Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-07May 7, 1980 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 7, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: ~None. Officers Present: ~ Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. SP-80-15. U-Haul and Robyn L. Eaton. (Deferred from April 16, 1980. Mr. Robert W._~ke~,~ Jr.~?irector q~ Planning, said ....... this was withdrawn by the applicant before the Planning Commission and no action of the Board is necessary. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-80-17. Kendrick Dure. For a polo facility and related activities under Section 2-1-25(10) of the Zoning Ordinance, on 50~ acres zoned A-!. Property is located on .east of Route 631 approximately one and three-quarters miles south of the intersect~ of Routes 631 and 781. County Tax Map 90, Parcel 6, part thereof. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 23 and April 30, 1980.) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has not acted on this petition and requested deferral to June 18, 1980. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to this effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. SP-80-07. McClenahan Broadcasting Corporation. radio transmission tower and equipment building on 53.950 acres zoned A-1. Little Yellow Mountain. (Deferred from April 16, 1980.) Request for an FM Located on This petition was deferred from April 16, 1980 in order that the County planning staff, legal staffand parks staff could review the possibility of locating the tower within Mint Springs Park. Mr. Tucker then presented the following addendum to the staff report which was presented on April 16, 1980: "The par~s.~d recF.~atio.q depsrtment nd pSanning department staff have met with the applicant and offer the following comments and recommended conditions of approval. The applicant estimates a construction period of two weeks for exterior or outside construction. The only trees which need to be removed are those for construction of a 10' x 12' equipment building, two square foot pads for the tower itself, guy wire anchors and fencing around the tower. Trees under the guy wires would not have to be removed but limbs would have to be trimmed in order to avoid their damaging the wires during ice storms or heavy winds. Construction equipment may need to be transported to the site by helicopter since the trail to the site is narrow and steep. Staff feels maximum protection to the park should be given during construction of the tower and building as well as during any future maintenance operations. We also feel that the structures should blend into the natural surroundings and remain as inconspicuous as possible. With these parameters in mind, should · the Board choose to approve a location in Mint Springs Park for a transmitting tower and equipment building, the staff would recommend the following conditions: Transportation of construction material to the site shall be limited to the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.; Nm removal of existing trees along the trail; County Engineer approval of any drainage improvements along the trail. Ail stone used for such improvement, i.e. rip rap, shall be river rock and aggregate; The equipment building and the fencing around the tower shall be limited to unpainted, wooded construction; (Mr. McClenahan has indicated the construction will be cinderblock.) Ail utilities serving the installation shall be located underground; Only those trees necessary for the construction of the anchor pads (2' x 2') pads for tower and guying), equipment building and fencing shall be removed; After construction, access to the building by the radio engineer shall be limited to one visit every three weeks between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 12 noon. Emergency visits, however, are excluded from this condition; (Mr. McClenahan said his engineer has indicated another visit will be needed once a week between 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.) Any maintenance or improvement to the trail shall be approved by the County Engineer and the County Parks and Recreation Department. Cost of maintenance or improvement shall be borne by McClenahan Broadcasting Corporation; County Attorney approval of any maintenance agreement for the trail, any liability coverage and any lease or easement arrangement for use of County property by the McClenahan Broadcasting Corporation; O02 10. In addition to the McClenahan Broadcasting Corporation, the tower, within its 9apabi~i6~, shall be made available to public agencies, e.g., sheriff, fire and rescue squad, state police; 11. Tower shall be limited in height to 160 feet with a maximum elevation of 1520 feet above mean sea level and shall not be painted or lighted; and 12. Approval from the FCC and FAA prior to construction." The following opinion dated April 23, 1980 was received from the County Attorney: "Since the meeting of April 16, 1980, I have looked into the legal ramifications of the County allowing a radio tower to be placed on Albemarle County Parks property for the benefit of a private radio station. It appears to me that this procedure contravenes the requirements of Code Section 15.1-306 et seq., in that this section forbids private use of public lands ~n any way shape or form by an individual or private company in a manner not AVailable to the general public, without going through a bid process. This would of Course apply not only to-the location of the tower itself on the property, but also to the granting of any easement to go on the property for maintenance or construction purposes, at times or in a manner not generally available to the public. Even if the bid process is followed, we would-have to draft a carefully worded contrac~t ~under which the owner of the tower would save the County harmless from liability for any injury or ~damages,"since the County'S immunity under recreational activities would not apply here, this being not a recreational activity; a topographic map showing the location of the tower and any easement for construct~0n_and maintenance, would have to be provided; and a unique public need ~p'uld have~ to be established in order that this grant not be deemed to establish a precedent for any other company who wants a tower on public property owned by the County." Mr. Robert Crickenberger, Parks Manager for Mint Springs Valley Park, then read the following opinion: "I feel that it would be highly undesirable for the proposed FM radio tower to be located in the Mint Springs Valley Park. My reasons are very simple and basic in that the tower itself would be disruptive to the natural beauty of the park. Our park's staff works hard to maintain an area where County residents can come and enjoy the outdoors in the most natural setting possible. Every year thousands of persons come to the park to enjoy swimming, fishing, picnicking and hiking. The tower site itself is very close to our existing nature trails which are very popular. Last year over 300 persons participated in escorted nature walks conducted by our parks staff. I have numerous '$ther concerns relating to legalities on easement rights and how the actual construction of the tower may interefere with the normal parks operation. I feel very sDrangly that the land in question was bought, paid for and designated ~s a park and that the preservation of the natural beauty of that park should be the number one concern in this matter." The public hearing was opened again. Mr. W. Edward McClenahan, President and General Manager for McClenahan Broadcasting COrporation, was present and felt all the advantages this FM t~w~canU~'~vide~t~t~'~-~mm~i~y~ha~e b~e-n expressed. -He preferred, for the many reasons' ~reviously stated, to have the tower located in the park. However, if the Board deemed such unadvisable, he was willing to have it located elsewhere. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he had stated at the April 16 meeting, he was not happy about the precedent of establishing a private transmitting facility in a public oark. ~He was even less enthusastic about such' with all the conditions that would have to~mpose~ and the procedure to be adhered to for approval of same. However, with three meetings on this matter, a visit to the site and numerous comments in support and several in opposition to the request he felt it was time to resolve the matter. Mr. Henley expressed his concern about the fifth condition recommended by the Planning Commission: "Utilities serving the installation shall be located underground, from the packing shed t~o the installation." He felt this could be worked out with the landowner, Mr. Chiles, and if he desires the installation be undergroUnd then such be resolved between the applicant and the landowner. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve SP-80-07 for the location on the southwest slope of Little' Yellow Mountain as requested by the~applicant, with the following conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but without condition #5: -. 1) Only those.trees necessary for the erection and guying of the tower and location of the equipment building and fence shall be removed; 2) Staff approval of fencing around the tower to discourage trespass; 3) Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur; and 4) Tower shall be limited to a height of 298 feet. May 7, t980 (Regular Night Meeting) Miss Nash seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta could not support the recommendation of the Planning Commission for locating a tower for a private enterprise on public land but does support this motion. Mr. Fisher agreed and felt this service was needed in the County. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-80-01. Marianne Tejeda. horseshow grounds. (Deferred from April 16, 1980.) To amend the definition of permanent This matter was deferred from April 16, 1980 at the request of Mr. J. Benjamin Dick, attorney for Mrs. Marianne Tejeda, in order that the wording of the definition could be worked on. Mr. Fisher then read the following letter received from Mr. Dick, dated May 6, 1980: "I have been directed to request withdrawal of the above proposed amendment '~egarding the definition of 'Horseshow Grounds.' Mrs. Tejeda is aware the County has before considered a 'Temporary Events' amendment to the A-1 zone and the same is in the proposed new Zoning Ordinance. It was on this recommendation and basis that the same proposal was proferred by Mrs.~Tejeda to the County by her official application ZTA-80-02. The County Planning Staff has recommended approval. The Planning Commission is preparing a recommendation to the Board on ZTA-80-02. Mrs. Tejeda prefers at this time, since she feels ZTA-80-01 is causing a misunderstanding of her true intentions with regards to the use of Foxfield, to lend her undivided support to the 'Temporary Events' amendment proposed for the present Zoning Ordinance. She feels this action will better assist the many charitable and civic organizations in the community besides her own in order to gain the much needed regulation in the present Zoning Ordinance for temporary activities of all community organizations. Therefore, Foxfield and Mrs. Tejeda would rather withdraw ZTA-80-01 and place their full support behind ZTA-80-02. Moreover, she wishes not to encourage any misunderstanding to the rural neighborhood and area around Foxf£eld that nuisances will be allowed to use the Foxfield facilities and grounds. Mrs. Tejeda desires that Foxfield be used consistent with its original and intended purpose and to allow only the activities that are in keeping with its character and with Foxfield's high standards of professionalism and civic purposes." -Mr. F~sher then asked if the Planning Commission had taken any action on the request. Mr. Tucker said yes, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial at its April 8, 1980 meeting. He also noted that the Planning Commission acted on ZTA-80-02 at its meeting last~.evening~and copy of Mr. Dick's letter was just received yesterday. Mr. Fisher asked if any action was necessary on this petition. Mr. Tucker said yes. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to allow withdrawal of ZTA-80-01 as requested by the applicant. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item N0~. 6. ZTA-80-02. Marianne Tejeda. Amend the A-1 provisions of the County Zoning Ordinance to provide for temporary events as a useby right. (Deferred from April 16, 1980.) Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Marianne Tejeda is petitioning the Board of Supervisors to amend the A-1 Agriculture zone to provide for 'temporary events'. This request has resulted from discussions between the staff and agent for the applicant in regard to two other petitions (ZTA-80-01 and SP-80-10). Should this petition be approved, the other two petitions should be withdrawn. Staff opinion is that the 'temporary events' proposal is the more appropriate approach to accommodating an expanded program at Foxfield. The 'temporary events' provisions have been taken from the proposed zoning ordinance and modified by the addition of the final paragraph. This provision would permit a limited number of such events by right and would apply throughout the A-1 zone. Staff recommends the following amendment: 2-1-29 Temporary events sponsored by local non-profit organizations This provision is intended to regulate for purposes of public health, safety and welfare such major events as circuses, concerts, carnivals, craft fairs, and similar activities which generally: attract large numbers of patrons; may be -di.sruptive of the areas and occasion the need for planning in regard to traffic control, emergency vehicular access, health concerns and the like. This provision is not intended to regulate ~such minor events as church bazaars, yard sales, bake sales, car washes, picnics and the like which generally are not disruptive of the area and require only minimal logistical planning. 0O4 Ma~_~7 1980 (Reg_ular Ni_gh_t M_eeting~) Application for such use and all information and plans required in A, B and C below, shatt--,be.filed with the Zoning Administrator not less than 30 days prior to commencement of such event. The Zoning Administrator may issue a temporary permit authorizing such event subject to the following conditions: A preliminary plan showing access, parking, vehicular and pedestrian circula~idn and method of separation of the same shall have been approved by the Director of Planning. Such organization shall have made adequate arrangements with the County sheriff, fire and rescue squads, and Health Department for the conduct of such event. Adequate arrangements have been made for the removal of trash and debris, reseeding ~nd general restoration of the site following the event. The Zoning Administrator may establish and require the posting of a bond in an amount deemed sufficient for such purpose. The Zoning Administrator shall not authorize more than two events at any one location within a calendar year; provided that the Board of Supervisors may authorize more than two events by special use permit issued pursuant t'o Section 11-13." Mr. Tucker-~aid this was deferred by the Planning Commission on April 8, 1980, in order for the staff to make some amendments to the provisions for temporary events in order to give the Zoning Administrator some further guidelines on what can be approved as ate: event. Mr. Tucker then went over the following addendum to this amendment which was presented at the Planning Commission meeting on May 6, 1980 which was to add the following words after paragraph two: That the public roads serving the site are adequate to accommodate the traffic which would be expected to be generated by such event; That the character of such use will be in harmony with the public health, safety and-welfare and uses permitted by right in the district and will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property in terms of smoke, dust, noise, hours of operation, artifical lighting or other specific identifiable conditions which may be deleterious to the existing uses of such property. Mr. Tucker said on May 6, 1980 the'Planning-Comission recommended denial of ZTA-80-02. The recommendation-was basically because the Commission members felt the adjacent property owners should be not%fied of such events and temporary events would continue to occur on a piecemeal basis and certain events could occur which are larger than the Commission desires to be permitted by-right. Mr. LindStrom'asked the status of larger events such as circuses, carnivals, concerts and things of that nature. Mr. Tucker said such events would be presented to the zoning administrator on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, is uncomfortable with allowing such events since he does not have the authority to approve such. Mr. Tucker said the carnival at Albemarle Square is an example of a temporary event for which there are no-provisions in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the event has worked well with the cooperatio of the Jaycees. Many times events such as this, the persons involved do' not realize that approval is needed and plans are made prior to getting approval. The Commission and the staff feel some type of guidelines are needed in the Zoning Ordinance for the zoning administr However, the Commission did feel this proposed definition was too broad in type or nature of events and fe'lt'adjacent property owners should be notified when such events are to take place. Mr. Robert Vaughn was present. He said the previous zoning administrator had allowed a lot of minor events as accessory uses. He felt some events would be accessory uses in B~i ~ones but had difficulty with such being accessory uses in the A-1 zone. Although he does not have any objection to the events and feels there is a need for such, he would like to have a codification as to his authorization to approve such events. Mr. Fisher asked about allowing large events through a special use permit procedure. Mr. Vaughan said this applicant was approached by the Arts and Craft Council to hold an event on May 10 which only gave six weeks lead time. Therefore, there was not time to apply and be granted a special use permit. This is a problem for many charitable organizations' in Albemarle County and he did not feel the special use procedure would help. Mr. Fisher was concerned that when the first application was made for use of the Foxfield property, there was to be only one event per year and then the permit was amended to allow two major events a year. Now the request is to open up all A-1 property in the County to such use, with only conditions relative to traffic and health being met. Mr. Lindstrom did not object to having two major events per year on the Foxfield property but did oppose opening 90% of the county for temporary events. Mr. Henley shared the concern and was opposed to having such events without public input on the matter. Mr. Roudabush agreed with Mr. Henley. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, was present. He said Mrs. Tejeda desired to withdraw the application after the Planning Commissio: meeting last evening. The original intention of Mrs. Tejeda was to have input from her neighbors. Mrs. Tejeda does not desire to have events every weekend but only enough to make Foxfield viable. Mr; Dick said Mrs. Tejeda asked that he convey the fact that her plan for Foxfield is to make it a charitable foundation with a foundation board in order that a new owner could not do something different than what she originates and the foundation would be funded through her estate. The intent is to make Foxfield exclusive, not inclusive of the entire county. Therefore, Mr. Dick said Mrs. TeJeda desires to withdraw ZTA-80-02 and is sympathetic, with the-problems'Mr. Tucker and Mr. Vaughn have but prefers that the County adopt their'own resolution of same. )orary tor. M_~_7_, 19~ar Night Meetinf~) Mr. Whitley, an adjacent property owner to Foxfield, was present. The two events at Foxfield have not been objected to by adjacent property owners. However, he is opposed to allowing temporary events countywide and without notification to adjacent property owners. Mr. Whitley felt problems would be created due to the type of crowds certain events attract. With no one else present to speak for or against the amendment, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said the applicant has requested withdrawal of the petition. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to accept the applicant's request to withdraw ZTA-80-02 without prejudice. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta said although he offers the motion, he does feel there is a need to address the problems Mr. Vaughan has and a consideration for same should be part of the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Foxfield events have been handled well and fit in well in the area and amending the zoning ordinance would create other problems. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. At 8:30 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 8:40 P.M. Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 8 of the .... Agenda. Item No.~ 7. Public Hearing: Albemarle County Code by adding Article XI, containing Sections 8-56 and 8-57, relating to a service charge to be imposed on certain tax exempt property. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 16 and April 23, 1980.) Mr. Agnor said this matter has been discussed for the last two years during budget preparation time. The service charge to be imposed on certain tax exempt property is allowed under the State Code. The ordinance would be imposed for tax year 1980 and the finance director would be charged with the responsibility of calculating the type of services applicable to each such property. There is a formula in the State Code which allows for certain types of services to have a service charge assessed against the property provided that the uses on the property are not available through normal county operations. Mr. Agnor noted a"second draft ordinance has been distributed ±n which there is only one differenc from the advertised ordinance. The difference is an added clauses which reads: "until further action of the Board there are hereby exempted from such service charge all other classes of nontaxable property, except property standing in the name of the Commonwealth and of departments, boards, agencies and institutions thereof." This particular clause was adopted by the City last year and exempted County property. In fact, the City exempted such things as nonprofit organizations, churches, etc. Mr. Agnor noted that discussions were held with the University of Virginia on this service charge and they were also notified in writing a year ago of the County's intent to consider this ordinance. Therefore, the University has had an ample amount of time to make budgetary preparation in anticipation of this service charge being imposed in 1980. Mr. Fisher asked if one of the services listed in the state law includes public education. Mr. Agnor said yes, it is a very limited factor but there are some costs that the County cannot charge for those having children residing in Albemarle County. He noted that the law also cites law enforcement, fire protection and disposal of solid wastes. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked the amount of revenue this ordinance would bring into the County. Mr. Agnor said it is estimated to be $120,000. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, AS AMENDED, BY ADDING AN ARTICLE XI CONTAINING SECTIONS 8-56 AND 8-57, RELATING TO A SERVICE CHARGE TO BE IMPOSED ON CERTAIN TAX-EXEMPT PROPERTY BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 8 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, as amended, be amended and reordained by adding Article XI, containing Sections 8-56 and 8-57, as follows: ARTICLE XI Service Charge on Tax-Exempt Property. Section 8-56. Charge imposed on certain tax-exempt property; exceptions. There is ~er'eby imp'osed, on and after January 1, 1980, for tax year 1980 and each year thereafter,li pursuant to the authority of Section 58-16..2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, a service Charge upon the owners of all property of record as of January 1, 1980, and January 1 of each succeeding year exempted from such taxation, except those classes of such property exempted from such service charge by such Section 58-16.2. Provided, that until further action of the board of supervisors, there are hereby exempted from such service charge all other classes of nontaxable property, except property standing in the name of the Commonwealth, and of departments, boards, agencies and institutions thereof. Provided further, however, that such service charge shall not be applicable to public roadways or property held for future construction of such roadways. Ma.v 7, 1980 (Re, g~tu!_a~ N~ght_Meet~.ng) Section 8-57. -Assessment and Collection. The director of finance shall annually calculate the service charge applicable to each such property based upon the assessed value thereof, the real estate tax rate established by the board of supervisors for taxa] property for such tax year, and the county's expenditure for allowable services for the preceding fiscal year, in the manner and subject to the maximum limitations set forth in such Section 58-16.2 or other applicable state law, on or before October-30 of each year. The director of finance shall bill the owners of such property for and i shall collect such service charge on the same due dates and in the same manner and ~Subject to the Same penalties and interest as are applicable to real estate taxes, as set forth in this chapter. Agenda Item_No. 8. Public Hearing: 1980-81 Budget for the Secondary System of State Highways in Albemarle County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 23 and April 30, 1980.) Mr. Hisher~noted the County's members of the State Legislature were invited to attend this public hearing in order to get a better perspective of the problems o¢curing in Albemarle County due to inflation and the lack of highway improvement funds. Senator J. Harry Michael and Delegate Thomas Michie had previous engagements so were not able to attend. He then recognized Delegate James Murray. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He noted that this public hearing is being held in accordance with Virginia Code Section 33.1-70.1. In November, 1979,'the Board and the Highway Department jointly adopted a six-year secondary road improveme plan. On April 9, 1.980, the Board was presented with an updated estimate of funds and a recommended allocation for the first year of the six-year plan. The list presented at the April 9 meeting was in priority order. Mr. Roosevelt said $1,333,600 is the amount of funds available for improvements to the secondary system for 1980-81. He then emphasized that $324,000 of t. his amount is due to the two cent increase in gasoline tax which was passed by the General Assembly this year. He also pointed out that $257,000 of the proposed allocation is as a result of the unpaved secondary road fund which was created in 1979. The funds allocated for surfacing unpaved secondary roads is taken from monies available for improvements before-funds are allocated for other improvements to secondary roads. Mr. Roosevelt also noted that the allocation for FY 80-81 is $50,000 less than the allocation for FY 79-80. He then reviewed the priority list which is set out in the minutes of April 9, 1980. Mr. Roosevelt said if this priority list is adopted and if the County's final allocation is less than the estimated figure of $1,333,600, the loss should be absorbed in item #15, the Hydraulic Road project. Mr. Fisher asked if items #10--widen and hard .surface, Route 729, .item #11--widen and hard surface, Route 808, item #12--widen and hard surface, Route 717 and item #14--widen and hard surface, Route 618 would begin this year. Mr. Roosevelt said he intends to begin as much as possible this July. If this budget is adopted as presented, a committment will have to be made to finance the remaining cost of these four projects in next budget year. These projects were placed in the budget because he has the State Forces to start work on three of the projects this year and possibly the fourth one. There is no reason to fully finance only two projects when four projects can be started. Another reason is that the Board and the Highway Department have made a committment to various property owners who donated rights-of-way that everything possible would be done to get the projects going and these are projects where the property owners have worked hard to get the necessary right-of-wa Mr. Fisher asked if that means all four roads would be built and paved in one year. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if item #1, the bridge over the Mechum River on Route 601, would be completed next year. Mr. Roosevelt said the project was advertised in March and bids were received in April. One of the bids will be accepted. However, $100,000 which was anticipated to be spent in the second year of the six-year plan will be needed for the project next year. Mr. Lindstrom felt a substantial amount of the budget was being committed for projects #1--Route 601, Bridge over Mechum River, item #10--widen and hard surface, Route 729, item #11--widen and hard surface, Route 808, item #12--widen and hard surface, Route 717 and item #14--widen and hard surface, Route 618. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct and pointed out that the widening and hard surfacing improvements were as a result of the gravel road improvements fund established by the General Assembly. These gravel road improvement funds must only be spent for the improvement of gravel roads. Mr. Roudabush asked if there were any funds left from 1979-80 or prior years. Mr. Roosevelt said no. Any funds left over from completed projects have been applied to Route 743 and that is what has brought the total of the necessary funds up to what is currently in the bank. Mr. Roosevelt said the reason for recommending that Hydraulic Road (Rout.e 743) be placed at t'he end of the priority list is because it is a large allocation and even if the allocation were cut in half, there would still be money to do items 1 through 14. Dr. Iachetta said when he first became a member on this Board, construction of Route 743 was supposedly only two years away from beginning. Now the project is being delayed again. Mr. Roosevelt said planning is being done for the project and the proposed right-of-wa has been approved for acquisition. The Highway Department's right-of-way agents are making appraisals on the property. A March 1981 advertisement date is still the aim but in order to meet that date enough money to finance the construction, which is now estimated at 4.3 million dollars, has to be found. This proposed allocation will bring the total in the bank to two million dollars. He intends to find the money to start the construction stage next year. Mr. Lindstrom felt the fact that a commitment of 70% of urban road funds is going to Hydraulic Road should be recognized. He was concerned that with all the needs in the County, this project is still far away from starting. This road is in an area indicated as sensitive due to watershed problems and this project will require a lot of construction. · he area is only partially urban and he felt the Board should think about whether it desires to use 70% of the'funds for hard surface improvements to this one project. He recognized that when this project was originally conceived, the area was a potential growth area. Even though a lot of time and effort has been spent on the project, he did not feel thi.s negates the fact that circumstances have changed significantly. .e .t Ma~7 ~980 (Regular Night Meeting_S) 007 The public hearing was then opened. Speaking first was Mr. Burton, who expressed his appreciation for the work done on Route 717. Mr. Logan, a resident of Hydraulic Road, spoke next. He was concerned about Hydraulic Road being at the end of the list, when several years ago, it was number one. He felt the Board should reconsider this priority in terms of safety. Mr. Ripley, a businessman on Hydraulic Road, spoke next. He did not feel a four-lane road on Route 743 was necessary. The cost of the improvement could be reduced if left turn lanes were placed at Cedar Hill Road across from Sperry Marine and possibly sidewalks be at the bus stops. He felt the congestion is due to left turns and noted that at other than prime times there is no congestion on Hydraulic Road. In conclusion, Mr. Ripley felt if the fourth lane was deleted and the above suggestions were initiated, a great deal of the budget expenditures could be reduced. Mrs. Josephine Feggans, resident of the Chestnut Grove Community, was present. She distributed to the Board a petition which read as follows: "We the undersigned support the request for the reconstruction and maintenance of the two roads in our Chestnut Grove Community of Albemarle County. Some of the undersigned are property owners adjoining these roads. But our major concern is upgrading the roadways of our neighbors to maintain basic community co-existence." The location of the requested road improvements is off of Route 723 near Howardsville for a road running in a northerly direction for about one-half mile and another section running in a southerly direction from Route 723 for about three-tenths of a mile. Mrs. Feggans noted that an application for the additional road improvement is in the process of being completed. There is a verbal commitment for the right-of-way and she is ~in the process of obtaining the written consent of all the property owners. Mrs. Feggans noted that personal money has been spent on the road for items such as grading, bulldozing, and gravel and the road is still impassable. In conclusion, Mrs. Feggans asked the Board's consideration for improvement of these roads. Mr. Rey Berry then emphasized the need for the improvement requested by Mrs. Feggans. He also concurred in the statement to downgrade the plans for Route 743. Mr. Donald Spencer, resident of Scottsville, spoke next in support of the widening and hard surfacing for Route 618. Mr. Graham Watkins, resident of Route 717, expressed his appreciation for the work done by the Highway Department. Mrs. Joan Graves felt the Board needed to make a decision on Route 743 particularly since the Planning Commission will be presented with a site plan for four hundred units on Route 743 this month. She felt a lot of site plans for this area have been unopposed because of the proposed road improvements for Hydraulic Road. Mr. Scott, resident of Hydraulic Road, spoke next in agreement with the comments of Mr.~Logan. He felt the engineers have done a good study on Hydraulic Road and did not agree with downgrading the project. He also supported the project being higher up on the priority list in order that work can begin. With no one else from the public present to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush did not feel that the amount of money allocated for Hydraulic Road. puts it on the bottom of the priority list. Mr Roosevelt said items 1 through 14 are projects on which commitments have been made. The projects are for roads badly in need of repair and to meet code requirements for hard surfacing of gravel roads. Mr. Fisher noted that several major projects were included on this list in past years but with the cutback in highway funds, major projects have been reduced. He also said the cost of the Hydraulic Road project is rising faster than the funds which are set aside for the building of same. He was discouraged that 1.5 million dollars for County projects is lying idle in the bank and the interest on these funds is reverting to the State general fund rather than going into other county projects. He did not feel this helps cover inflation particularly since road construction is increasing between 12% to 17% each year. Mr. Roudabush said the need for the Hydraulic Road improvements was determined seven or eight years ago. Considering any type of improvement for the road other than what has been designed, would mean going back to redesign. This would add another one to two years to the project and delay any right-of-way acquisition, not to say anything about the inflatior factor. He was opposed to interfering with the priority of Route 743. In conclusion, Mr. Roudabush felt the need for improvement was evident and additional traffic from areas such as Earlysville puts a great demand on the road. Mr. Lindstrom felt the statements of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Roudabush were true but a lot of things have changed since the plans for Hydraulic Road were first drawn. Changes have occurred in gasoline prices, plans for growth have changed in the area and the price of the road itself. He felt the Board should reconsider if a four-lane highway of this magnitude was something still necessary. He also noted that development is not encouraged in the area as it was years ago. Mr. Lindstrom felt these factors make a big difference and putting this much money into just one road without making a reassessment was absurd. Mr. Fisher said the problem is the shrinking amount of dollars allocated to the County. He felt the question is whether the county can afford to put all funds for major improvements into Just one project for most of the decade, or building what can be afforded. Originally, it was thought that the extension of McIntire Road to Rio Road would be possible within a few years and now it appears that the funding will be delayed until the latter half of this decade if the road is built as a four-lane road. Dr. Iachetta disagreed very strongly because he said thirty percent of the County's population is located in the areas being discussed. He also noted that the only thing guaranteed by the state legislature is funds for gravel roads. He disagreed with Mr. Roosevelt that this graveled road fund is new because the bottom line figure is lower than it was four years ago. He did not feel this money replaces any money but rather is just a different way of allocating money. In fact, authority of the local jurisdiction was taken ~,,. ~ ~ ~~ ~a~ the funds can be used only one way. He said if the State is going to bui:~d~o~,'~h~e~daat~hat a project must to be paid for on a "pay-asTyou-go" cycle should be abandoned particularly with an 18% inflationary cyCle. Dr. Iachetta said Route 743 was developed with the 1971 Comprehensive Plan in mind and Changes in development of the area have not altered the number of vehicle trips per day. He felt the categorY that the Highway Department has given R°ute 743 represents the minimum road that can deal with this situation. He felt a three lane road is a very dangerous situation. In conclusion, Dr. Iachetta said continuing to place Route 743 on the "back burner", probably means that improvements will never happen. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Points made by Dr. Iachetta were true but the Concept of continui~ to place funds into a project which is getting further behind is something that should be reconsidered. Mr. Roosevelt felt two different things were being discussed. One, the road (Route 743) and the overall financing of all roads. He noted that the State Highway Commission has made it clear that the money spent on secondary roads is to be spent at the pleasure of the boards of the~counties. Also, there are three options for RoUte 743. One, build what is designed or aim toward building at a cost of 4.3 million dollars. Second, to cut down to some other design, and third, to eliminate the project altogether. Mr. Roosevelt said' hopefully there is no sentiment among the BOard members to-eliminate the project. Therefore, he would suggest leaving the project in the budget, get two million dollars on the project which is what this allocation of $715,000 will do and then in the near future he and the highway.engineers meet with..the Board to talk about options for scaling the project down. Perhaps reviewing what this two million dollars will buy and what has to be done to get to the 4.3 million dollar estimate should be considered. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not totally against scraping the project but Mr. Roosevelt's suggestion sounds reasonable. However, under the present circumstances, he felt safety problems should be addressed in priority order and not in terms of convenience. Mr. Roosevelt felt these items should be considered in the fut'ure. Mr. Fisher agreed. He then asked Mr. Murray to comment on road funding. Mr. Murray reviewed what occurred in the General A~embly last year. He said the Highway Department and the General Assembly said it would take a 175 per gallon increase in the gasoline tax in order' to remain current with the inflationary factor. The Governor proposed 4% and that was rejected by the Finance Committee. Mr. Murray noted that there was a great animosity developing between the State Finance Committee and the Highway Departme~ There seems to be the sentiment that the Highway Department is poorly managed, money is being wasted and the Highway Department should not receive any funding. If any funding was given, it should only be two cents while the highway department is being studied. Therefore, two cents a gallon was approved for the Highway Department while a study is underway. This study is being conducted by the Joint Legislative Audit Review Commission. The Commission is to'report back n~xt year with a recommendation as to improvements which can be made in the department and at that time, the General Assembly will reconsider increasing the gas tax further. Mr. Fisher said one troublesome item is the fact that money saved for large projects does not draw interest for the county. Mr. Murray was not aware of that and said he would investigate such. Mr. Roosevelt said he could show figures where allocations for various projects within the Culpeper District amount to some twenty-seven million dollars in the secondary system. Yet, the 'highway department funds available to pay the bills dropped to fourteen ~million dollars at one time this year. He noted that the two million dollars in the bank on a piece of paper for Hydraulic Road has been used to pay for another project elsewhere. Mr. Fisher said even if~the money were there the interest would not accrue. Mr. Fisher Said Mr. Roosevelt has recommended approval of the FY 80-81 budget for the Secondary Road System as presented tonight. Mr. Roosevelt also recommended the Board meet at a future date with the Highway Departmentlon what to do about the Hydraulic Road project. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the 1980-81 Budget for the Secondary System of State Highways in Albemarle County as presented by Mr. Roosevelt ~nd set out in the minutes of April 9, 1980. Mr. RoudabuSh seconded the motion. He also expressed his desire that the public realize there are limited funds with which improvements can be made. Roll was. called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NOne. Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permits. Mr. Agnor then presented the following lottery permits for the Board's approval and noted that the Commonwealth's Attorney has reviewed them. The first lottery permit for Board approval was for the Blue Ridge Court #8, Order of Ameranth for a raffle to be held on May 31, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Agn0r then presented a lottery permit application for the Peachtree Baseball League of Albemarle, Incorporated for a raffle to be held on June 29, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. RoUdabush. None. Ma~ 7__~_1~80 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit application for the Woman's Club of Crozet for a raffle to be held on June 2, 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor distributed a revised contract for transit service along the Route 29 North corridor that has been revised by the City and will be on the agenda next week. Mr. Fisher noted correspondence from the Potomac Edison Company regarding an advertisemer which will appear soon in newspapers throughout the Company's service areas in Virginia. The State Corporation Commission is to investigate the reasonableness of fuel expenses and the 1980 fuel factor for the Potomac Edison Company. Mr. Fisher then noted public hearings to be held on the State's Soil Erosion Management Handbook on May 28, 29 and 31 at the State Water Control Board offices. Agenda Item No. 11. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M.