Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-08-13August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 13, 1980, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, 'Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:15 a.m.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. BOARD MEMBER ABSENT' Mr. W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:13 a.m. by Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes. October 24, 1979: Dr. Iachetta reported two corrections, those being page 185 in the paragraph starting Urban Area Neighborhood #6, the sixth line down, the sentence should read as follows "The Crozet interceptor is to come through 6..". The second correction is on page 186 in the second paragraph of the discussion regarding Biscuit Run, Dr. Iachetta requested the addition of the word "location" to make a complete thought as follows: "He asked the location of the southern boundary of the proposed Biscuit Run Area." November 20, 1979: Dr. Iachetta requested that on page 214, third paragraph Mr. Lindstrom's name be changed to Mr. Lockwood. December 11, 1979: meeting. Dr. Iachetta reported no corrections necessary for the minutes of this (Note: Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:15 a.m.) October 11, 1979: Mr. Lindstrom questioned the wording on page 159, third paragraph, which states"Mr. Fisher said it appears that most of the high density proposed on this neighborhood map is to the west of the ridge line." Mr. Lindstrom said he thought that sentence should have read "east of the ridge line." Mr. Fisher said he had no problem with the statement as summarized by the Clerks. October 17, 1979: meeting. Mr. Lindstrom reported no'corrections necessary for the minutes of this February 6, 1980: meeting. Mr. Lindstrom reported no corrections necessary for the minutes of this February 20, 1980: Mr. Fisher reported that on page 352, fifth paragraph, in the sentence reading "Mr. Fisher indicated that the applicant needed to request a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals." Mr. Fisher said the word appeals was left out. February 25, 1980: Mr. Fisher reported no corrections necessary for the minutes of this meeting,l February 27, 1980: meeting. Mr. Fisher reported no corrections necessary for the minutes of this February 13, 1980: meeting. Miss Nash reported no corrections necessary for the'minutes- of this March 12, 1980: Mr. Henley stated he had not reviewed the minutes at this time. January 14, 1980: Mr. Henley stated he had not reviewed the minutes at t-his ti.me. January 23, 1980: Mr. Henley stated he had not reviewed the minutes at this time. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes as amended, deferring January 14, January 23 and March 12, 1980, to another meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor introduced Mr. William R. Norris and requested the Board to confirm his appointment to the position of Watershed Management Official. Mr. Fisher said he had already had an opportunity to speak to Mr. Norris, and informed him about work presently being done toward better runoff control. Motion was offered by~Dr~ Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to confirm Mr. William R. Norris as Watershed-Management Official of Albemarle County. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Not Docketed' Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following notifications fPom utility companies regarding public hearings before the State Corporation~Commission-as follows: Appalachian Power Company requests for consideration of 1) Consumers Standard Pursuant to Section 113, 2) automatic adjustment clause standard', 3) master metering standard, 4) standards under Section lll,'and 5) application for interim rate increase. August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) c) Virginia Electric and Power Company request for consideration of the automatic adjustment clause standard as set forth in Section 113. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative requests for consideration of 1) Information to consumers standard set forth in Section 113, 2) automatic adjustment clause, and 3) master metering practices of electric utilities. Rappahannock Electric Cooperative request for 1) automatic adjustment clause standard, 2) information to consumers standard, and 3) master metering standard. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters, Street Sign Request. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a request from Mr. Jim Hill, representing Virginia Land Company dated July 16, 1980, requesting road signs for Whitewood Road and Greenbrier Drive. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for Street signs to identify the following road: ~ Whitewood Road (State Route 1455) and Greenbrier Drive (State Route 866) at the southwest corner of its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. Roll was called and the resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters, take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor requested this item be taken off the agenda, as the paperwork has not been completed. Agenda Item No. 3c. Highway Matters, Others. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Department of Highways and Transportation dated July 7, 1980: "At the June day meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the revision of the Hydraulic Road improvement was discussed. As a part of that discussion, the Board requested that I advise them how revisions to Hydraulic Road and request to mmprove financing for the Meadow Creek Parkway-McIntire Extension would affect the Secondary Road Six-Year Plan. Attached is a copy of the approved Six-Year Plan indicating revisions which could be made which would finance Hydraulic Road for advertisement next spring, and finance Meadow Creek Parkway for advertisement in the spring of 1984. This revision limits other financing in the plan to that needed to complete the Route 601 project which recently started construction, the Park Street Bridge project, the minimum amount required for gravel r~oad improvements, a railroad crossing improvement each year, and the minimum ~amount anticipated as needed for county-wide items. I recognize that the copy that I have forwarded to you is not particularly clear. In the interest of time, however, I.have attempted to use infor- mation which was on file in my office rather than completely redrawing the plan. If it is the desire of the Board to have this information in clearer form, I will be happy to supply it. If they wish to discuss this matter at a future Board meeting, I will be happy to comply with their wishes. It should be understood, however, that there is no legal need to revise the Six-Year Plan prior to 1982." Dr. Iachetta said if he read the report correctly, it indicated that there would be no additional funds for Hydraulic Road beyond the amended road widening project, until the Meadow Creek Parkway project is completed. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct. Mr. Roosevelt added that this plan as presented presumes that there will be an overall re- duction in the amount of money for road improvements. He noted that this year there is $1,255,000 and that most likely the following year there will be $1,171,000 available. Dr. Iachetta then asked the status of the Park Street Bridge project. Mr. Roosevelt said he was hoping for January, 1981, but that a schedule issued by the Highway Department has reset construction for November, 1981. Mr. Roosevelt said a possible explanation for the rescheduling is that it is possibly being reclassified as a Federal Aid Project in order to obtain additional funding. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to see the project advertised and construction begin in the spring as originally planned because the need has been there a long time. Mr. Roosevelt said he hoped to see the completion of Route 637 to the Ivy Landfill within the week. August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Miss Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt to investigate the possibility o.f installing signs at the exits of Monticello and Ash Lawn directing tourists to Interstate 64. Mr. Roosevelt said he would look into the request. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a radar warning, sign could be placed on Georgetown Road, due to the increased patrolling by the Sheriff of this street. Mr. Roosevelt said he has already received this request from a private citizen and checked into the matter. Mr. Roosevelt said it is the opinion of the traffic engineer that such a sign, according to State Statute, should only be used on major highways, and not on roads in the secondary system. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the sign were purchased by local citizens, could it be erected. Mr. Roosevelt said no, because it would be misuse of a sign according to State law. Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any way to waive or alter the requirements, in order to take Shawnee Court (Carrsbrook Subdivision) into the state system. Dr. Iachetta said the present cul-de-sac requirements would so greatly impact the properties involved, that it would be impossible to meet state requirements.. Mr. Roosevelt said a waiver of s~ate standards would only be considered at the request ~of the Board of Supervisors, but that he would be glad to view the properties involved, and speak further with Dr. Iachetta and the property owners about other possible solutions to the problem. Mr. Henley asked how soon completion of the Mint Springs Road (Route 684) was anti- cipated. Mr. Roosevelt said the original contractor had to fire his subcontractor and hire a new one, and because of that, work is slightly behind, schedule. Mr. Henley said that a recent heavy rain caused a great deal of mud-to accumulate on the road~ causing a few cars to get stuck. Mr. Roosevelt said he hoped the road would be~completed in early~fall. Agenda Item No. 4. Street Light Request~ Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a request from Mr. Larry J. McCarty, representing the Deerwood SubdivisiOn homeowners to install, street lights. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey investigated the possibility, and made the following re- commendation in his memorandum of July 17, 1980: "The County Engineering Department has processed an application by Mr. Larry J. McCarty, representing the homeowners of Deerwood Subdivision to.install a street light on State Route 649 (Airport Road)~ at the State Route 1501 (Deerwood Drive). The proposal involves installing three street lights along Airport Road to properly illuminate this intersection. I recommend the Board of Supervisors approve the request and authorize the installation of the lighting. Attached to this memo is a copy of Mr. McCarty's request and a layout sketch. Vepco prepared the plans for this layout. The Highway Department has re- viewed the location and found it to be in order. Ail affected property owners have been contacted by mail, with no objections voiced as to place- ment of the street lights. · The Vepco cost estimate involves no initial installation cost. The proposal includes the erection of one new utility pole. The cost for~the proposed lighting (two 7,000 Lumen Mercury Vapor street lights and one 11,000 Lumen Mercury Vapor street light) will be $26.50 per month based on July, 1980, rates." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the installation of the lights according to the recommendation of the County Engineer. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. McCarty knew this approval would be for~ three li.ghts. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. McCarty knows three lights will be involved, because the Highway Department informed hi~m that without the ~addition.al lights, visibility at this intersec- tion would not be substantially improved. Miss Nash asked if the County consid-ers the cost involved in maintaining these light fixtures. She said there are becoming so many all Over the County, that the cost to operate and maintain is becoming substantial. Mr. Fisher said that until the County takes action to change its policy, then each request must be considered on its own merits. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Show and Sale Ordinance. Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, said the problem involves itinerant merchants who set up for show and sale within a shopping mall, etc. Mr. Jones said as the~law presently stands, each merchant is obligated to purchase his own license to conduct business; as the proposed ordinance is written, a single license could be purchased for a specific period of time by the one location conducting the show and sale, i.e, the shopping mall, ~which would cover all intinerant merchants involved in the show. Mr. Fisher asked how this type law would affect charitable organizations or people setting up roadside stands to sell homegrown produce. Mr. Jones said it would not affect them at all; only those vendors who come to Albemarle County to sell their wares._ Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to set September 10, 1980, as the date to hold a public hearing on this proposed ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. August_ 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 6. Section 8, Housing Agreement Renewal. Mr. Agnor summarized Mr. Russell Otis' memorandum of August 8, 1980 which read as follows: The annual Administrative Services Agreement between the County of Albe- marle and the Virginia Housing Development Authority is due once again to be executed. The rental assistance program continues to operate smoothlY, with between 160 and 180 families under lease at any given time. The availability of rental units in a price range consistent with the limit.s paya~le.~ under the program, is still very tight, but improved. The Housing Office has been able to lease increasingly better quality units and has a good reputation with area landlords. This year's Administrative Service Agreement with VHDA, includes two changes. The f±rst is an increase in fees, from $12.00 p~ unit per month to $16.50 per unit per month, on units under lease. The second is a decrease in the County's allocation of Section 8 assisted units from 206 to 180. The 26 units will be returned when the County can demonstrate a need and use for them. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the statement about the availability of rental units being tight meant that there were simply not enough units in Albemarle County which qualified under this program, or did it mean that there were not enough families interested. Mr. Agnor said there are not enough units in Albemarle County which qualify. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the recommendation of the County Executive and authorize him to sign the renewal. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS' ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 7. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented an application from the Judge Advocate General's School Women's Club to hold a raffle on October 16, 1980. Mr. Agnor noted that this application has been approved by the Albemarle County Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve a lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of same. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal, Locust Hill Final Plat. (Described as part of parcel 84 on Tax Map 58, Samuel Miller District, plat dated June 11, 1980, prepared by R. O. Snow) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning, read the following planning staff report: Location: Part of parcel 84 on the Tax Map 58, Samuel Miller District; located on the west side of Route 678 at Ivy. Acreage: 16.975 acres. Zoning: RS-i, Residential Suburban (Proffer). History: ZMA-80-02. The Board of Supervisors approved a request to rezone this property from A-1 to RS-1 on February 20, 1980. The rezoning was approved with the condition that the applicant proffer the ~reliminary plat dated October 26, 1979, revised December 12, 1979, which was approved by the Planning Commission on December 17, 1979. Proposal: To divide the 16.975 acre parcel into 10 lots with an average size of about 1.6 acres. Topography of Area: Gently sloping. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section~ of Route 678 carries 1,663 vehicle trips per day and is listed as non-tolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the depth to seasonal high water and bedrock is deeper than six feet. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is in the Ivy Village in the environmentally sensitive area with the attention being given to visual qualities. Total projected enrollment of about six students with a School Impact: slight impact. Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comment: Health Department approval has been received. The final plat complies with the preliminary plat which was profferred for the rezoning. The County Engineer stated that a runoff control permit may not be required but wanted to reserve his comments until the road plans are reviewed. The Board of Supervisors, in their action on the rezoning, reserved the right to require dedication of the land shown as reservation on the plat. The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and Staff recommends approval, subject to: Recommended Conditions For Approval: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: ae Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1) County Engineer approval of the road plans; 2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; c. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; de Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance. Mr. Tucker noted that at its meeting of July 22, 1980, the Planning Commission approved the plat with the same list of conditions. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following letter dated July 25, 1980 requesting this plat be appealed. "This is notification that the undersigned desire to and do hereby appeal from the Albemarle Planning Commission approval of the Locust Hill finaI plat at the meeting held on July 22, 1980 in the County Office Building. The reasons for this Appeal are as follows: 1) The final plat is in violation of the comprehensive plan which pro- hibits lots of less than two acres in area. 2) The final plat is in violation of the comprehensive plan in that it does not describe in detail the drainage plan. 3) Because of the reconfiguration of the bank facing the lot, the drainage from this property could have a detrimental effect on the adjoining properties. 4) The plat is approved with a proffer which subjects adjoining property not owned or controlled by the developer to eminent domain, without proper hearing of the affected property owner. 5) Due consideration has not been given to the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Albemarle County due to the heaVy traffic conditions on Route 678 which is designated as non-tolerable by the highway department. Please advise all affected property owners of the date, place', and time that this Appeal may be heard. Very truly yours, (signed) Thomas W. Best Julius Marymor David E. Ashcom Virginia J. Ashcom Gertrude Marymor" Mrs. Susan Best, an adjoining property owner, stated that she and her husband objected mostly to the rerouting of Route 678. She indicated that her home presently is located 41 feet from the road, and nov even the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has been able to tell her the extent of additional right-of-way she may be requested to donate for this proposed rerouting. Mr. Fisher asked if Mrs. Best has received notifi- cation of the public hearings. Mrs. Best said two notifications were received, but she stated she did not attend those meetings because she felt it only had to do with authorizing the construction of homes. Mr. Fisher noted another letter in the file dated July 22, 1980, and sent to the Planning Department which he indicated he would not read, because of its length, from Mr. and Mrs. David Ashcom requesting the Board to investigate the realignment of Route 678 and to vote in favor of the greater majority of property owners. Next to speak was Mr. David Ashcom who said the road alignment presented on this plat is not a satisfactory solution to the problem, because it creates a "funnel" effect and leaves no possibility for future expansion to accommodate further development in the area. Mr. Ashcom recommended an alignment which he felt would least affect property owners along Route 678 and yet allow for the greatest safety factor. Mr. Fisher said the alignment suggested by Mr. Ashcom was almost the original alignment recommended by the Planning staff and the Department of Highways which was subsequently changed and approved by the Planning Commission, the Highway Department and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Julius Marymor presented photographs which showed the present alignment and condition of the road. Mr. Marymor indicated that if the present alignment is changed according to the plat, the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Best will be severely affected, not only by the actual road, but also from drainage. Mr. Marymor said in order to gain proper sight distance, vegetation must be removed for approximately 450 feet from the entrance to Locust Hills. Mr. Marymor said presently he gets very large gullies in his driveway following each heavy rain storm, and suggested that if the land above his is stripped of vegetation and paved, it will render his property almost useless. He asked why the Board could not restrict the access to Locust Hills to Route 250 and ban access onto Route 678. Mr. Marymor said the vote by the Planning Commission was not decisive, as it was taken twice; first four to three against, then four to three in favor. He in- dicated that the public did not receive proper notification of this meeting, as anyone reading the notice would understand it to regard strictly a rezoning and that there was no mention of the rerouting of Route 678. August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. M. E. Gibson, representing the applicant, noted that a preliminary plat was .~ approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 20, 1980, and no appeal of that pre- liminary plat was filed. Mr. Gibson stated that it was his opinion that the only real question that could be appealed at this time, is whether the final plat is substantially the same as the preliminary plat as approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gibson said the two plats as presented to the Board are the same. He next reviewed the letter from the adjoining property owners and discussed each point of appeal as listed. First he noted that since the approval of the rezoning, this plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly, Mr. Gibson indicated that plans will be presented to the County Engineer regarding runoff control, and that no development will occur until such plans are approved. These runoff control plans will als° curtail the drainage problems stated in objection three. Fourth, the statement of subjecting adjacent properties to eminent domain. Mr. Gibson said the amount'of property involved is 12 feet by 50 feet, and in speaking to Mr. Best, Mr. Gibson said there was mutual agreement that this amount of land was minimal. He noted further that the construction of this proposed subdivision will increase the property values in the area. Finally, Mr. Gibson recommended that the Board deny the appeal. Mr. Fisher noted that at the February 20, 1980, hearing the planning staff report presented noted "Ivy is recommended as a larger Type I village in the Comprehensive Plan and said that RS-1 density is consistent with the plan." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if he felt that quotation was correct. Mr. Tucker said some areas were determined by the Village land use committee as being environmentally sensitive areas, and he felt that the key shows that when those areas have been deleted, those environmentally sensitive areas still have the capacity for RS-1 density. Mr. Tucker said this area was one such area determined environmentally sensitive visually. Mr. Fisher asked if all the land area shown on this final plat is located within the Ivy Village, and if all of that is intended to be a density of one acre. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Fisher then noted that during the public hearings on this preliminary plat, only the applicant and Mr. Marymor spoke. Mr, Fisher next asked where the idea of realigning the road originated. Mr. Tucker said the Comprehensive Plan shows a realignment of this road which would have it run through the center of Mr. Taggart's property. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Taggart's engineers then prepared drawings with the realignment of the road as shown on this plat. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said the original alignment of the road is the one preferred by the Highway Department, but the alignment proposed by the applicant meets all the Highway Department standards. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Roosevelt if he has walked the site, and if any homes would be physically threatened. Mr. Roosevelt said he has not walked the site and does not believe anyone from his department has either. Mr. Tucker said he did not believe any home would be so threatened by the proposed road alignment that it would have to be removed. Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Tucker felt this final plat was substantially the same as the preliminary plat. Mr. Tucker said the only changes noted by his department are minor changes in lot lines. Mr. Fisher then asked if the areas shown for the reser- vation of land for the proposed new road alignment are included as part of the lot size for those lots affected. Mr. Tucker said the final plat notes that the affected lots will still have more than the required 60,000 square feet of land following the removal of the required land for the road realignment. Mr. Henley asked if the road alignment could be shifted enough to avoid taking so great an amount from the Best property. Mr. Tucker said it could possibly be shifted some, but felt that would have to be a determination of the applicant's engineer. Dr. Iachetta asked the location of the Best house on the property, relative to the road realignment. Mr. Tucker said Mrs. Best said the home is located 40 feet from the northern property line and 100 feet in the other direction. Mrs. Ashcom said the proposed realignment only eliminates one curve in the present road, and that the worst curve is above the changes and is being forgotten, even though the traffic on this road will increase. Mr. Tucker said the road is bad, but that any alignment improvement, especially where it enters Route 250, is a major improvement. Mr. Fisher added that this proposed road improvement may be a very long time coming because of the extreme shortage of highway construction funds. Mr. Lindstrom said that at the Planning Commission meeting it became evident to him that the proffer accepted by the Planning Commission and Board will provide the County with some certainty in the future of having a means of correcting some of the problems on the road and that it is in the best interest of the County to approve it. Miss Nash said since the preliminary plat was approved in February, she saw no way to change the decision now. She added that she saw no evidence substantial enough to reverse that Qriginal decision and that she would support approval of the final plat. Dr. Iachetta said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom, and that he favored the dedication of the road right-of-way by the Taggarts rather than using the term reservation of land. Mr. Fisher agreed with Dr. Iachetta that the land should be dedicated at this time. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if there would be a risk that the County or Highway Department would have to purchase the land in the future for those road improvements, if it is only reserved on the plat as shown. Mr. St. John said it would be a certainty that the land would have to be paid for, because most likely the owners would not be the same as the person presently applying for this plat. He added that the only thing a reserva- tion of land does is guarantee that nothing will be constructed on that property. Mr. Roosevelt said it was his opinion that if the property had to be purchased to construct the proposed road~improvements, that property would have to be purchased out of Albemarle County's share of Highway Department secondary road funds. He added that if the County only reserves the land, nothing would be constructed on that land to increase the value of the property when the Highway Department came along to purchase it. If, however, dedication is required of the applicant, then additional area should be considered in order to accommodate cut and fill slopes for drainage and construction. Mr. St. John said the Board should also be aware that if the County accepts dedication of this property, if there are drainage problems downhill, caused because of problems on this dedicated portion of land, the County will be responsible. August t3~ 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the plat be approved with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission with an additional condition reading: "(e) The right-of-way shown in the area shaded on this plat be dedicated to the County for public use. In addition to that, proper easements as necessary for future construction of drain- age for road alignment to be shown on this plat." The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher advised Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, to take note of the already existing water drainage problems along this road, and to give substantial attention to water drainage to the properties to the west, and to keep the water on the developing side of the road until there is a controlled access under the road somewhere to divert it. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not certain that drainage problems in this area would be adequately covered by either of the water runoff control ordinances, and suggested changing Condition #1.a.(1) by adding the words "and drainage plans". Miss Nash seconded the amended motion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion as amended, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. At 11:20 A.M., Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. A.M. The meeting reconvened at 11:25 Agenda Item No. 9. Request for funds: Outreach Counseling Service. Mr. Agnor summarized the request by stating that no funds were placed in the current budget because of the uncertainty of State funding. In May of this year a grant in the amount of $25,000 was approved by the Division of Justice, and Crime Prevention which will require a local match of $694.50 from both Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor noted that the city has already authorized the appropriation. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Will Paulsen, Director of the Outreach Counseling Service, was present if Board members had any questions. Mr. Paulsen said he had no comments to add to the request. Motion was offered by Miss Nash and seconded by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $694.50 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 9103-5672 for Outreach Counseling Services, Inc. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Noise Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this item has been before the Board on at least two other occasions. The last time a draft ordinance was presented. Mr. Fisher said at that time the Board had requested changes in the wording of that proposed ordinance, and asked the present status. Sheriff George Bailey said he has no problems with the first three pages of~the revised proposed ordinance, but on the fourth page he felt the proposed sound levels in a residential zone were much too restrictive. Mr.. Fisher asked if the problems were in Section 5. Sheriff Bailey said in Section 5 he would Iike to see the hours changed from "10:00 P.M. until 6:00 A.M.", to "12:00 Midnight until 7:00 A.M.". The Sheriff felt it would be impossible to enforce this ordinance if it were to read 10:00 P.M. because many people are still partying after 10:00 P.M. and he does nov usually start receiving complaints until around midnight. Dr. Iachetta said he disagreed and felt if a party were creating so much noise as to disturb people for any distant area, that the Sheriff should be empowered to force the suspension of that noise at any hour. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with Dr. Iachetta, adding that giving abusers of noise two extra hours between 10:00 P.M. and midnight is only imposing on neighbors during hours when a good many people are trying to sleep. Mr. St. John said from previous drafts, this ordinance includes all residential zones and exempts all agricultural noises, as well as defining specific sound levels. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to advertise this proposed ordinance as presented to the Board by the County Attorney's Office for public hearing on September 10, 1980. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 11. Report of the Committee on Utilities and Zoning. Mr. Agnor said this report follows an earlier report titled "Planning and Financing Extensions of Facilities within Growth Areas", Albemarle County, (submitted to the Board of Supervisors on January 14, 1980). In that report the Committee recommended a policy.of bonding each parcel within an extension area for its pro-rata share of off-site improvement costs. Under such a policy, the County would establish a revolving fund for construction of utility projects with payback into the fund accomplished through a bonding scheme. The committee felt that this type of policy represented the simplest technique for involving the County in growth management by means of incentives as well as regulation (zoning)~. The Board of Supervisors then directed the Committee to further examine the bonding policy and to approach local developers and builders in an attempt to determine the potential success of the program. The response of the group of developers was pessimistic. August 13, 1980 (Regular Da~v Mee..~i_~) To summarize, the group feels that an extension policy initiated by the public sector and based solely on planning criteria is undesirable and in fact unnecessary, and that the bonding program does not represent enough of an incentive to development to be successful. The developers group considers an extension policy to be undesirable in that it involves local government trying to predict market conditions, and also affect market conditions by placing certain parcels in a favorable position for development relative to others. The group also feels that this attempt to manage growth through utility extension is b~coming increasingly unnecessary due to the shift in the housing market to smaller single family and duplex units, the increased price of gasoline, and the impending adoption of a more restrictive zoning ordinance regulating development in the rural areas. The developers group offered as a general alternative a "revenue participation" approach potentially similar to the policy now in use. At present, the Service Authority credits a developer with up to 25% of a project's off-site coSts through availability fees, with a cut-off date of five years after project completion. However, the developers recommend a substantially larger amount of credit in~ order to establish adequate incen- tives. Such a credit would lower the cost of providing utilities for an urban lot to an amount below the cost of well and septic system, thus increasing the relative attractiveness of urban development. The feeling was expressed that charging an availability fee to a developer to connect to a system that is extended at his own expense constitutes an unfair burden. Of the various alternatives for "revenue participation", the simpIest and the one most often recommended (by other localities) is an increase in the allowable credits on hook-up, or availability fees. The Committee, however, does not feel it can recommend a change in the present credit policy without due consideration of its impact on the revenue structure of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Fisher asked if this meant that if a developer spends $100,000 on off-site development, the Service Authority will give the developer $25,000 credit toward avail- ability fees as hook-ups are requested. Mr. Agnor said that was correct and that those credits must be used within five years. What the developers suggested was that they receive a larger amount of credit with no time limit on use, for both water and sewer. Also, developers feel it is wrong to have to pay to hook on to the Service Authority's system after having installed their own lines. Mr. Agnor said a study of the present Service Authority rates was conducted regarding availability and connection fees. Fol- lowing this study, it was concluded that the Service Authority should be asked to waive the availability fee for both water and sewer just on parcels in the urban, Crozet and Hollymead growthareas and only on those parcels where the developer has extended the system to his development. Fees would~be waived to 100% of the off-site extension costs. This Board would then have to consider providing to the Service Authority budgeted yearly contributions to cover the lost revenue caused by the waiving of this fee and that a trial time period be considered to evaluate this procedure. Mr. Lindstrom said the idea of waiving the availability fees would favor the developer more than the bonding idea, in that the developer could use those credits to develop land which he already owns rather than land which the County would like to see developed. Mr. Agnor said developers felt the bonding process would allow the County to decide which developer would get preference toward development rights depending on where his land was located. Mr. Agnor explained this was not the case, that all bonds would be taken on an application basis, but developers felt more secure with the revenue sharing system. Mr. Fisher asked who would be entitled to the availability credit if the initial owner div~$~ or goes bankrupt or sells. Mr. St. John said in the one instance he could remember, the credit was not divided up among parcel owners, but paid to the building contractor who actually developed the water system, and any future person hooking up would then pay the availability fee. Mr. Fisher said he felt that sounded backwards from what he understood the process to be. Mr. Agnor said the proposal is that the developer will front-end all the costs and then when an individual comes to connect to the system that has been installed, the Service Authority would waive the fee. Mr. Fisher said that would have to run with the property rather than with any corporation. Dr. Iachetta said he reads this as putting the County treasury into the business of subsidizing the extensions. Mr. Agnor agreed and said that the Service Authority did not want to lose any funds from such a policy and secondly it is mostly an investment in the comprehensive plan. Mr. St. John said if a developer must run a line through several privately owned properties in order to reach his development, it would not work to allow this developer to connect free to the Service Authority and then also collect availability fees from those property owners whose, property the line crosses. He said the Service Authority would have to participate in the construction in an instance like this. Mr. Agnor said the perfect example of that actually occurring was in Ednam Forest, where the developer will collect availability fees for the next ten years from any property owner between his development and the original Service Authority line. Mr. Agnor said the Committee realized this would be a bookkeeping nightmare, and therefore recommended that the only one receiving the waiver of availability fees would be the developer of the original project; anyone else would have to pay the availability fee. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any debt service included in the fees charged by the Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said yes, a debt service is included in the fees. Mr. Fisher asked where funds would come from if construction of Buck Mountain Reservoir is necessary. Mr. Agnor said such a project would be funded by the Rivanna Authority and built into the rate schedule of both the Rivanna Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority so all customers would pay for same. Mr. St. John questioned the problem of developing a rate structure for the Service Authority~ because not all areas require an availability charge. Mr. Agnor said this would apply only in areas designated growth areas in the Comprehensive Plan. At this point, Mr. Fisher suggested this discussion be carried over to another meeting, and recommended August 20, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher said he would like to see information regarding the 25% credit and also what the monies are used for, i.e. the August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) availability fees versus the gallonage fees in the rate structure. Board members were in agreement with the meeting time. Mr. Lindstrom requested additional information from Mr. Agnor on an impoundment in the Crozet area (Lickinghole Creek), and actual actions taken by the State Water Control Board regarding the Crozet interceptor. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority about the sewer project between Old Forge Road and West Park Drive. Mr. Brent said that has been completed. Mr. Lindstrom added that the project cost $100,000 less than estimated. Agenda Item No. lla. Executive Session, Personnel. At 12:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing 2 personnel matters. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: NoneJ ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. At 1:36 P.M. the meeting reconvened. NOT DOCKETED. Mr. W. S. Roudabush was present when the meeting reconvened and stated that on August 12, 1980, he telephoned the Chairman and requested that he call an executive session to discuss personnel matters. On August 13, 1980 during executive session, Mr. Roudabush said he submitted the following letter to the Board of Supervisors: "August 12, 1980 The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss Nash and Gentlemen: I request that this letter be considered as my resignation as a member of the Board of Supervisors, effective August 13, 1980. I have considered this action for sometime now and it has become increas- ingly apparent that the duties of this office require more time than I am able to commit from my business responsibilities. I have been very for- tunate during the past five years to have had the complete cooperation of my family, business associates and employees who have exerted extra efforts on my behalf in order that I could have the opportunity to serve the citizens of Albemarle County. I will always be grateful to all of those who made this possible. As you know, recent changes in our economic patterns have required many businesses to make adjustments in order to cope with these problems. I believe that this action on my part is necessary to meet my responsibility to my family and business. There are many pending matters before the Board which I would tike to see resolved while I am a member, but, the longer this action is delayed the more difficult it becomes. In filling this vacancy I know you will give the fullest consideration to the expressions of the citizens oE the Rivanna District for their choice of a representative. Best wishes to all of you as you consider the issues facing the County in the coming months. - .... Sincerely, (signed) William S. Roudabush, Jr." Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. ~oudabush for-his years-of service, not only those as a member of the Board of Supervisors, but the years-as a member of the Planning Commission and many other Boards and Commissions. Agenda Item No. 12. Appeal: Terrell Final Plat. Mr. George R. St. John said he received a letter dated August 5, 1980, requesting this appeal from Mr. Robert Fitzgerald, attorney representing Mr. Daniel A. Robinson (on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors); Mr. St. John said Mr. Fitzgerald was not planning to be present today. Mr. Ross W. Krumm said he also has been hired to represent Mr. Robinson, and has submitted a letter of appeal on Mr. Robinson's behalf. Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Robert W. Tucker to read the staff report, then the letters of appeal would be presented. Mr. Tucker presented the staff report as follows: Location: On the west side of Georgetown Road, just north of Old Forge Road. Property described as Tax Map 60 and 60B, Parcel 70 and. lC in Jack Jouett District. Acreage: 72 acres Zoning: R-i residential (14 acres-) and~A-1 Agricultural (58 aores). History: May 20, 1980 - The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission. August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Proposal: Applicant is requesting a division of thirty (30) lots with average lot size of 2.2 acres. Topography of Area: Moderately rolling wi~h steep slopes near the pond and along the west and southwestern edge of the property. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Between Route 654 and Route 1408, Route 656 accommodates 7,003 vehicle trips per day ~and is considered nontolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna. Soils: No comment reported. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Rural. School Impact: Will be slight with a total projected enrollment of seven- teen (17) students. Type Utilities: Public sewer will be available to this project at sometime in 1981 when the Old Forge Sanitary Sewer Project is completed. Public water is available from a 12-inch line through this property and along Georgetown Road. Staff Comment: The Highway Department's recommendation and requirements are the same as for the preliminary plat, which are, recommended frontage improvements and required left-turn lane plus a commercial entrance. A preliminary soil test was done on the questionable steep lots (8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 23) and the results indicate that the soils on the lots have favorable percolation rates. This plat will meet the Subdivision Ordinance requirements and staff recommends approval subject to: Recommended Conditions For Approval: This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: ae he Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation commercial entrance approval with the left and right turn lane; Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval of road plans to be accepted in the state system; County Engineer approval of sidewalks; Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow of 750 gpm; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; Health Department approval; Note on the plat: "That the existing drive will be ab- andoned;'' County Attorney approval of lake maintenance agreement with lots 15, 16, 17, 23 and 24; Grading Permit; Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance, if needed; Provide street signs. Mr. Tucker said on June 24, 1980, the Planning Commission gave conditional approval of this plat but changed conditions lc and lg as follows: County Engineer approval of bikeway and/or pedestrian way; Note on the plat: "The existing drive will only serve lot 1"; subject to Highway approval; Mr. Tucker then read the following letter of appeal, dated June 25, 1980, and addressed to the attention of Colonel Washington, Albemarle County Planning Commission: "On behalf of Daniel A. Robinson who is a property owner having land ad- joining the property of Robin Lee which received final plat approval by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1980, please be advised that Mr. Robinson, pursuant to Section 18-4 of the Albemarle County Code does hereby file his written notice with the Planning Commission of appeal to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors of the Planning Commission decision to approve the final Terrell Subdivision Plat at its meeting on June 24, 1980. I would appreciate it if you would advise me, as counsel to Mr. Robinson, of any further procedural steps which the appellant is required to take in order to perfect his appeal. Also, in addition to sending any notices to Mr. Robinson directly concerning his appeal, I would request that notices also be forwarded to me as his counsel. Your .cooperation and assistance in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, (signed) Ross W. Krumm" The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Ross Krumm, representing the appellant. He said Mr. Max Evans, landscape architect was also present, and would show the Board the land planning aspects of Mr. Robinson's property. Mr. Krumm said Mr. Robinson has been present each time action has been taken to approve Mr. Lee's appli- cation, and voiced his objection stating his right to be provided access from the Terrell property. Mr. Krumm stated t~at the basis for Mr. Robinson's objections were that the subdivision plat as presented did not comply with Sections 18-37(a), 18-37(e) and 18-54(a) August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. These sections refer to the continuation. of planned, existing, or platted streets into adjoining areas for adequate access and approval of final plats. Mr. Krumm said Section 18-54(a) provides "The final plat shall not be approved until the subdivider has complied with the requirements and standards of design in accordance with this Chapter..."., Section 18-37(a) stated "provisions shall be made for the continuation of planned, existing, or platted streets into adjoining areas "' ., and Section 18-37(e) states "The street arrangement shall provide adequate access to adjoining parcels where necessary to provide for the orderly development of the County." Mr. Krumm said that Mr. Robinson's property is consistent with the topography of the proposed subdivision and therefore more compatible with Mr. Lee's land at points where access should be provided than with many portions of his own property. If Mr. Robinson is denied access through Mr. Lee's property, when the time comes to develop his parcel, access will have to be via a road brought from behind Montvue, which will encounter streams, flood plains, steeper slopes and be much longer and more environmentally dis- turbing that access through Mr. Lee's property. Mr. Fisher asked if any attempt has ever been made to settle the question of access through private negotiations. Mr. Krumm said Mr. Robinson has offered to purchase pro- perty for access or swap land with the subdivider so that he would not lose land while providing the access. Mr. Krumm noted that offers have all been rejected by Mr. Lee. Next to speak was Mr. Max Evans, landscape architect representing Mr. Robinson, who noted on the map how Mr. Robinson's property is more compatible with Mr. Lee's property than properties on all other sides. He noted such points as a lake, streams and steep slopes which could be avoided by road construction if access is granted over Mr. Lee's property. Next to speak was Mr. R. E. Lee, Jr., who said'one section of the subdivision ordin- ance quoted by Mr. Krumm referred to the orderly development of the County. He asked what orderliness is left in his subdivision if a major road goes directly through the center in order to accommodate Mr. Robinson's property. Mr. Lee said the amount of usable terrain on his property is much less than appears on the topographic map presented by Mr. Robinson. Lastly, Mr. Lee said he wished to clarify that the only "private negotiations" which took place was an offer by Mr. Robinson shortly before a meeting, to purchase a lot for about one-third of what he felt the actual value should be. Next to speak was Mr. Fred Landess, representing Mr. Lee who said he was of the belief that not all subdivisions have to have through access. Mr. Landess said he felt the plan presented by Mr. Lee was one of orderly development, and that the access granted Mr. Robinson to his property in 1956 through Montvue was still adequate access at this time. Mr. St. John said he interpreted Section 18-37(a) as meaning that not every sub- division street must mandatorily be a through street. He said if the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors decides that a given subdivision street is to be a through street based on the Comprehensive Plan, then certain prSvisions should be made for continuing the alignment in a well-planned manner. Mr. St. John next quoted from Section 18-37(b) which states "streets in predominantly residential subdivisions shall be designed to discourage through traffic, but offset or jog streets shall be avoided, whenever possible." Mr. St. John said this has never been interpreted to mean that every adjoining property owner has an absolute right to access to his property over the adjoining piece unless an easement already exists, in which case such an existing easement cannot be extinguished. Mr. St. John said that the Board has the power to decide whether or not the adjacent property owner should have access over the applicant's property, and if so a condition requiring same could be ordered. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if this area has been designated in the Comprehensive Plan for a through street. Mr. Tucker said it haS not. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt not only does the Comprehensive Plan designation for the use of land have to be considered in this case, but also the impact on existing streets that are in the area. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the area was not intended for urban type. development, and that the road in the area is already in a nontolerable state. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the suggestion for access onto Mr. Robinson's property is for convenience to Mr. Robinson, not for the orderly development of the entire tract. He' said the plan presented by Mr. Evans would encourage development of only a portion of the Robinson tract which could ultimately come out onto Georgetown Road which already has traffic problems; and he felt this was not the direction he would like to see taken. Miss Nash agreed saying that a through road would bother Georgetown Road and ruin the development of the whole area which has been pro- gressing in an orderly manner. Mr. Lindstrom then asked about the road shown as access to lot-one.. Mr.· Tucker said that is the existing entrance, and the applicant would like to keep that access.~ Mr.. Fisher asked how far that entrance is from the proposed new main entrance. Mr. Tucker said about 100 feet. Mr. Robin Lee said this separate access was done at the request of his planner for reasons he could not remember. Mr. Fisher then asked about the maintenance agreement for the lake. He said it seemed that only five lots would be involved, and questioned the ability of five families to not only maintain the lake, but to replace the dam and handle property damages if the dam should fail. Mr. Fisher said he did not want the County to become responsible if property damage occurs due to failure of the dam, and suggested the County Attorney review this maintenance agreement thoroughly and be certain that the agreement is binding and able to be enforced financially. Motion was Offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the Planning Commission's action..be affirmed with the exception of condition "g" which he suggested be changed to read: "Note on the Plat, the existing driveway will be closed and lot one will have access only onto Terrell Road." The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and c~arried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. ZOO August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Krumm said he would like to state for the record that Mr. Robinson has voiced exception to the Board's actions. (NOTE: A verbatim transcript on this proceeding has been prepared, and is on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Super- visors.) Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to delineate the impoundment and buffer areas of the proposed Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir. (Advertised on July 30 and August 6, 1980 in the Daily Progress.) Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Tucker to read the Planning Staff report: On June 18, 1980, the Board of Supervisors enacted a 60-day emergency ordinance relating to development in a portion of Buck Mountain Creek watershed. On June 24, 1980, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan to provide a better description of the proposed impoundment. These actions were in response to requests from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority that protective measures be enacted in the area of the potential impoundment. On November 16, 1979, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors "requested that protection be afforded the impoundment and buffer areas for the next two years while the necessary engineering and geologic studies are accomplished." The proposed impoundment is mentioned in the existing Comprehensive Plan in the last paragraph under Public Water on page 21. Map XII on page 24 generally outlines the impoundment area. Staff recommends the following actions at this time: Amend the current textual reference to provide a description of the area to be protected; ~mend.l~ap(~Xt~by inclusion of a second Map (XIIA) which would provide an accurata delineation of the impoundment and buffer area· Recommended Textual Amendment of Comprehensive Plan: (Public Water page 21) The Buck Mountain and Piney Creek watersheds have been recognized as potential water supply impoundments. As currently planned, a dam north of Route 667 at the confluence of Buck Mountain and Piney Creeks would impound waters to the 480 foot elevation as mapped by USGS~ providing a 624 acre reservoir with a calculated safe yield of 20 MGD. This reservoir is intended to augment existing water supplies. Assuming expansion of the South Rivanna reservoir through the use of flashboards to raise the normal pool level by four feet and assuming continued viability of existing supplies~ the Buck Mountain/Piney Creek reservoir would be needed about 2030 to 2040. Though the reservoir would not be realized within the design frame of this plan~ long-term planning to insure an adequate water supply is viewed as essential. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has requested that the County protect the proposed impoundment area and a buffer area while detailed feasibility studies are conducted. If these feasibility studies conclude the Buck Mountain/Piney Creek impoundment to be a viable water supply it is recommended that land acquisition be undertaken immediately in order to insure complete control and to eliminate uncertainty of affected property owners. Map XIIA outlines the proposed impoundment and buffer area. The buffer area consists of all lands upstream of the proposed dam which are between the 480 foot and 5q0 foot contours as mapped by USGS. It is recommended that development be curtailed within the area of the pro- posed impoundment~ including the area below the 490 foot contour interval, together with a buffer area of 100 horizontal feet from the 490 foot contour line. It is contemplated that the 490 foot contour interval will be sufficient to account for the impoundment area as well as additional area for forseeable flooding.. Additional Staff Comment and Recommendation: Proposed Buffer Area: The buffer area as proposed by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would consist of lands within 60 vertical feet of the proposed normal pool elevation. This buffer area of 3,236 acres would vary in horizontal distance from about 100 feet to over 10,000 feet from the normal pool elevation. The buffer would be more extensive on the tributaries, providing area for possible small upstream impoundments which would serve as pre- treatment devices. While staff has recommended inclusion of the 60-foot vertical buffer in the Comprehensive Plan, staff does not recommend protection of the entire buffer at this time. Staff reasoning is as follows: Staff opinion is that a determination of an appropriate buffer and feasibility of upstream impoundments should be addressed through thorough study as a part of the upcoming reservoir feasibility study process; The Buck Mountain watershed is contained wholly within the watershed of the South Rivanna Reservoir and is therefore already subject to current reservoir protective measures. Staff is reluctant to recommend more restrictive measures for a non-existent reservoir than are in force for existing reservoirs; August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has requested protection of the area for a period of two years. (This request was made in November, 1979. However, since no consultants have been retained for engineering and geologic studies, staff would recommend the two years run from adoption of the emergency ordinance). Based on the average rate of development in the South Rivanna Watershed (t du/714 acres/yr, from October, 1977, to April, 1980), about nine dwellings would be constructed in the buffer area in two years. In regard to ordinance protection, staff would recommend that a 100-foot setback measured from the 490 foot elevation (10 feet above normal pool to allow for flooding) in combination with existing regulations would be more consistent with protective measures employed on existing reservoirs. In addition, notice could be sent to all owners of property within the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority recommended buffer, that several options, in- cluding future acquisition, are being studied for those lands. While not prohibiting development, this action would serve to discourage development in the buffer area. Mapping the entire buffer in the Comprehensive Plan would serve as an additional deterrent to development. Given the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's request for protection was for a period of two years, staff opinion is that this proposal would provide reasonable pro- tection. While engineering and geologic studies are being conducted, staff would recommend the following studies be undertaken: Environmental Impact Study and Agricultural Impact Study should be conducted to determine the effects of the reservoir on: the environ- ment in the immediate area; the impact on the South Rivanna Reservoir during construction; the amount of agricultural land that could be rendered unusable due to innundation, isolation, and subsequent restrictive ordinance. Staff has already received public concern in regard to agricultural effects. A study of funding and timing of land acquisition and impoundment construction should be undertaken immediately and should involve the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Charlottesville, and Albemarle County. .Staff opinion is that development of a definitive program at the earliest possible date is desirable from a standpoint of informing affected property owners and capital improvements programming. Disposition of public roads and gas pipeline: Study by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority of these issues is underway. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should continue to work with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and Charlottesville in this regard. Relocation, abandonment, or'other solutions should be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 15, 1980, voted unani- mously to accept the recommendations of the Planning Staff. Dr. Iachetta said he wished to state that it appeared the same mistake was about to be made here as had been made for the other watersheds; that being the buffer area around the reservoir is inadequate. He said 100 feet has proven to be ineffective. Mr. Tucker said this would be only for the two year period while the area is being studied. If after that time the area is recommended to go forward for the reservoir, then the buffer area could be increased if necessary. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board. Mrs. Cromwell said the most important area is the drainage area which the reservoir depends upon for its water quality. She noted that the Authority has advertised for bids on the feasibility study. Mrs. Cromwell said she has received reports from many other states and her staff has studied the subject of reservoirs and the necessary amount of area to permit proper drainage. She said the Board cannot afford to be "chintzy" with this project, and make the same mistakes as were made with the Rivanna Reservoir. Mrs. Babs Huckle, representing the League of Women Voters, read a prepared statement which quoted numerous sources on how human activity too close to. reservoir water sources has proven damaging to the water supply~. She noted that the Research and Development Bureau of the Department of the Interior recommends control of the whole watershed, with 200 feet from the waterline to be held in fee simple and the balance in. easements which control the use of the land. She urged the board to buffer at least five hundred feet around this proposed reservoir, and take advantage of an opportunity missed during the planning stage for the Rivanna Reservoir. No one else from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom said the recommendation of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority should be taken and that is to acquire a 60 verticle foot buffer area. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, representing the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, said he hoped the Board would accept the recommendations of the Authority, and that if they felt the need for more stringent regulations, that those regulations also be adopted for the existing reservoirs. Mr. Bailey said the Board has a responsibility to those people who own property in the proposed reservoir area to keep them informed of the happenings and to allow them the use of their land .... Mr. Fisher said he agreed with Mr. Bailey that the Board of Supervisors should support action on the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by the staff and Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta said when the moratorium was placed on construction in the South Fork Rivanna Watershed, he felt the 200 foot buffer area agreed upon was too small. He said August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) that the Board should not make the same mistake again, even though this action will deprive people the use of their land for two years while the project is being studied, an adequate buffer is almost impossible to regain once it is lost. Dr. Iachetta said he would re- commend 300 feet from the 490 foot line. Mr. Lindstrom said that if the Board should decide to go with.the 300 foot buffer for this project, then the same buffer should be adopted for the other reservoirs. Mr. Henley said he could not support the 60 vertical foot recommendation at this time, as he felt the 100 foot buffer this would create is too small. Mr. Henley said he felt a minimum of 200 feet would be adequate to protect the land, but that the County need not own that land in order to protect it. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the recommendation of the staff except that the horizontal distance of the proposed buffer area be changed from 100 to 200 feet from the 490 foot contour line. This motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion, and hoped it showed the intent to review the existing runoff control ordinance in the rest of the watershed. Mrs. Katherine Kovac, a concerned citizen, said she has just purchased an 80 year old home in that area, and according to the maps, the entire property would be affected by this motion. She asked the Board to make some considerations so she would be allowed to make improvements on her home, and that something should be done so other potential purchasers of property in this area are informed of the possibility of the reservoir before they buy. Mr. Tucker read a section from the State Code which would allow the local building inspector to issue a building permit in such an area to avoid unnecessary hardship. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any further discussion before the vote. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the motion for a buffer zone on the Comprehensive Plan map meant the map will show 200 feet from the 490 foot contour. Mr. Tucker said the recommendation is that the Comprehensive Plan Map show the pink area (pink area shown on a map on file entitled "Proposed Buck Mountain Reservoir and the limits of the proposed buffer zone), but the area where building is restricted will be 200 feet from the 490 foot contour, as described in the text of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that some properties within the pink area are only 100 feet from normal pool elevation and if a 200 foot setback is adopted, this will create a conflict. Mr. Lindstrom said he interpreted the motion to mean that the Comprehensive Plan Map will be amended to show the area in pink plus the 200 feet from the 490 foot contour interval, whichever is greater.~ Dr. Iachetta agreed, but Mr. Fisher said the motion was to change the Planning Commission recommendation from 100 feet to 200 feet. That recommendation was that the map show the 60 vertical feet and the text would say that development would be curtailed in the area of the proposed impoundment including the area below the 490 foot contour interval together with a buffer area of 200 horizontal feet. Dr. Iachetta said he felt the 200 horizontal feet defines the area adequately. Mr. Tucker suggested dropping the pink area and have the map reflect where development will be restricted, which will be 200 foot horizontal feet beyond the 490 contour line. Board members agreed that that would be more straight forward and remove any question about definition. Dr. Iachetta then amended his motion to amend the Compre- hensive Plan regarding Buck Mountain Creek Watershed as follows: Textual Amendment of Comprehensive Plan (Public Water, page 21) "The Buck Mountain and Piney Creek watersheds have been recognized as potential water supply impoundments. As currently planned, a dam north of Route 667 at the confluence of Buck Mountain and Piney Creeks would impound waters to the 480 foot elevation as mapped by USGS, providing a 624 acre reservoir with a calculated safe yield of 20 MGD. This reservoir is in- tended to augment existing water supplies. Assuming expansion of the South Rivanna reservoir through the use of flashboards to raise the normal pool level by four feet and assuming continued viability of existing supplies, the Buck Mountain/Piney Creek reservoir would be needed about 2030 to 2040. Though the reservoir would not be realized within the design frame of this plan, long-term planning to insure an adequate water supply is viewed as essential. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has requested that the County protect the proposed impoundment area and a buffer area while detailed feasibility studies are conducted. If these feasibility studies conclude the Buck Mountain/Piney Creek impoundment to be a viable water supply it is recommended that land acquisition be undertaken immediately in order to insure complete control and to eliminate uncertainty of affected property owners. Map XIIA outlines the proposed impoundment and buffer area: It is recommended that development be curtailed within the area of the proposed impoundment, including the area below the 490 foot contour in- terval, together with a buffer area of 200 horizontal feet from the 490 foot contour line. It is contemplated that the 490 foot contour interval will be sufficient to account for the impoundment area as well as addi- tional area for foreseeable flooding." The motion was again seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. August 1~: 198© (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing on an ordinance concerning the construction of new buildings on land reserved for public acquisition. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6, 1980). Mr. Fisher read the proposed ordinance as follows: 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 by 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 reasonable 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 prevent 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 her~in 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. Dr.-Iachetta noted that the previous action by the Board has changed the boundaries noted in the ordinance as read by Mr. Fisher. Mr. St. John suggested removing "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..."; this would remove specific language referring to the map which the Board has just voted to change. Dr. Iachetta next questioned the line of the ordinance which states "specified therein or for five years from the delineation of such area on the Plan, or amendment thereof, whichever shall be shorter." Mr. Tucker said he thought that the five years is related specifically to the time for which the Comprehensive Plan is approved. Dr. Iachetta said he felt two years was too long for the consultant's study of the Buck Mountain area to determine if this is an appropriate site. Mr. Tucker said that two years would not only be for the study, but if the site is appropriate, this will also allow time to proceed with acquisition of the land, etc. Mr. Fisher asked if the preliminary investigation of the site would include such things as core samples, preliminary engineering, survey work, etc. Mr~. Bailey said the geologic investigation will be completed, and a recommendation as to the usability of the site will be presented within about 18 months, and that methods of financing the project could be considered simultaneously. Dr. Iachetta said defining the area should not be confused with acquisition of the area. Once there is sufficient information to define the area of the proposed reservoir, this Board will then have to notify property owners, handle construction problems and financing of the project. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Roy Patterson who said he felt all has been said at previous hearings, but that anyone who wishes the preservation of a potable water supply Will support this action. No one else wished to speak either for or against this ordinance and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the ordinance with changes discussed, as follows: 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 by 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 any area identified with reasonable specificity in the Comprehensive Plan for acquisition for public use for the period of two years from the delin- eation 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 prevent unnecessary hardship in the application of this section. The standards set forth in Section i5.1-495(b)or'the Code shall apply to the determination of the existence of such hardship here- under, mutatis mutandis. August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) 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. Dr. Iachetta asked what prevents this Ordinance from being an illegal taking of land. Mr. St. John said it is similar to an exercise of police powers, similar to those used when the moratorium was declared around the Rivanna Reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said he knows this restriction of building is essential, but had a problem with the taking of people's land for two years without compensation. Mr. Agnor said that is the reason this ordinance contains the hardship provision. Mrs. Babs Huckle asked whether or not this ordinance covered sewerage systems. Mr. St. John noted the second paragraph of the ordinance which specifically speaks to sewerage systems. There was no further discussion, and roll was called. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. At 3:47 P.M., a recess was requested. The meeting reconvened at 3:58 P.M. Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing to adopt an ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 8, Article VII (Real Estate Tax Exemptions for certain Elderly and Handicapped persons). (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 30 and August 6, 1980.) Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said a considerable amount of research was done for the preparation of this ordinance, and that certain changes were made in the income brackets from those currently in the code. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing Opened, and first to speak was Mr. W. L. Brown who said he and his wife are on a fixed income of $11,316 and asked if this Ordinance would be of benefit to him. Mr. Jones said if the total income for the entire household does not exceed $10,000 he would be covered by this ordinance; but that the ordinance would not fit Mr. Brown's circumstances. No one else wished to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public, hearing closed. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the net worth of an applicant was set at. Mr. Jones said the net worth is derived by excluding the home and one acre of land, anything over and above that in assets equals the net worth. Mr. Jones said the net worth figure is suggested to be raised from $20,000 to $35,000. Mr. Lindstrom said the assessed value of homes in Albemarle County has risen so drastically over the last few years, that he felt the ordinance presented is very inadequate to meet the needs of the elderly, and since the State Code allows substantially higher figures, he would like to see the County reconsider more liberal percentages of relief. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if Mr. Jones examined the possibility of tax deferral, that is deferring payment of property taxes until the property is sold. Mr. Fisher asked what if the amount of tax deferred approaches the value of the property. Miss Nash asked the approximate average dollar amount of property tax on a two acre parcel. Mr. Jones said he did not know, but Board members estimated approximately $250.00. Miss Nash said over a twenty year period, this could not possibly equal the assessed value_of the property. Mr. Fisher said he would not like to see this item deferred until a new method is worked up, and suggested the Board consider adopting the proposed ordinance as presented. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not at all in favor of the dollar figures presented, and felt the County could do much more to aid the elderly and handicapped. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested raising the base income figure from $4,500 to $8,500 and increasing the final figure from $8,500 to $12,000. Following substantial debate among Board members about the minimum and maximum dollar figures to be used, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, at the suggestion of Mr. Henley, that there be no percentages used and that the base figure of $10,000 be used, whereby anyone earning less than $10,000 would pay no tax, anyone earning more would pay full tax. Mr. Brown said this motion would be devastating to those on fixed incomes, and described his situation being a disabled veteran. Mr, Lindstrom said he wished to reword his motion to revise the amount of income scale to reflect incomes frOm $8,000 to a maximum of $12,000, and to change the deadline date for filing such claim to November 1. This motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Roll was called and the motion to adopt the ordinance with changes was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Note: Ordinances as adopted are set out below.) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE VII (REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS), SECTIONS 8-23, 8-26, 8-27, and 8-29 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, that Chapter 8, Article VII, of the Albemarle County Code (Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons), Sections 8-23, 8- 26, 8-27, and 8-29 are amended and re-enacted as follows: August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Sec. 8-23. DEFINITIONS. (Everything the same except for definition of TOTAL COMBINED ZNCOME). TOTAL COMBINED INCOME. Gross income from all sources of the owners of the dwelling residing therein and of the owner's relatives living in the dwelling; except, that the first four thousand dollars of income from each relative, other than the owner's spouse, residing in the dwelling is excluded from the calculation of gross income. Sec. 8-26. Same -- Eligibility; Restrictions. Exemption from real estate taxes permitted hereunder shall be granted subject to the following restrictions and conditions: (a) The head of the household occupying the dwelling and owning title or partial title thereto shall have reached the age of sixty-five years prior to the taxable year for which the exemption is claimed, unless, the head of the household is determined to be permanently and totally disabled as provided in subsection (b) of this section. Whenever the spouse of the head of the household is also joint owner and less than sixty-five years of age eligibility shall be determined as if the head of the household was the sole owner. (b) Same (c) Same (d) The total combined income shall not exceed Twelve Thousand Dollars for the calendar year immediately preceding the taxable year. (e) Same (f) Same Sec. 8-27. Same -- Calculation of amount; limitation. For eligible claimants, the amount of exemption from real estate tax for any taxable year shall be as follows: Amount of Income Per¢enta$e of Real Estate Tax to be Paid $0 but less than $8,000 At least $8,000 but less than $8,500 At least $8,500 but less than $9,000 At least $9,000 but less than $9,500 At least $9,500 but less than $10,000 At least $10,000 but less than $10,500- At least $10,500 but less than $11,000 At least $11,000 but less than $11,500 At least $11,500 but less than $12,000 o% 15% 25%~ 35% 45% 55% 65% 75% 85% Sec. 8-29. Change In Status. Changes in respect to income, financial worth, ownership of property or other factors occurring during the taxable year for whieh the~ affidavit is filed, and having the effect of exceeding or violating the limitations and conditions provided herein, shall nullify any exemption for the then current taxable year and the taxable year immediately following; except that a change in status due to the death of a qualified spouse will result in a prorated exemption for the eligible year. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, ARTICLE VII, REAL ESTATE TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR CERTAIN ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS BY ADDING A SECTION 8-28(b) TO PROVIDE A PROCEDURE FOR LATE FILINGS FOR FIRST TIME APPLICANTS AND HARDSHIP CASES. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article VII, Real Estate Tax Exemptions for Certain Elderly and Handicapped Persons, of the Albemarle County Code, Section 8-28 is hereby amended by designating the present paragraph thereunder as 8-28(a) and adding a new Section 8-28(b)'to provide a procedure for late filings for first time applicants and hardship cases, as follows: Sec. 8-28. Procedure for Filing Claims. (a) Same August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) (b) Persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes for the first time may file after May 1, but before November 1 of the taxable year in the manner set forth in Section 8-28(a). Further, in hardship cases, persons claiming the exemption from real estate taxes may file after May 1, but before November 1 of the taxable year in the same manner as set forth in Section 8-28(a). For purposes of this section, a hardship case shall include only those cases in which the person claiming the exemption was hospitalized or in a nursing home between February 1 and May 1 of the taxable year, or similar situation which in the judgment of the ~irector of Finance constitutes a hardship case justifying the extension of the filing period set forth in Section 8- 28(a) beyond May 1 of the taxable year. Such exemption, if granted, shall be effective only for the current tax year and shall not be retroactive in effect. Agenda Item No. 1Sa) Appropriation: Red Hill School. Mr. Agnor summarized a memo- randum dated August 12, 1980 from Mr. Thomas W. Hurlburt, Assistant Superintendent and Clerk of the Albemarle County School Board saying that the School Board approved a con- struction project for Red Hill Elementary School in the amount of $1,752,000 based on a low bid from J. E. Jamerson and Sons. Mr. Agnor noted that some funds have already been appropriated for design work on this project, and that Mr. Jones says $1,000,000 is available from a literary fund loan. The actual appropriation required by the School Board at this time is in the amount of $660,000. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $660,000 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 19.27 for construction project at Red Hill Elementary School. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 16a) Appointment: placed in nomination for this Council. Advisory Council on Aging. There were no names Agenda Item No. 16b) Appointment: placed in nomination for this Board. BOCA Code Board of Appeals. There were no names Agenda Item No. 16c) Appointment: nomination for this agency. Community Action. There were no names placed in Agenda Item No. 16d) Appointment: Piedmont Community College Board. The name of Mr. David I. Morris of 432 Rookwood Drive, Charlottesville, Virginia, was placed in nomination by Mr. Henley, to replace Mr. Harold S. Morton. The motion to nominate Mr. Morris for a term to expire June 30, 1984, was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16e) Appointment: Jordan Development Corporation. The name of Mr. Walter K. Oslin of Scottsville, Virginia, was placed in nomination by Miss Nash. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 16f) Appointment: nomination for this Board. Library Board. There were no names placed in Agenda Item No. 16g) Appointment: nomination for this Office. Office on Youth. There were no names placed in Agenda Item No. 16h) Appointment: nomination for this Board. Mental Health. There were no names placed in Mr. Fisher noted that there are a substantial number of vacancies, and asked if the Board wished to consider advertising to fill these appointments. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that some other method should be used to fill the growing number of vacancies. Dr. Iachetta said there are also too many Boards and Commissions and that many possibly could be consolidated. It was the consensus that the problem of filling vacancies should be further looked into and addressed again at a future meeting. Agenda Item No. 17) Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of July, 1980 were presented. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. AU s ' i? Agenda Item No. 18) Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of July, 1980, was presented. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, this statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 19) Regional Jail Report. sentation at this meeting. This report was unavailable for pre- Agenda Item No. 20) Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of June, 1980 was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 21) the Board's information. Report of the County Executive for June, 1980, was presented for Claims against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of June, 1980, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Debt Service Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 1,774.92 519,246.21 2,665,919.88 49,211.51 108,880.71 66,920.23 284.17 620,537.54 115,683.17 22,811.25 24,857.28 149,599.30 $5,345,726.17 Agenda Item No. 2la) Set Public Hearing Date: Ordinance on Radioactive Materials. Mr. Fisher said that on July 16, 1980, this ordinance was adopted on an emergency basis, and that a public hearing must be set. Mr. Fisher recommended September 3, 1980 at 7:30 PPM. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to advertise this ordinance for public hearing on September 3, 1980. Mr. Fisher said he was under the Smpression that there were several amendments pro- posed for this ordinance. Mr. St. John said no, that neither he nor his staff had the expertise to prepare amendments to such an ordinance. Mr. St. John said he has received an offer from Mr. Thomas Williamson and Mr. J. L. Meem of the Nuclear Engineering Depart- ment of the University of Virginia to come before the Board and explain work presently going on at the University's reactor and general information about nuclear energy in relation to this ordinance. Mr. Fisher suggested Mr. St. John contact Messrs. Williamson and Meem and request them to be present at the public hearing. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss.Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 22) Other Matters Not on the Agenda Mr. Fisher noted a report receiv~.d from the League of Women Voters regarding enrollment in Albemarle County SchoolS. Mr. Agnor presented a summary of the Route 29 North Bus System., stating that for 18 days in July, 1422 passengers were carried, 95 of which were elderly or handicapped, averaging 95 riders per day. Mr. Agnor noted 16 requests to extend the service hours as well as the route. Finally, Mr. Agnor noted that the operation costs for those 18 days of service was $4,200 and that $633 was received in fares. Mr. Agnor asked Board members if they des±red final copies of the 1980-81 operating budget. Mr. Fisher was the only Board member responding that he wished to receive a- copy of same. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter from a Mr. Hughes requesting a change in the County Code to allow dogs in the Albemarle County Parks, and wished to know if the Board would like to place this on an agenda for future discussion. Mr. Fisher said he would like to receive a recommendation from the parks staff before placing such a request on the agenda. Mr. Henley said there are already too many people and he would not like to see dogs in the parks. Mr. Agnor noted that the manager of Chris Greene Lake does not allow dogs because of past problems with fights and disturbing other park visitors, The manager of Mint Springs Lake allows dogs to swim at the far end of the lake, outside of the roped area patrolled by .life guards. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Hughes has been requested several times to remove his dog from the parks, and eventually was summoned to court; hence the letter. It was the concensus of the Board that this request would not be placed on the agenda. August 13, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 23) Adjourn. At 5:12 P~M., Mr. Fisher requested a motion to adjourn to August 14, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Chairman