualified would be able to take over operation of the Meadows because he did not feel the County Parks and Recreation Department has demonstrated a knowledge of what is needed for elderly and disabled people. Mr. Agnor said it is hoped that the activities will be kept at the present level and maybe even expanded. Mr. McCann said he would suggest that the activities be increased by a civic organization or church or something that would be at no cost to the taxpayers. At this point, the. roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss NaSh. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 11. Jefferson Country Firemen's Association - List of Capital Improvement Priorities. The following letter dated November 30, 1981, from E. Lee Armentrout, Jr., President of the Jefferson Country Fire Fighters Association, was noted as being received: "I wish to report to the Board of Supervisors that the J.C.F.F.A. during it's regular business meeting on Oct. 29, 1981, voted and approved the following items: To establish a finance committee, the primary purpose of which will be to determine the priorities of the equipment needs of the seven volunteer companies in the county and to formulate a rotating system that will be equitable to all. At present, the requests from Stony Point for a new tanker and from East Rivanna to eliminate present debts are the main priorities in the county at this time. If the Board of Supervisors were to grant the pending requests of Stony Point and East Rivanna, no other company will approach the Board on addi- tional funding for the remainder of this'fiscal year. Ail future requests for equipment funding will first be processed by our finance committee, which will then prioritize these requests and present them to the Board of Supervisors at their regular budget session for the up coming fiscal year. I feel that these changes in our association will make for a much smoother oper- ation between the County and the J.C.F.F.A. These areas of concern from our last meeting with the Board of Supervisors having been resolved, I hope you will act favorably on our requests at this time. If any further assistance or infor- mation is needed please contact me and I will be glad to furnish you with whatever you need. Thank you." Mr. Armentrout said he would like to clarify his position. When this request was discussed by the Board before, Stony Point had requested funding for a tanker and East Rivanna had requested funds to help eliminate their present debt. Both companies felt that they had a high priority need and both hoped the Board of Supervisors could make arrangements to fund both requests ($109,000 for Stony Point and $70,000 for East Rivanna). Since that discussion, East Rivanna has encountered some major mechanical problems with .a truck and would like to amend their request to $80,000. If the Board is unable to commit to the total amount, they would like to see the Board commit to at least 50% of the amount at this time. Mr. Fisher asked which of the two requests would be the highest priority. Mr. Armentrout said he feels that since Stony Point did receive funds for their building and East Rivanna has not drawn capital funds, that if only one request is granted, East Rivanna should receive the money. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the tanker requested by Stony Point. Mr. Armentrout said it takes three months to get delivery on a cab and chassis. That has to be paid for when it is delivered to the body factory. That is about 50% of the cost. It then takes three to six months additional time to complete the rest of the truck. Mr. Lindstrom noted that at a recent fire in Crozet, there was a tanker that had been converted from some other purpose. He asked if that were a possibility. Mr. Armentrout said the fire company is presently using an alternative to a new truck but it is not recognized as being adequate equipment by the National Fire Protection Association. Mr. Fisher said he felt that the Fire Fighters' Association had done what was requested of them~by furnishing the memorandum noted above. It is now up to the Board to decide how it will proceed with funding these requests. He personally is not ready to say he will fund moving vehicles for every fire company in the County for the next ten years. Mr. Lindstrom said he supported these requests when first brought to the Board of Supervisors as he feels the Board must support the firemen in the County. He would like to f~nd what was recommended by the Fire Fighters' Association and include in the budget considerations for next year the other part of the request. He did not feel the Board can continue to fund the fire companies on a make-shift basis. He asked Mr. Agnor where the funds would be taken from if the Board decided to finance these requests today. Mr. Agnor said they could be financed from the estimated carry-over General Fund balance. Also there are some projects in the Capital Budget which had been completed and on which there were small amounts of funds left. However, he would not recommend using those funds for this purpose. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Henley said the Board had already talked about this same request for about two hours. He is not willing to put out this kind of money in the-middle of a budget year. He said a date should be selected for a work session, and he feels the Board needs some guidelines on what should be funded in the future. Miss Nash said equipment is not a capital purchase in the same sense as a building since it does have to be replaced. Mr. McCann felt the Board ~should talk with the fire official about which areas of the county should be covered by each of the fire companies, and the cost effectiveness of each company and also what equipment the fire official feels should be on the scene of a fire. He said if the Board is to finance equipment, then the Board should make the decision as to what kind of equipment would be purchased. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appropriate $50,000 from the General Fund carry-over balance to finance Stony Point's request for a tanker. He said he knows this will obligate the County to provide the balance of the funds~in next year's budget. As another part of the motion, he felt a work session should be scheduled as soon as possible to discuss the different angles of funding the volunteer fire companies and also to obtain comments from other localities as to how they fund their fire companies. Mr. McCann said even though he feels this will put the County in the business of financing fire companies, he would second the motion. He noted that he would not be present at any work sessions next year, so he hoped that the Board would set a limit on the amount that will be financed in each budget year. He said he would personally prefer to see fire districts so that people who are closer to the fire companies get a benefit from reduced insurance rates, and those who live further out in the county do not have to pay for that benefit. Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion. Mr. Henley said it bothered him to think that the County is becoming involved in purchasing equipment. Although he has a lot of respect for the firemen and supports his local fire company each year, he feels that the Board should think more about this request. Mr. McCann said the cost effectiveness of the fire companies needs to be determined, and also what equipment should be present at each location. Miss Nash agreed to the request for a work session but said she would not support the main part of the motion. At this time, roll was called and the motion failed by the following recorded vote. AYES: Messrs. Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Miss Nash. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to set a work session for January to discuss and arrive at some mechanism to deal with these problems. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Na~h. None. Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said he would consult with the two new members of the board of supervisors and try to find a date for a joint work session with City Fire Chief Julian Taliaferro, the various fire companies, and the County's Director of Finance. At 12:55 P.M. the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:43 P.M. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Parks and Recreation Ordinance (advertised in the Daily Progress on November 25 and December 2, 1981.) Mr. Agnor said this puts into ordinance form rules and regulations which have been used at the reservoirs for a number of years. The ordinance has been reviewed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, City Council and County administration and is recommended to the Board for adoption in its present form. Mr. Agnor noted that letters had been received from Mrs. R. B. Martin and Mr. Bruce Martin regarding the prohibition against ice skating on the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Miss Nash asked what was so bad about ice skating. Mr. Agnor said it was included principally because of potential danger to the · ' ' ~r citizens if it were an allowed use. The City and County might be assuming liabmllty. Mr. Fmsh~ said the same thing could hold true of boating on the reservoir. Mr. Fisher noted that the sections in the ordinance under "prohibited uses" contain the language "all boats powered by combustion engines .... " He felt this language was a problem as he did not feel that gasoline engines should be allowed on the reservoirs at all. He then~opened the public hearing. Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, was present in support of the ordinance. She felt Mr. Fisher had a good point and suggested that the words "powered by" be changed to "equipped with". Mr. Bill Norris was present and noted that a lot of items mentioned in the ordinance were placed in the ordinance so that they could be enforced. The question of ice skating has brought some response but people in the parks department would rather see this as a prohibited use or not mentioned in the ordinance at all because they do not want to become involved in issuing permits, etc. for ice skating. He felt adoption of this ordinance would go a long way in furthering the watershed management plan and in protecting the public water supply. With no one else rising to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said few people make an occasional use of the reservoir for ice skating because there is little time when the ice is hard enough to skate on. Therefore, this does not seem to be a use which should be prohibited. Miss Nash then offered motion to delete the words "ice skating" wherever they appear in the ordinance and adopt the ordinance as presented. Mr. Lindstrom said the other prohibited uses included in the ordinance have implications on water quality and are not included in the ordinance for safety reasons. He then seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if Miss Nash would amend the motion to change the words "powered by" to "equipped with" wherever they appear in the ordinance. Miss Nash accepted this amendment as did Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. ~ ~ December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) ,4.79 (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE (PARKS AND RECREATION) BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE III TO PROVIDE FOR LIMITED RECREATIONAL USE OF WATER SUPPLY RESERVOIRS UTILIZED BY THE RIVANNA WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County desires to protect the water quality of water supply reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and to provide for limited recreational use of such reservoirs; BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~ that Chapter 14 of the Code Albemarle is hereby amended by adding a new Article III as follows: Article III. Water Supply Reservoirs Utilized by the Rivanna ~Water and ~Sewer Authority. Section 14-12. Generally. Water supply reservoirs utilized by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority may be used for limited recreational purposes allowed in this article and under conditions as set forth herein. Section 14-13. Reservoirs Affected. The following reservoirs shall be subject to the requirements set forth in this article: Sugar Hollow; Ragged Mountain, Upper and Lower; South Fork Rivanna; Beaver Creek; and Totier Creek. The boundaries of these reservoirs are shown on maps attached hereto and on file in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Section 14-14. Sugar Hollow; Permitted and Prohibited Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. Reservoir bank fishing, hiking, and birdwatching shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir.- (b) Prohibited Uses. Canoeing and boating, swimming, hunting, trapping, picnicking, and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Sugar Hollow Reservoir, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes. 'Section 14-15. Ragged Mountain, Upper and Lower; Permitted and Prohibited Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-combustion engines) shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower, provided that a permit is first obtained from the City of Charlottesvi!!e's Public Works Department. Hiking and birdwatching shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower. (b) Prohibited Uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, picnicking, and over- night camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower. Fishing, canoeing and boating without a permit from the City of Charlottesville's Public Works Department shall be prohibited. Ail boats equipped with combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Ragged Mountain Reservoir, Upper and Lower, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes. 'Sect'i'o'n 14-16. South Fork Rivanna; Permitted and Prohibited Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-combustion engines), hiking and birdwatching shall be allowed within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. (b) Prohibited Uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping, picnicking and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Ail boats equipped with combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the South Fork Reservoir, except for those boats operated with the written permission of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Section 14-17. Beaver Creek; Permitted and Prohibited Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-combustion engines), hiking, birdwatching and picnicking shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir. (b) Prohibited Uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir. Ail boats equipped with combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Beaver Creek Reservoir, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Section 14-18. Totier Creek; Permi't't'ed and Prohibited Uses. (a) Permitted Uses. Fishing, canoeing and boating (non-combustion engines), hiking, birdwatching and picnicking shall be allowed within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir. (b) Prohibited Uses. Swimming, hunting, trapping and overnight camping shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir. Ail boats equipped with combustion engines shall be prohibited within the boundaries of the Totier Creek Reservoir, except for those boats operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for water supply purposes. Section 14-19. Vehicle Traffic. Motorized vehicular traffic is prohibited from all but designated paved or improved roads and parking areas within the boundaries of the Sugar Hollow; Ragged Mountain, Upper and Lower; South Fork Rivanna; Beaver Creek; and Totier Creek reservoirs. Section 14-20. Permits. Permits for recreational use required by this article shall be administered by the City of Charlottesville's Public Works Department and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Section 14-21. Fishin$ Generally. Ail state fishing laws and regulations shall be adhered to at all times. Agenda Item No. 13a. Appropriation: Renovations-Health Department. In a memorandum from Ray B. Jones, it was noted that bids were taken on this project in November of 1981. Based on those bids, the project cost is estimated to be $214,513 with the County's share being $107,256. The County's share is 4.1% above the amount allocated for this project in the Capital budget last spring. Deducting a previous appropriation of $9,834 for architect's fees leaves a balance of $97,422 to be appropriated from the Capital Outlay Fund. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia, that $97,422 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund and coded to 9700-7060.94 for renovations-Joint Health Department, all as outlined in memorandum of Ray B. Jones, dated December 4, 1981. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 13b. Appropriation: Fencing~ga~. In a memorandum from Ray B. Jones dated December 4, it was noted that the Jail Board has requested that the County and the City fund a security fence with the cost of the fence estimated to be $3,850. The County's share is $1,925 (see memorandum of November 6, 1981 from J. M. McMahan, Jail Administrator). On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, the following resolution was offered for adoption. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,925 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund and coded to 9700-7060.99 for security fencing at the Joint Security Complex, all as outlined in memorandum of Ray B. Jones dated December 4, 1981." The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 13c. Appropriation: Court Reporters[~Le~g~ Services. It was noted that the County Attorney's Office had obtained the services of court reporters in recent court cases upon authorization of the Board and such costs could not be absorbed in the County Attorney's budget. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $954.15 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 1204-3002.01 Professional Services-Legal Services, for payment of services of court reporters in several recent court cases, all as outlined in memorandum of Ray B. Jones dated December 4, 1981. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 481 Agenda Item No. 14. Literary Fund Application-Phase III, Albemarle High SChool. Mr. AgnoI noted that the School Board had adopted a resolution on December 1, 1981, requesting that the Board of Supervisors join them in making an application for a Literary Fund loan of $1,000,000 for the purpose~of remodeling certain portions of the original Albemarle High School building, its classrooms and ancillary facilities. This is one of the projects anticipated in the Capital budget. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the School Board for the County of Albemarle, on the 9th day of December, 1981, presented to this Board, an application addressed to the State Board of Education of Virginia for the purpose of borrowing from the Literary Fund $1,000,000 for adding to or improving the present school building at Albemarle High School, to be paid in 20 annual installments, and the interest thereon at three per cent paid annuallY. RESOLVED, That the application of the County School Board to the State Board of Education.of Viriginia for a loan of $1,000,000 from the Literary Fund is hereby approved, and authority is hereby granted the said County School Board to borrow the said amount for the purpose set out in said application. The Board of Supervisors for said County will each year during the life of this loan, at the time they fix the regular levies, fix a rate of levy for schools or make a cash appropriation sufficient for operation expenses and to pay this loan in annual installments and the interest thereon, as required by lay regulating loans from the Literary Fund. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 15. Discussion: t980~81 County Audit. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a copy of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, financial report for the year ended June 30, 1981. In letter from Charles K. Trib!e, Auditor of Public Accounts, dated November 19, 1981, it is noted that a review of the report by the Auditor of Public Accounts indicates that the report has been prepared in accordance with the specifications furnished by that office and is accepted by the Auditor of Public Accounts. Present was Mr. Jack Farmer from the firm of Robinson, Farmer, Cox Associates, who had prepared the financial statements. Mr. Farmer noted that this is the first year that these statements have been prepared under the new uniform accounting and reporting system of the state. It is a major change, but is a positive move toward developing comparative cost data which will be used by the state in funding the various localities. Mr. Farmer then went on to explain page by page the information contained in the financial statements. (Dr~ Iachetta returned to the meeting at 2:14 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that he had receive( a letter from the Insurance Services Office of Virginia indicating that the Crozet community, after being examined in a fire protection survey, has been reclassified from a Class 8 to a Class 5. Mr. Agnor said this change came about because of the new water storage tank and the additional pipe required for that tank. Mr. Agnor noted that there is a public hearing on December 16 in Fairfax being held by the committee examining court decisions on zoning powers of local governments. Mr. Agnor noted that the advanced wastewater treatment plant is now in operation and that the Meadow Creek, Woodbrook Lagoon and Moores Creek facilities have all been taken out of service. Mr. Agnor then noted that there is a hearing by the Oil and Gas Subcommittee of the Virginia Coal and Energy Commission on oil and gas conservation statutes on December 14 and 15 in Richmond. These hearings have to do with the rights of owners on pooling oil and gas. Mr. Agnor said the Board had asked Mr. St. John and himself to examine its potential liability under the new legislation that has removed the Board's sovereign immunity. In preparation for this taking place on July 1, 1982, Mr. Agnor said he would like permission to seek proposals from several firms who are in the business of examining local governments' exposure for risk management. This is a service which is not provided by the vendors of insurance policies. There are no funds in the current budget for such a study and it will probably cost between five and six thousand dollars but does need to be done. Mr. Agnor asked the Board's permission to seek proposals from several firms in order to find a definite cost. Motion to approve the County Executive's request was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. At 3:15 P.M., Mr. Fisher noted that the Board should have an executive session to discuss legal matters.. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:01 P.M. without Mr. Henley being present. December 9, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if anyone had talked to the architect about the changes requested for Meeting Room #7. Mr. Agnor said this item was not ready for discussion. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if there could be a County map .s~ha~i.ng.~t~e~urb. an~area, the communities, the villages and the major utility lines installed permanently in Meeting Room #7 Mr Agnor said a map will be installed after the remo~n~ of this room is completed. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the Albemarle County Service Authority had adopted a policy on sewer line extensions. Mr. Fisher said he did not think they had. Agenda Item No. 10. At 4:05 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn this meeting until December 10, 1981, at 3:00 P.M. in the County Executive's Conference Room. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Henley.