Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-06-18 adjJune 18, 1980 (Afternoon-~djourned from June 11, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 18, 1980, at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from June 11, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 1:05 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush (arriving at 1:06 P.M.). Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. 0ffi~ers present: County Attorney, George R. St. John; County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; Assistant County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne; and Administrative Assistant, June T. Moon. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:14 P.M. by the Chairman who announced that the County Executive was out of town at a conference. Mrs. Moon is sitting in for Mr. Agnor. Also, the County Attorney will be~.~leaving t~e meeting after agenda item No. 2 and the Assistant County Attorney will here for most of this meeting and part of the night meeting. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from Central Virginia Electric Cooperative of an order filed with the State Corporation Commission dealing with Advertising Practices by Gas and Electric Utilities. Agenda Item No. 2. Review: been requested by Miss Nash. Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this review had Mr. St. John said he would compare the Runoff Control Ordinance, the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance, the Site Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance, and Section 18-22 of the Subdivision Ordinance dealing with drainage control. The State enabling legislation under which the Runoff Control Ordinance is authorized is set out in Sections 15.1-292 and 15.1-510 which say in substance that a county can do almost anything necessary to protect its water supply from pollution. The Soil Erosion Ordinance stems from Chapter 7, Title 21 of the Code of Virginia. Under Section 17-5-13 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 18-22 of the Subdivision Ordinance, at the time of site plan or subdivision approval, an applicant has to submit a plan showing that the rate of runoff leaving the property will be no greater after development than it was before development. In comparing these ordinances with each other, the question is whether there are statutory standards that must be followed in enforcement of these ordinances. With respect to the Runoff Control Ordinance, the answer is no. The Runoff Control Ordinance was an innovative ordinance created by this county and there are no standards for that ordinance in State statutes. There are statutory standards for the Soil Erosion Control Ordinance in the State Erosion Control Handbook. There is very little latitude in enforcing that ordinance. There are statutory standards in the Zoning Ordinance for the site plan section, but the standards are very broad allowing a lot of latitude. Next comes the question of who enforces these ordinances. The Runoff Control Ordinance is enforced by the Runoff Control Official. The Soil Erosion Control Ordinance is enforced by the Zoning Administrator. For site plans and subdivision plats, the Planning Commission is the approving agent, but since the County Engineer is on the review committee for these plats and plans, his office probably has the most effective influence on conditions placed relative to drainage control. Mr. St. John said the Runoff Control and the Soil Erosion Control Ordinances overlap each other in the area of the drinking water impoundments. Also, there is an appendix to the Soil Erosion Ordinance which only applies in the area of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Dr. Iachetta asked which ordinance takes precedence. Mr. St. John said neither takes precedenc On the subject of who approves and who enforces these ordinances, the Runoff Control Ordinance provides for a technical review committee which is advisory only to the Runoff Control Official his decision is final. The Soil Erosion Control Ordinance provides for a Soil Erosion Advisory Committee and the Zoning Administrator must adopt the recommendations of the Advisory Committee, which must in turn follow the State Erosion Control Handbook to be sure that the Handbook has been complied with. Mr. St. John said the next question is, who has the appelate review of decisions made by these approving or enforcing officers. Under the Runoff Control Ordinance there is no procedure for review by any county official or body. The matter would go straight to court. Under the Soil Erosion Ordinance, there is a provision for the board of supervisors to review any interpretation of the Handbook made by the Zoning Administrator and to impose its own interpretation. But, the Board would first have to hear the reasons of the Advisory Committee before imposing any decision. The question of who maintains runoff control facilities is still a gray area. The ordinance contains a provision requiring that a bond be given by the developer for construction and maintenance of facilites in what amounts to perpetuity. Also, if the Runoff Official thinks it is necessary, a homeowners association can be established to maintain the facilities, or if the Runoff Official deems it advisable, the facilities can be dedicated to public use. The facilities would then become the property of and be maintained by the County, although the board of supervisors would have to consent to acceptance of the facilities. Mr. St. John then listed the key elements of the Runoff Control Ordinance: 1) No septic field can be constructed within 100 horizontal feet of the edge of any impoundment or stream. 2) No permit for any earth-disturbing activity can be issued for any development until a runoff control permit is issued. (Exceptions: Any development with 5% or less of the area of the lot involved is exempt. Any development establishing not more than 500 square feet of impervious cover and disturbance of not more than 100 cubic yards of earth is exempt. Several other exemptions are listed in the ordinance.) June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11, 1980) 3) The runoff after development will be of no lesser quality upon leaving the site than would have been the case in the absence of development. 4) Regardless of the situation before development, the runoff will have a maximum suspended solids loading of 135 pounds per acre per year, and a maximum phosphorus loading of 0.68 pounds per acre per year, whichever shall be less. Mr. St. John said there is also a grandfather clause which says that if all of these provisions result in an absolute confiscation of a lot so that it cannot be developed at all, then the Runoff Control Official can approve a septic field location as long as some measures are submitted which lead him to believe that it will not be a danger to the public health, sa£e.ty and welfare Mr. St. John said there has been one key amendment to the Runoff Control Ordinance since initial adoption of same. When the ordinance was first enacted, it contained a provision that there could be no sewage disposal system constructed within 200 horizontal feet of the edge of any impoundment at normal pool or within 200 horizontal feet of the centerline of any perennial or intermittent stream flowing into any impoundment. This was reduced to 100 feet because that figure is used by the State Health Department and there was no substantative evidence for sticking with the 200 feet. In a strict application of the ordinance, before any site plan or subdivision plat is submitted for approval, the applicant should fill out a preliminary runoff control plan and the appropriate receiving official then sends the plan to the different departments for the purpose of ascertaining if the plan is feasible. The ordinance does not require that the applicant submit a runoff control plan at this point. In the strict language of the ordinance a runoff control permit should be issued before final site plan or subdivision approval. But, the workable interpretation of the ordinance is that the applicant finds out if the runoff control plan is feasible before getting site plan or subdivision approval, but waits until after getting site plan or subdivision approval before filing the actual runoff control plan. Mr. St. John said he did not know if there was any confusion caused by having the zoning administrator in charge of the Soil Erosion Ordinance and the County Engineer in charge of the Runoff Control Ordinance, but there is that potential in the way the ordinances are worded. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was anything which prohibited the Board from designating one official - such as the Watershed Management.Official - to be responsible for soil erosion administration and runoff control. Mr. St. John said there was no legal impediment to designating one person for these responsibilities, but he felt it would be difficult admini- stratively. Mr. Fisher said the Board really needed a map to show where the three different ordinance: apply in the County. The Soil Erosion ordinance applies to the entire County, but the Appendix to the Soil Erosion ordinance applies only in the South Fork Rivanna River watershed. The Runoff Control Ordinance covers all watershed areas including the South Fork, Totier, Ragged Mountain, Sugar Hollow and Beaver Creek. Section 18-22 of the Subdivision Ordinance, commonly known as the Stormwater Detention Ordinance, applies only in designated areas of high urban density; mostly north of the City limits and outside of the South Fork watershed. At this time, Mr. Fisher recognized Mayor Laurence Brunton of Charlottesville. Mayor Brunton said the City Council is aware of the watershed issue and appreciates the problems this Board has with ordinances, plans and desires of people who want to build in the South Fork Rivanna watershed. The Council keeps aware of the situation and sends its vote of confidence to this Board. The Council has asked members of its staff to give the Board and County staff any help that is needed on this question. The Council wants to keep a spirit of cooperation in the community. Mr. Fisher said he had enjoyed Working with Mayor Brunton and personally felt that Mayor Brunton's enthustiatic leadership on behalf of the City has been a valuable asset. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer and Runoff Control Official, handed to the Board a memorandum dated June 11, 1980, entitled "Review of the Runoff Control Ordinance": An initial report on the Runoff Control Ordinance was given to the Board on February 14, 1979. The ordinance had been in effect for 14 months at that time. This report contained background material that is indirectly related to the ordinance, but directly related to the watershed which the ordinance is intended to control so far as development is concerned. This present report updates some of the land use data of the initial report. Requests for building permits on sites within the watershed are regularly referred to the Runoff Control Official for determination whether or not a runoff control permit is required. During the 30-month existence of the ordinance, 679 such instances have been examined. Building permits and certificates of occupancy which have been issued in the South RiVanna watershed continue to show a disproportionately high amount of activity in comparison with the county as a whole. The record of subdivisions within the watershed which were given final approval between January 1, 1979, and April 30, 1980, show the following: Number of Subdivisions: ~ 70 Total Number of Lots: 344 Total Acreage: 1,714 Average Lot Size: 5 acres June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 1i, 1980) The 36 applications which have been received to date involved 288 acres, 329 proposed dwelling units, and 12 other than resident construction, including schools, office buildings, manufacturing, church, garage, etc. SUMMARY OF RUNOFF CONTROL PERMIT APPLICATIONS October 1, 1977 through April 30, 1980 Number of permits requested Number of permits issued Number of issued permits used 36 26 Disposition of permits requested Number of permits requested Number of requests approved Number of requests denied Number of requests under consideration Number of approved requests awaiting bonds Number of approved requests elapsed Number of approved requests issued permits 36 31 3 2 4 1 26 Following the approval of the applicant's methods for the control of rate of runoff, loss of sediment and phosphorus, the Runoff Control Official sets ~the amount of bond for the completion of the work. Following the posting of an acceptable bond by the applicant, a permit is issued. This bond is held for a one-year period after the work described in the permit has been accepted by the Runoff Control Official. As to the problems of administration of She ordinance, it is found that applicants are frequently too optimistic in setting the completion time of their development. While the economy remains under strong inflationary influences, this poor time estimate may cause the cost estimates to be inadequate, should a bond have to be called. In several instances, the Runoff Control Official has had to "prod" individuals in order to get them to satisfactorily complete work called for in the application. The following tables reflect development activity within the South Rivanna Watershed. TABLE ONE County Building Certificate of Time Permits Occupancy South Rivanna Watershed Building Permits Certificate of Occupancy October, 1977-December, 1978 673 January, 1979-Aprii, 1980 718 October, 1977-April, 1980 1,391 674 281 264 579 335 279 1,253 616 543 TABLE TWO Comparison of South Rivanna Watershed with County of Albemarle - % Watershed/County Time October, 1977 - December, 1978 January, 1979 - April, 1980 October, 1977 - April, 1980 Building Permits Certificates of Occupancy 41.8% 39.2% 46.7% 48.0% 44.2% 43.3% Relationship of Public Sewerage Development New Connections by Building Permits - County-Wide Total Public Septic Time Meadow Creek Camelot Woodbrook Sewerage System January, !979-April, 1980 201 13 3 217 497 Ail dwellings within the watershed are on septic systems. The number of dwelling units outside of the watershed for which building permits were issued during the period from January, 1979 through April, 1980 according to building permits issued, was 718 less 335, or 383 dwelling units on septic systems. Outside the watershed, there were 497 less 335, or 162 dwelling units served by septic sytems, and 217 dwelling units on public sewers, as shown by the record of building permits issued for this period. The percentage of dwellings to be served by public sewer, outside of the watershed is 217/162+217 = 57.2%. June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11, 198~) S~mmary of Runoff Control Permits Issued to Date To date, the Engineering Department has had 36 requests for runoff control permits. Three requests have been denied because of slope or density limiations. Thirty-one permits have been approved by the Engineering Department and the Runoff Control Committee, and of these, 26 have been developed or are being developed presently. Of the 26 permits that have been issued, four have had their bond released after a one-year maintenance period. Fourteen have received initial approval of runoff ....... ~ntrol measures and are in their one-year maintenance period and eight are awaiting initial approval. One of the most troublesome areas of administration of the Runoff Control Ordinance to date has been achieving completion of the required measures on the date stated on the bond. Permit holders tend to be overly optimistic in their estimate of completion dates for runoff control measures. The average lapse in time between the permit holder's estimate for completion and the actual completion has been six months. Generally, close contact with permit holders has been sufficient to achieve completion of approved measures and only once has it been necessary to threaten to use the bond to do the work. Various runoff control measures have been approved to date. Most of the 29 per- mits approved have been single-family residences and the basic requirement has been to maintain a healthy stand of grass. The incentive of the homeowner to do this is obvious and, with a few exceptions, these have been carried out success- fully. Six approved permits have included detention basins. Also, two have included parking lot retention of stormwater us±ng high curbs and slow release rates. Only three of these have been completed, but they appear to be operating effectively. Special attention is given to maintenance in these facilities. The use of wide grass swales to dissipate stormwater runoff and allow infiltration has been used in four permits. This measure has site limitations, of course, but is very effective in filtering and cleaning stormwater runoff through natural means. This measure has been recommended wherever possible. Two approved permits have included underground storage tanks. Due to site limita- tions, this was chosen as a runoff control measure for Windham Place in downtown Crozet. The stormwater from the parking lot will be diverted to several under- ground concrete tanks where it will be stored and allowed to infiltrate into the ground. We hope t~is method will prove to be useful in other urban type developments. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the 208 study being performed by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is progressing. Mr. Bailey said the 208 Study Committee has met just once and collection of data is in the preliminary stages. The permanent stream gauges have been installed by the State. Mrs. Darlene Samsell is in charge of water samples. The laboratory at the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Treatment Plant will be used for the processing of samples. Any special work required will be done through outside contract. Miss Nash asked Mr. Bailey his opinion of underground retention basins for parking lots. Mr. Bailey said they are costly. The least costly structure for detention and sedimentation ponds is a simple earth berm with the proper size orifice to control flow and an emergency spillway to bypass the flood stage the berm is not designed to hold. Mr. Lindstrom asked the maximum design of such a structure. Mr. Bailey said for a ten-year storm. If you expect to control too much, as far as volume is concerned, there is no control until after the volume of water has already done the damage. If the only control needed is the control of the rate of runoff, a dry dam that would not have a permanent pool behind it, but which had a conduit through it to get rid of the water from a ten-year storm, would be the simplest device. But, a pond to remove solids and phosphorus has to retain water for a long enough time for sedi- mentation to take place. A year ago during the first 208 Study, a pond in back of Albemarle High School which drained portions of the school property, Old Salem Apartments and George- town Green, showed high removal of these elements. But, one set of data from just one year cannot be used as a positive, there has to be a repeat in order to catch different conditions. However, the study showed that there was a surprisingly high.percentage of removal of both phosphorus and solid matter from that pond. Mr. Lindstrom asked if once that a device is constructed if there are problems with maintenance, etc. Mr. Bailey said whatever is done will require maintenance even if it is just establishment of the sod or use of trees. There has to be a more definite mechansim for maintenance for the people who will rely on protection from these devices. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Tucker if his department had any problems with citizens applying for approval of plats and plans. Mr. Tucker said his only concern is with the two different control officers. There is some inefficiency because people do not know where they have to go to get a permit. This may have to be discussed on the staff level. Mr. Fisher said the question of how structures built pursuant to the Runoff Control Ordinance will be maintained is still not resolved. He feels this maintenance will have to become a public responsibility, since he does not believe that leaving maintenance to indi- viduals or homeowners groups will provide any high quality maintenance. Mr. Lindstrom said he had met with Mrs. O'Brien from City Council one time, but did not follow up that meeting. It was the City's position at that time that the responsibility for maintenance, or rebuilding should same become necessary, should be placed on the developer. How that would work over a long period of time was not resolved. Mr. Fisher said with a new Council taking office soon, June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 1t, 1980) and with the information today that 26 permits have been issued and apparently no one is reponsible for maintaining these structures, he feels the Board should make another attempt to resolve this issue with Council, or take the responsibility for maintenance unto the County. Mr. Lindstrom said h~feels it will be a continuing problem with cleaning and monitoring of the devices constructed. Basically,'the County and City agreed that it would be an ideal situation to put the responsibility on the developer because it is that activity that is causing the problem. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned about the position of Watershed Management Official feeling that the salary may be too low to attract a person with expertise in this field. Mr. Fisher said the salary range and job description for this position have been approved by the City. Advertisements for the position have already been placed. Mrs. Moon said that interviewing for this position will begin in about two weeks. Mr. Fisher said, after having reviewed the Runoff Control Ordinance today, it seems that with some exceptions of inconvenience caused by having to go to two different places for permits, the ordinance is theoretically working. But, the County still has no mechanism set up' for inspection or maintenance of the structures, or replacement of structur~es should one fail. The Board has not finished its work of trying to permit development in watershed areas without damaging the reservoirs. If the Board.is going to retain through a zoning density the ability of people to develop in watershed areas, the Board must make sure that what looks good on paper and what is actually built will be maintained and do the job it is supposed to do. The City has offered to work with the County on the watershed problem. Mr. Fisher said he feels it is time to approach City Council once more on this subject, and asked if he should initiate discussions with Council. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to this effect. 'He also added that he felt there should be a random inspection on a regular basis of leechfietds. Maybe a summer intern could be used for this job. Mr. Roudabush said the County probably does not know where individual leechfields are located. Dr. Iachetta said some locations are probably shown on building permits. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion was basically that he pursue the question of maintenance of runoff control structures with City Council. Dr. Iachetta said yes The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors, stating certain problems with septic systems in the western part of the County; particularly the Crozet area. Mr. Fisher said the letter would be included as an agenda item for June 25. Agenda Item No. 3. Set Public Hearing Date: Amendments to the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Payne said these amendments are mainly to bring the County's ordinance into compliance with recently adopted State Code sections. Under Section 7-2 of the County Code, there is a new definition of "land disturbing activity"; wording is added to Section 7-5(d) to clarify the proposition that money posted for a bond can be used to insure the maintenance of soil erosion facilities during the construction phase. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to set a public hearing date on the proposed amendments for July 9, 1980. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. Street Lighting Agreement: Appalachian Power Company. Mrs. Moon said this is a ten-year street lighting agreement, with street lighting rates being negotiable annually, for 56 street lights in the County. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS there was this day presented to the Board of Supervisors a proposed contract between the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, and the Appalachian Power Company providing for street lighting, dated June 1, 1980, as set out in said proposed contract; and WHEREAS the terms and conditions of said proposed contract are agreeable and acceptable to the Board of Supervisors. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County: (1) That said contract be and it hereby is approved and accepted and that Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, be and he hereby is authorized to execute and deliver said contract for and on behalf of Albemarle County; and (2) That Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, be and she hereby is authorized and directed to affix the seal of Albemarle County to said contract and attest the same. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. June 18, 19.80 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11, 1980) (Note: The agreement, as signed, is set out below.) THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 1st day of June, 1980, by and between APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY, hereafter called the "Company", and BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA~ hereafter called the "Customer". WI TNE S SETH : For and in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree with each other as follows: 1. The Company agrees to provide and maintain a street lighting system for the ~ Customer; consisting of the number and type of lamps as hereinafter provided, together with electric energy through a general system of overhead distribution, sufficient to operate said lamps continuously from one-half hour after sunset until one-half hour before sunrise, every night and all night, approximately 4,000 hours per annum during the term of years hereinafter set forth. Said lamps shall be so maintained and operated that they will give the maximum amount of illumination obtainable under commercial conditions. The Customer agrees to accept the service herein specified during the term hereof and to pay therefore of the rates set forth below: PRICE NO. SIZE PER UNIT OF LAMPS IN LUMENS TYPE PER MONTH Mercury Vapor - Overhead - Wood Pole Mercury Vapor - Overhead - Wood Pole 48 7,000 $4.00 8 il,C00 5.00 2. The Company agrees to install such additional lamps of respective sizes and types above specified as the Customer may, from time to time, require upon receipt of a written notice from a duly authorized representative of the Customer. Payment for the service of such additional lamps shall be at the rate hereinafter specified, provided, however, that one additional lamp of not less than 7000 lumens shall be installed for each extension of 200 feet from the existing overhead secondary distribution facilities of the Company. Whenever additional lamps are so ordered, the minimum number of lamps to be furnished throughout the remainder of the period covered by this Agreement shall be increased accordingly. Temporary lamps, if ordered, shall be furnished under a special agreement. It is further agreed that the minimum number of lamps provided and maintained by the Company throughout the term of this Agreement shall not be less than the number of lamps agreed upon at the commencement of the term, namely 56 lamps. 3. Ail bills shall be rendered monthly and shall be due and payable by the Customer within a period of thirty days from the date thereof. 4. Ail material furnished by the Company shall remain the property of the Company and may be removed at the termination of this Agreement, if the Company so desires. 5. The Company shall keep each and every lamp herein specified in operation during the time provided and the Customer may make deduction for failure to operate any one or more of said lamps in the following manner: For all outages which shall be reported daily in writing to the Company by the proper officers of the Customer, the Customer may deduct from the total monthly amount which would have been paid for any lamp had no outage occurred, a sum bearing the ratio to such total as the period of the outage bears to the total time the lamps should have been operated in any month; provided, however, that should the lighting of any lamp or lamps be stopped by unavoidable accident, the Company shall be allowed twenty-four hours after notice of the outage in which to again light such lamp or lamps without being liable to deduction as above provided. 6. If the Customer shall default in the payment of any bills as hereinbefore PrOvided, the Company may at its option, after having given ten days' written notice of its intention to do so, discontinue the service herein specified and continue to withhold the supply of electric energy for street lighting until such time as the Customer has made payment for all bills in which it is in arrears. Any such suspension of service by the Company shall not terminate this Agreement unless Company so elects. Otherwise, upon payment by the Customer of the amount it is in arrears, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for the period herein specified. 7. The Customer, as a further consideration for the promises and agreements made by the Company herein set forth, hereby grants to the said Company the privilege of the use of the streets, alleys and public places of said Customer for the purpose of placing its poles and equipment for providing this service. 8. The Customer agrees that during the life of this Agreement it will provide in its annual budgets and estimates and levy of taxes sufficient funds to pay the Company any amounts due for services rendered under said Agreement. June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11,1980) 9. Ail and singular the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties .hereto, their respective successors and/or assigns. 10. This Agreement cancels and supersedes all previous Agreements relating to the supply of the service described herein. 11. This Agreement shall extend for a period of ten years from the date thereof with the Company's option to negotiate new rates at the termination of each one-year period. Agenda Item No. 5. Transfer re: Merit Increases. Memo was received from Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, stating that due to salary adjustments resulting from merit raises during the fiscal year, it is necessary to transfer from Code 1F-199 in the Personnel budget, $17,600 to various departments. Other departments were able to absorb increased salaries in their total operating budget. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $17,600 be, and the same hereby is, authorized to be transferred from Code 1F-199, Salary Adjustments in the Personnel budget, to the following line item codes to cover the cost of merit raises during FY 79-80: 1F-109 Personnel $ 870 1H-109 County Attorney 855 1K-109 Housing 1,300 5C-109 Commonwealth's Attorney (Assistants) 1,500 5C-109a Commonwealth's Attorney (Secretary) 350 ~6-102 Sheriff 600 6-105 Sheriff (Deputies) 8,000 6-106 Sheriff (Dispatchers) 2,600 10B-102 Inspections 100 10B-109 Inspections (Assistants) 800 10E-102 Planning 625 The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr Henley. Agenda Item No. 6. Loan - Clean Community Commission. Mr. Ray Jones said that about a year ago, the Clean Community Commission requested a loan from the City and County; the City granting a loan of $4,642 for the first year, and the County was then to be requested for a loan the second year. The money was used to buy four glass-recycling bins, with the proceeds from sale of collected materials being used to pay off the loan. This matter was presented to the Board last year, and the Board adopted a resolution of intent on July 11, 1979, to make a loan. CAC3 has paid off part of the original loan and needs to borrow $2,500 from the County; $3,000 less than originally anticipated. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle' County, Virginia, that $2,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 18A.1-20, Clean Community Commission, for the purpose of making a loan to CAC3, with said funds being repaid by the end of FY80-81. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 7. Appointments. (a) Advisory Council on Aging. Mrs. Babs Huckle was present this date and said she would prefer not to be reappointed to this Council. (b) Community College Board of Directors. No names were offered for appointment. (c) Jordan Development Corporation. No names were offered for appointment. Miss Nash noted that she is going with a group of citizens to a luncheon at the Meadows Community Center next week. (d) Library Board of Directors. No name was offered for appointment. : (e) Monticello Community Action Agency. No name was offered for appointment. (f) Juvenile Detention Home Commission. Mrs. Moon said that the original agreement establishing the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home contains a paragraph reading: "That in addition to the regular members, each then sponsoring unit of local government shall designate ... one or more alternate representative members to serve uPon request of the regular member ... during the absence of the regular member. Such alternate representative when serving as the regular member shall be entitled to vote and participate in all commission action and deliberation as if the alternate representative was the regular member." The County has not appointed an alternate for Mr. Agnor on this Commission. june 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11, 1980) Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to appoint June T. Moon as the County's alternate member on the Juvenile Detention Home Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. (g) Overall Economic Development Program. The following memo dated May 21, 1980, from Francis Fife, Chairman of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was noted as being received: In view of the worsening economic situation, it seems desirable to maintain the planning district's designation as an Economic Development Area. In order to do so, the Economic Development Administration requires an annual report to its Philadelphia office by June 30. Because elections have delayed the updating of appointments to the Overall Economic DeYelopment Program committee and because of delays in the recon- cilitation of difference in the new House and Senate bills for economic development, there has not been a meeting of the 0EDP committee since May 24, 1979. A meeting has been scheduled for June 19. Planning District commissioners are automatically members of the Overall Economic Development Program committee. Additional elected officials/minority representatives/business representatives will need to be reappointed or appointed by each local governing body So as to fill out ~heir membership requirements. Mr. Fisher suggested that Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Roudabush, Miss Nash, Mr. Henley, Mrs. Edna Anderson, Dr. Vivian Gordon, Mr. Charles Vest, and himself serve on this committee with Mr. Agnor being an alternate. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. meeting. School Board. Mr. Fisher requested that this be carried over to the June 25th (i) Road Viewers. Miss Nash nominated Mr. C. Bernard Brown. Mr. Fisher nominated Mr. John O. Higginson. Mr. Roudabush nominated Mr. William L. Rennolds. Motion to appoint these persons as Road Viewers was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: \ AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Lindstrom. (j) Office on Youth. No names were offered for nomination. Agenda Item No. 8. Claims against the Dog Fund. Claim from Mr. Joseph Monroe for one billy goat killed by dogs on April 15, 1980, was presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Monroe was allowed $40.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the vote which follows: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Claim from Mr. Roy L. Bailey for five large hampshire crossed sheep and four hampshire suffolk crossed lambs killed by dogs on April 16, 1980, was Presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Bailey was allowed $75.00 each for the five large sheep for a total of $375.00 and $30.00 each for the suffolk sheep for a total of $120.00; grand total of $495.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley? Agenda Item No. 9. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff's Office and Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney, for the month of May, 1980 were presented. Also included were statements of salaries for the months of April, May and June, 1980. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 10. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of May, 1980, was presented. Also included was statement of salaries for the month of April, 1980. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 11. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of May, 1980, were presented, along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of the jail physicial and statement of salaries for the paramedics and classification officer. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES- NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Miss Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 12. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of April, 1980 was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 13. Report of the County Executive for the month of May, 1980 was presented as information. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of May, 1980 were also presented as information: General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction - Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville - 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating - Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund Commonwealth of Virginia - Current Credit Account Total $ 455,422.14 1,368,224.84 99,652.87 2,961.29 49,358.12 240.34 271,166.95 99,889.18 86,953.43 150,826.00 . 90~164.23 $ 2~674~859 39 Agenda Item No. 14. Appoint voting member for County at Annual NACo meeting. Mr. Fisher said Albemarle County is entitled to one vote in weighted voting situations at the annual business meeting of NACo. He will be attending the Annual meeting from June ~29 through July 2, 1980. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to appoint Mr. Fisher to vote for Albemarle County at this meeting. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 14a. Discussion: State Farm Boulevard. Mr. Tucker said that State Farm Boulevard was constructed some time ago. When State Farm Insurance located on Pantops, road plans were prepared so the road could be taken into the State Secondary System of Highways. The plans were submitted to the County Engineer and the Highway Department for approval. When State Farm occupied the building, the County required a maintenance bond to be posted for the road. The road was built to the specifications prepared at that time. Since then, Land Company has submitted a subdivision plat dividing off lots fronting on State Farm The Highway Department does not feel that the road will be adequate for the Ultimate develop~ ment of Pantops based on zoning densities on the total property. An estimate of 30,000 vehicle trips per day has been calculated based on current zoning densities and the maximum uses which might locate on the property under those zoning densities. The Highway Department has requested that Virginia Land Company submit a transportation analysis plan; this has not been done. The Highway Department feels that State Farm Boulevard should be six lanes instead of four lanes, divided. The Planning Commission feels that what has already been buil~ is adequate, but the Highway Department will not take the road into the System. The Planning Commission has recently approved site plans for two separate lots and did not require that the road be upgraded based on the bond which the County is holding for maintenance of the road. Mr. Tucker said he just wanted the'Board to be aware of the situation because a certificate of occupancy will be requested for one of these lots on Friday. When that certificate is issued, the County may lose the power to require that the road be upgraded above four lanes, divided. Mr. Fisher said he thought the developer had indicated that they would bring back a set of plans that would limit traffic on State Farm Boulevard and also work out some acceptable agreement with the Highway Department. Mr. Tucker said he had met with a representative from Virginia Land Company and a representative from the Culpeper Office of the Highway Department, and it was determined at that meeting that a transportation analysis plan would be done. However, the applicant's engineer had requested that the Highway Department tell them what traffic count the Highway Department felt the road, as presently built, could carry. The Highway Department will not do that. Dr. Iachetta asked what number of vehicle trips per day th~eHighway Department had used to approve what has already been constructed. Mr. Tucker said the ultimate cross section for a Category V road was used. Dr. Iachetta said it would seem that if the Highway Department has already approved plans, that approval established the number of vehicles the road can carry. Mr. Tucker said the problem that has arisen, is June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11,1980) stripping of the road. The Highway Department feels this alters the traffic pattern along the four-lane facility because they had expected all traffic to exist at ce'rtain crossovers. Mr. Payne said Mr. Tucker was only advising the Board that the County has no legal right to deny the certificate of occupancy. He also did not believe that the County has any power to require a third lane on this particular lot at this time. Mr. Fisher asked if it was not a condition of site plan approval that State Farm Boulevard be taken into the State system. Mr. Payne said that was true of the original State Farm Insurance site plan. The road was built in-accordance with the approved plans and the road was bonded for maintenance, however there were not three separate users on the road, or the Highway Department would have taken in the road by now. Mr. Roudabush asked if this new lot makes the third user. Mr. Payne said yes. Mr. Fisher said he was not sure he understood all of the details, but he personally intended that State Farm Boulevard be a part of the State Secondary System. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Board could not request the Highway Department to work with the Planning staff in determining the capacity of State Farm Boulevard. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 14b. Discussion: Ordinance - Buck Mountain. Mr. Tucker said this matter was touched upon briefly last week during review of the Bazin~ plat. At that time he had showed the Board a colored map so the Board could see the proposed pool area, elevations and buffer area. The Planning Commission has recently had subdivision plats submitted for approval that would be impacted by the buffer and pool areas if Buck Mountain Creek were ever impounded. The Planning Commission has no authority under existing law to require a redesign of these plats so lots would not be impacted. Some mechanism is needed .to give the Planning Commission that authority. Mr. Tucker said he had met with Mr. Agnor, Mr. St. John and Mr. Payne to draft an ordinance that would give the County at least some authority to require a redesign of the plat. The proposed ordinance would restrict the issuance of certain building permits. The Comprehensive Plan would also need to be amended to set out in detail the impounded and buffer areas in more detail. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has requeste time to do geological studies in order to determine if an impoundment of Buck Mountain Creek is feasible. After such a determination is made, the Board would then have to decide whether to go forward with the project. Mr. Fisher said the request from the Rivanna Authority, with a map attached, dated November 16, 1979, asked that the area be protected while the study is taking place. He asked if the staff was now saying that there is an indication that people want to build homes directly in the pool area. Mr. Tucker said this is the first full subdivision request the Planning Commission has received, but there have been other requests for individual lots. Mr. Payne said the Board can adopt the proposed ordinance on an emergency basis and the ordinance would be in effect for 60 days. There. is a subdivision plat before the Planning Commission at this time which contains three lots which would be impacted by impoundment of the Creek. Mr. Payne said the problem arises from the fact that the Comprehensive Plan is not specific enough in the area of a reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek. The Subdivision Ordinance does have a provision dealing with the acquisition of land for public purposes. Mr. Payne said the reason the staff is recommending that this ordinance be adopted as an emergency measure is that the Comprehensive Plan cannot be amended on an emergency basis. An amendment of the Comprehensive Plan has to go through the full procedure. The Buck Mountain Ordinance can be adopted as an emergency measure since it will be a part of the County Code and is adequately specific since there is a map showing the boundaries of the pool and buffer areas which can be attached to the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said when the emergency ordinance was adopted for protection of water supply impoundments, there were specific health aspects involved which enabled the Board to adopt that ordinance. Mr. Payne said there is State authority that allows a county to prohibit the building of structures within any area contemplated for Public use, but the area must be specifically identified and there must be a stringent time limit on such ordinance. Mr. Roudabush asked what was meant by the sentence "the standards set forth in Section 15.1-495(b) of the Code shall apply to the determination of the existence of such hardship hereunder, mutatis mutandis". Mr. Payne said this code section is the statute ~regarding the board of zoning appeals. The reference is made here as a matter of shortening the description of standards for determining a matter of hardship. The ordinance, if adopted today, would only be in effect for 60 days unless same were reenacted after an amendment to the Compre- hensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said the Buck Mountain Creek watershed is the only area which has been identified as a potential water supply source of an adequate size to serve the population of the area. For that reason, the Board has asked the Rivanna Authority to expend money to investigate the area fo~ possible acquisition. The Rivanna Authority has entered into contracts for the work. That seems to be a serious commitment that if the site is found to be feasible, it will be used for an impoundment. Dr. Iachetta asked if adoption of this ordinance could be considered a taking without compensation. Mr. Payne said in his opinion it is not. Mr. Lindstrom said the County Attorney's staff seems to feel confident that the ordinance is legal as an emergency measure. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the buffer area is designe~ to take care of only an increase in the pool level of an impoundment, or if it is designed also as a vegetative buffer that will help maintain water quality. Mr. ?ayne said the County Engineer has said that the buffer will be designed to provide room to put in upstream impound- ments to protect the water supply itself.~ Mr. Lindstrom said if the Board is to adopt an ordinance that will impinge negatively on some people, there needs to be a good reason to adopt the ordinance and he felt the ordinance should cover only the pool area. He was not in June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June i1, 1980) favor of designating a buffer area based on a vertical distance. Mr. Fisher said he did not think Mr. Lindstrom's concern could be resolved today. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Board could rewrite the proposed ordinance to make the buffer 300 feet from the edge of the pool area. Mr. Roudabush said he would support the ordinance if it were consistent with what is presently in effect for the South Fork Rivanna River impoundment. Mr. Fisher said he felt the Board was floundering. Whatever area is decided on for the longer term deserves more thought and consideration than the Board can give it today. The ordinance that has been drafted is consistent with the request from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He felt the Board should adopt the ordinance and then ask the Planning Commission and Planning staff to further investigate what the buffer area should cover. Mr. Lindstrom said no one from the Rivanna Authority has ever appeared before this Board to explai.n how they arrived at their recom- mendation. Dr. Iachetta said the Board can change the proposed boundaries when a permanent ordinance is adopted. He then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance changing the date in the ordinance to November 14, 1979: AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS ON LAND RESERVED FOR PUBLIC ACQUISITION BE IT ORDAINED that the Albemarle County Code be, and it is hereby, amended b'y the addition thereto of a Section 5-3.1, as follows: Sec. 5-3.1 Restrictions on issuance of certain permits. No permit shall be issued for the construction of any building within the area shown on a map captioned "Map Showing Proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir and the Limits of the Proposed Buffer Zone," dated November 14, 1979, prepared by the Albemarle County Engineering Department, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, or within any area identified with reason- able specificity in the Comprehensive Plan for acquisition for public use for the period specified therein or for five years from the delineation of such area on the Plan, or amendment thereof, whichever shall be shorter. The foregoing notwithstanding, the building official may issue such permit in order to pre- vent unnecessary hardship in the application of this section. The standards set forth in Section 15.1-495(b) of the Code shall apply to the determination of the existence of such hardship hereunder, mutatis mutandis. For purposes of this section, a building shall be deemed to be within the area herein specified if the building, the sewerage system or any part of either of them shall be located within the area so identified for acquisition. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to add to any rights which may be acquired in any property subsequent to the expiration of any period of reservation set forth in the plan. An emergency being found to exist, this ordinance shall have effect upon adoption. The foregoing motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Henley. At 4:50 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:56 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said at the last work session it was suggested that Mr. Lindstrom write down his suggestions relative to the rural areas zone. Mr. Lindstrom said the following RA District Proposal contains his suggestions through paragraph "C" and from that point on, the suggestions are both his and Dr. Iachetta's. "Ail parcels in existence at the date of adoption of the ordinance shall have the following rights of subdivison: Ae For parcels of six to 100 acres - three, two-acre (minimum size) lots by right - administrative review only. For parcels exceeding 100 acres, an additional two-acre (minimum size) sub- division lot may be created for each 25 acres by which the parcel exceeds 100 acres. Special use permit may be granted for subdivisions creating more lots~ than provided above upon consideration of criteria set forth below. De Subdivisions in excess of three lots shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission and shall be subject to the following requirements: No access onto nontolerable roads or roads which shall be made nontolerable by the proposed development. Tolerability to be based upon standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Central wells shall be required which shall meet the requirements of the Office of the County Engineer and State Department of Health. 3. Ail lots shall front on internal roads. June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11, 1980) me Divisions permitting development on existing state roads shall have a minimum of 250 feet of frontage. Lots fronting on internal roads shall have a minimum of 120 feat of frontage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a special use permit shall be required for the creation of more than three subdivision lots from any parcel in existence at the date of the adoption of this ordinance for any such parcel, or portion thereof, which lies within the boundaries of the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment. "Subdivision lot" shall be defined to mean any lot created after the date of the adoption of this ordinance containing less than 25 acres. Thus, the creation of any lot in excess of 25 acres shall not be subject to the above requirements although the creation of any such lot shall not increase the number of subdivision rights accorded the original parcel under paragraphs A and B, hereof. Special Use Permit Provisions. In considering any application for a special use permit hereunder, the Board shall take into consideration, among other relevant factors, the following: The size, shape, topography and existing vegetation of the property in relation to its suitability for agricultural or forestral production as evaluated by the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conser- vation Service or the Virginia Department of Forestry. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestral pro- duction as the same shall be shown on the most recent published maps of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service or other source deemed of equivaIent reliability by the Soil Conservation Service. The historic commercial agricultural or forestral uses of the property since 1950, to the extent it is reasonably available. If located in an agricultural or forestral area, the probable effect of the proposed development on the character of the area. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be in an agricultural or forestral area if 50% or more of the land within one mile of the border of such property has been in commercial agricultural or forestral use within five years of the date of application for special use permit. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams, and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas. For the purposes of this section, a property shall be deemed to be located in a developed rural area if 50% or more of the land area within one mile of the boundary of such property was in parcels of record of five acres or less on the adoption date of this ordinance. In making this determination, mountain ridges, major streams and other physical barriers which detract from the cohesiveness of an area shall be considered. The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population centers, services and employment centers. A property with- in areas described below shall be deemed in proximity to the area or use described: --Within two miles of the Urban Area boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; --Within one mile of a Community boundary as described in the Comprehensive Plan; --Within one mile of the major crossroads of Type I or one-half mile of a Type II Village as described in the Comprehensive Plan; --Within one mile of an existing school. The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements programming in regard to increased provision of rural services. With respect to applications for special use permits for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries of the watershed of any public drinking water impoundment the following additional factors shall be considered: ae The amount and quality of~existing vegetative cover as related to filtration or sediment, phosphorous, heavy metals, nitrogen and other substances determined harmful to water quality for human consumption. The extent to which existing vegetative cover would be removed or disturbed during the construction phase of any development. June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June 11, 1980) c. The amount of impervious cover which will exist after development. d. The proximity of any Paved (pervious or impervious) area, structure, or drainfield to any perennial or intermittent stream or impound- ment; or during the construction phase, the proximity O.f any ~ disturbed area to any such stream or impoundment. e. The type and characteristics of soils including suitability for septic fields and erodability. ~-~ f. The percentage degree and length of all slopes subject to disturb- [ ance during construction or upon which any structure, paved area (pervious or impervious) or active recreational area shall exist after development. g. The estimated duration and timing of the construction Phase of any proposed development and extent to'which such duration and timing are unpredictable. ~ h. The degree to which original topography or vegetative cover have i i been altered in anticipation of filing for any permit hereunder. i. The extent to which the standards of Chapter 19.1 et seq. (Runoff Ordinanc-e) of the Albemarle County Code can only be met through the creation of artificial devices, which devices will: Require periodic inspection and/or maintenance; Are susceptible to failure or overflow for runoff associated with any one hundred year or more intense storm. Mr. Lindstrom said the purpose to be accomplished by this ordinance is to discourage development in the rural areas of the County. He said he had spent a good deal of time yesterday looking at tax maps of the County since he feels the Planning Commission's recom- mendation, in terms of continuing impact, may be different from what anyone contemplates at this time. The majority of parcels on the tax maps contain less than 400 acres. Under this proposal for the rural areas, 400 acres would be needed to achieve 15 lots. The proposal would not preclude applying for a special use permit under the criteria set forth. Mr. indstrom said he is concerned that if the Board allows 15 or 20 lots by right., every parcel on the tax maps could be divided into that number of lots so there would be scattered all over the CoUnty small lot subdivisions which would not have to be reviewed in terms of impact on agricultural areas, utilities, etc. He said that is the reason for his proposal, and he urged the other Board members to inspect the County tax maps to see how many existing parcels are of record. Dr. Iachetta said under paragraph D(4), he thought they were going to require 250 feet of road frontage whether the road was internal or external to the subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said the basic thrust of this proposal is that all subdivisions in excess of three lots would require internal roads. Paragraph F means that the lots would create new subdivision rights, but those rights would have to be allocated at the adoption of the ordinance between the 25 acre or greater parcels. Mr. Lindstrom said the criteria for issuance of special use permits was taken almost verbatim from the Planning Commission's Yersion through No. 8. From that point on, he and Dr. Iachetta had tried to address those matters which are pertinent to maintaining the quality of water in public drinking water impoundments. Dr. Iachetta said he and Mr. Lindstrom could not agree on the number of lots that would be allowed beyond the three by right. Under Mr. Lindstrom's proposal there would be four lots by right if the owner had 100 acres (three, plus the residue). For parcels in excess of 100 acres, there could be one additional lot for each 25 acres beyond the first 100 acres. In this manner, a lot of small subdivisions with less than 15 lots could be created and not necessarily developed on internal roads. Dr. Iachetta said he feels that any subdivision of more than three lots should be developed on internal roads to get rid of road stripping, but if there are too few lots, the owners could not afford internal roads. Miss Nash asked if there will be clustering and bonus provisions under this version of the RA. Dr. Iachetta- said he does not think there should be bonuses in the RA district, and he is beginning to think there should not be bonuses allowed anywhere in the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said he gave this proposal as a general concept; there would be a lot of details to be worked out. Because of the lateness of the hour, any further discussion of the zoning ordinance was deferred. June 18, 1980 (Afternoon-Adjourned from June !1, 1980) Agenda Item No. 16~. discussed. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. No other matters were Agenda Item No. 17. At 5:25 P.M., Nash, to adjourn into executive session motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss carried by the following recorded vote: for a discussion of personnel matters. The motion AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and.Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. - The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M., and immediately adjourned.