Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-01-09January 9, 19~80 (Regular D~y Meeting) . :achetta then offered motion to have Mrs. Joan Graves continue serving on the ~vile-Albemarle Transportation Restudy Advisory Committee established in November )uncil. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following rote,: ~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. ~isher said when the legislative package was discussed with the legislators at the aeeting, there was a question raised as to restoring the power of local governments Lth road problems. Mr. St. John and Mr. Tom Michie were to work together on a ~d amendment to the Virginia Code. Some indication has been received that Mr. L1 be a patron for such a bill. Mr. St. John said he has worked on these amendments ~nt a copy to Mrs. Coleman, attorney for the Hi'ghway Department and indica-tions received that Mrs. Coleman and the highway department are interested. Mr. Fisher that the drafted amendment be sent to Mr. Michie~immediately with same being sent ?ginia Association of Counties and the Board since time is critical. Mr. Lindstrom meeting two weeks ago with the State Land Use Task' Force, Mrs. Elizabeth Seefeldt, )f Prince William County Board of Supervisors, had a draft of a proposed amendment <ed if a copy could be obtained for the Board. qilliam Johnson, President of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Justice Committee, was ~d commended Miss Nash for appointing the first black to a regular seat on the County School Board. He noted that the black community is ~ery concerned about L board and does not feel the at-large member should be left for a black. Eachetta then noted a considerable number of complaints received from residents in Lct and Mr. Roudabush's district about problems with irresponsible hunters. The ?oblem is with the Proffit Hunt Club on Route 6~3. People are shooting from the ~ave no respect for the neighborhood. With the problems involved, Dr. Iachetta Lf the game warden and the sheriff could check on the problem to see what can be ~isher said these same problems exist all over the County. A number of complaints received about using high powered rifles and prohibiting the use of such in ~eas of the County may be needed. Mr. Agnor said he would examine the problem on with the Game Warden and the Sheriff as well as from the zoning point of view. ~indstrom~asked if the planning staff has begun work on the Georgetown Road right ~r. Agnor said the engineering staff is working on the matter. ~a Item No. 12. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. <'~ CHAIRMAN ~ January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) gular meeting of the Board of SuperYisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held January 9, t980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Abandonment-Road off of 602 in Howardsvi Mr. George McCallum, attorney representing Mr. Gerald Miller (an adjacent prope owner), was present. He said another document has been sent to the Continental Can an adjacent property owner, for their concurrence. Documents have been exchanged or different occasions with Continental Can. He felt this document~includes all the c¢ and criticisms which have been received.on the other documents. Mr. McCallUm said r time from Continental Can will probably be two months. Therefore, he requested a t~ d~er~~Mh~i~n was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to d~ this matter to March 12, 1980. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by t? following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters: Take Roads into State Highway System. Mr. Agnor said Meadows Lane in The Meadows is ready for acceptance into the St~ Secondary System. He then presented the following resolution for the Board's consic BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in The Meadows Development: Beginning at station 0+10 of Meadows Lane, a point common to the centerline intersection of Meadows Lane and the edge of pavement of State Route 240; thence with Meadows Lane in a westerly direction 640.01 feet to station 6+50.01 a cul-de-sac and the end of Meadows Lane. BE IT FURTHER resolved that the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans' be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right of way and drainage e along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk o Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 687, page 531. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the fo resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor presented request dated September 24, 1979, from Mr. Gilliam Alvis t Auburn Drive in Auburn Hills Subdivision accepted into the State Secondary System. was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following reso BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby reques accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Section 2, Auburn Hi Subdivision: Beginning at station 9+29.90 of Auburn Drive, a point common to the January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) · was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded ~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~a Item No. 3c. Highway Matters: Letters from the Highway Department. ~gnor presented the following letters from the Virginia Department of Highways and ~tion: ~mber 11, 1979 ~quested in your resolution dated October 10, 1979 the following addition to ~econdary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective January 1, ~ION ~gfield Subdivision ~gfield Road - From Rte. 649 to end of cul-de-sac. LENGTH 0.13 Mi." ~mber 14, 1979 ~quested in your resolution dated November 14, 1979, the following addition to ~econdary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective December 14, 1979. ~ION LENGTH ~wood Subdivision [ius Court - From Route 1220 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.12 Mi." ~ber 18, 1979 ~quested in your resolution dated August 8, 1979, the following section of road ~reby discontinued as a part of the Secondary System of Albemarle County. This ~onfirmed by the Highway and Transportation Commission at its meeting on December 13, )NTINUANCE .on 2 of old location Route 665 from Route 667 to Buck ~ain Creek, Project 0665-002-167, C501. LENGTH 0.02 Mi." ~ber 19, 1979 Subject: Project 4000-104-102, C-501 0631-002-128, C-502 City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County January 9, 1980 (Regular Day/~Meeting) Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3d. Appeal: Kirtley Distributing Company Warehouse Site Plan. Mr. Fisher noted the following letter of appeal dated December 5, 1979: "Dear Ms. Neher: As agent and attorney for W. J. Kirtley, Jr. and Kirtley Distributing Company, please be advised that on their behalf, I am writing to appeal to the Albemarl~ County Board of Supervisors the imposition by the Albemarle County Planning Commission at its meeting on 27 November 1979 of the following condition: A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance. Very truly yours, (SIGNED BY) Stuart F. Carwile" Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner, then presented the following staff report: "Location: Property described as parcel 23B(1) on tax map 59, Samuel Miller D: located on the north side of Route 250 West adjacent to the Kirtley Realt~ Building. Acreage: Total site area, 3.50 acres with the building coverage being 5,000 sc Zoning: M-I, Light Industrial History: Two site plans for Kirtley Distributing were approved in 1974 and 19' rear portion of the site. The Realty Office was approved in January, 1971 to the proposed site. In addition, a variance was granted to allow the b~ setback line to be 74 feet from the right-of-way of Route 250 West in Now 1977 (VA-77-67). Proposal: For a 5,000 square-foot, drive-through warehouse building. Topography of Area: Level. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 250 West currently 7,700 vehicle ~trips per day. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation. Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comment: A 200-foot turn lane and 200-foot taper have been required by of Supervisors and the Virginia Department of Highways and Tranportation past. This site plan does not show this but.it can be required by the Hi Department for a commercial entrance. This site plan will meet the requi: Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends approval subject following: A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and~.Transportation approval of January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Me~etin~j) 3tuart Carwile, attorney representing the applicant, was present and noted that iA was also imposed on the Kirtley Realty Building site plan and was appealed to ~urt. The case is still in court. However, Mr. Kirtley was allowed to occupy the ~ecause the above noted bond was posted. The applicant is appealing this condition ~me reason that he appealed the condition imposed on the Kirtley Realty Office ~ite plan. There is an existing commercial entrance onto the property and constructic ~leration lane suggested by the Highway Department and the County would require ~ant to construct past the boundary line of his property onto the front of his property. Mr. Carwile said in light of the decision on the Hylton case, he does re the County has the power to impose this condition. At the Planning Commission ~en this site plan was discussed, Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney, had It the Attorney General does not feel that the Highway Department has the power or in this case to require Mr. Kirtley to improve and extend the deceleration lane. Dillon rule, Mr. Carwile said he does not feel the County has that power either. ~y cannot consent to that condition being placed on this site plan as long as the plan is still in Court. He then urged the Board not to impose this condition Lnt Mr. Kirtley's appeal. ~isher then briefed the Board on the history of this property. A warehouse is ~ the rear of the property and was the first building on the property. At the rarehouse was built, requirements for a commercial entrance were less than those oday. Therefore, there is an existing 100-foot deceleration lane with a 100-foot ~en the use of the parcel was intensified by the addition of the Realty Office, .y Department recommended the 200-foot requirement be imposed. The Board upheld ion. Now a third use is being proposed for the same property using the same Mr. Fisher asked if the 200-foot deceleration lane and taper would be on existing ~ay. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. isher asked if the Hylton Enterprises case applied to entrance permits. Mr. St. that question was not addressed in the Hylton case. His office has advised that Court says otherwise, the Hylton decision does not prohibit this condition. The does not state that the applicant will have to make any type of off-site improvement sed statutory authority of the Highway Deparment is to prescribe entrances and it uthority to set standards. The condition placed on the Realty Office site plan ite plan are the same. Instead of holding up on the certificate of occupancy, Administrator issued the building and occupancy permits with the understanding e court case is lost, Mr. Kirtley will make the improvements. Mr. St. John said e has stated that the applicant desires the same for this site plan. Mr. Fisher el this procedure was the way to encourage the construction of a deceleration arwile said he could give a long history of the problems Mr. Kirtley has had in th the County on this particular parcel, but he did not have his documentation oday. However, construction costs have increased by 15% while the applicant has ~ed in the various appeals with respect to the construction of an office building. ct to construction of an addition to the warehouse, this time loss has cost him of dollars. The Watershed line splits this particular parcel of land, therefore, ant had to comply with the Runoff Control Ordinance. The Deputy County Attorney e Engineering Department that in making computations for an impoundment, the site ~nalyzed in its virgin state; i.e., before the warehouse and office building were was only after much discussion and speaking with Mr. St. John that the Engineer's advised to the contrary. ~sher said he felt a third use on this parcel will certainly increase the traffic sarcel. The Highway Department recommended this condition for the second building the property and reiterated this recommendation for the third building. Mr. Januar.y__9_~ 80_ _(Regular ~ ~ Me?.. , t~ ing~ Mr. Fisher said the applicant chose to take this matter to court. The County s to issue the building permit for the realty office building without the frontage im~ being made. Now, the County is being requested to allow another building on the sit without the improvements which the County and the Highway Department feel are import public safety. Mr. Fisher felt the applicant was asking for too much. Mr. Carwile because the applicant had the choice to appeal the decision of the Planning Commiss~ the site plan. He noted that the bonding procedure is frequently used to take into conditions not completed at the time of occupancy or for obtaining a building permit this appeal is approved by the Board, Mr. Fisher felt the Board would be permitting buildings on a parcel of land which has an inadequate entrance. Mr. Carwile said i~ County is not entitled to have an additional entrance built, then the Board should r concerned about that aspect at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said there are arguments of equal weight on both sides of this c~ he was not sure what to do at this point. Mr. Roudabush felt the requests were in c with County ordinances, and the applicant has a legal right to use the property whe~ there are four or five buildings if such is permitted under the County ordinances. it would be an error to require an applicant to invest money to build a turn-lane az the court decide that the County does not have that legal right. Mr. Lindstrom did feel this condition was any different from other conditions that the Board has impo~ The Zoning Administrator had made an.exception because of the litigation involved a~ action was something that the County Attorney did not recommend. Mr. Henley said perhaps a third use on the parcel warrants the 200-foot taper. supports the recommendations of the Highway Department, but is willing to have the permit issued as long as the turn-lane is properly bonded; the County Executive has that the bond can be updated if the amount is not considered to be sufficient. Mr. said Mr. Carwile has stated the applicant's willingness to update the bond. If the posting the bond is not willing to increase the amount, the County can go to Court St. John has indicated that may be necessary anyway to obtain the bond. .Mr. Carwil~ noted willingness to update the bond. Dr. Iachetta asked if the litigation pertains to the County's right to require improvement. Mr. St. John said yes. Mr. Roosevelt then noted that the Highway Dep~ is not a party in this case. He also noted that the litigation will not determine the Highway Department has the right to require the improvement. Dr. !achetta aske~ will happen if another building is allowed on the property. Mr. St. John did not f~ will prejudice the County's case. It might convince the judge that the improvement needed for just two buildings, but is now needed for three. Dr. Iachetta asked if ~ County was less able to provide for public safety if a third building is allowed. John said it is unknown how long it will take to settle the litigation and a danger~ situation could be created with no time limit in sight. He suggested the condition changed from "no building permit" to "no occupancy permit" so the applicant can pro~ build and that will obviate the increase ~n building costs due to inflation. Mr. Lindstrom asked why Mr.-St. John advised the. Zoning Administrator not to the bond. Mr..St. John said the County had no conciliatory interest in this matter is a County ordinance providing that an occupancy permit be issued when the conditi. site plan,have been complied with, provided that any unfinished work is-bonded and i provided that the unfinished work does not invoice public safety. This condition public safety and is one of the conditions that should be comPlied with before an o. permit is issued. Howe~er, at the Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Roosevelt was a~ this would affect public safety and he said that he could not say that. The Zoning said he could not find that this involved public safety so the permit was issued. Agnor said the Zoning Administrator had discussed this matter with him and had made determination that the turn-lane was in exis~,~t was usable, and he could not rU January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) ~oudabush suggested the addition of a condition 2b: "Site plan will be amended to note: Existing turn'lane, not to be disturbed." Mr. Carwile said the applicant ing the validity of that condition and will not agree to submit a site plan to plicant wilI do that which is being contested in court. Mr. Fisher said the to allow the construction of the building, but not the occupancy of same until turn-lane is built or the court case has been resolved in such a fashion that on will not be necessary. Mr. Carwile said he understands what the Board is will not state it is acceptable to his client. Mr. Kirtley will either proceed he present suit or file a new suit to appeal the imposition of this condition and urt decide whether there will .be a deceleration lane or not. achetta then amended his motion to accept the suggestions of Mr. Roudabush and rom and to approve the site plan with the following conditions: A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: Staff approval of landscaping, including screening within the grass area on the west side of the building; Written Health Department approval; County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and drainage; Fire Official approval of trash storage; Note the number of employees; staff approval of change in parking, if required. ~o certificate of occupancy of any kind will be issued until the Following conditions have been met: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; Site plan will be amended to remove the note: "existing turn lane, not to be disturbed." Lndstrom seconded the amended motion and same carried by the following recorded ~rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss. Nash and Mr. Roudabush. Item No. 3f. Easement: Carlton Luck. Tas deferred from December 12, 1979, in order that the Engineering Staff could ~ proper documents for the recordation of a nonexclusive easement to the Carlton ~ty which consists of two parcels of land on the western side of the Keene Landfill. its were to include a provision stating that there will not be any further subdivisio ro parcels. Such documents had been prepared and were presented for the Board's Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve .ng deed of easement, and to authorize the Chairman to execute same: 'HIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 9th day of January, 1980, by and between ~UNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Grantor, and CARLTON A. LUCK and NANCY W. LUCK, ~d and wife, Grantees; W T rf' ~,T '~..q .q ~ rP T--f Jan~~_, 1_80 (Re_ula? D~- Meetin~ Agenda Item No. 3g. Request for Speed Limit Study-WhiPpoorwill Road. Mr. Agnor said calls have been received from residents of the Whippoorwill Holl Subdivision requesting the posting of speed limit signs in the subdivision. The con of the road lends itself to speeding. Mr. Agnor said he responded to the residents normally the Highway Department is requested to make a study of the area to determin the speed limit should be and then recommends if changes should be made. He then re on behalf of the residents in the subdivision that the Highway Department conduct a of this road which connects Route 614 to Route 676. Mr. Roosevelt said two studies have been conducted. One in September 1979, whe certain curves were to be posted for a maximum safe speed and this was never done. he has pursued the matter and the signs should be posted in the near future. Anothe was conducted in October, 1979, which found that 85% of the traffic was traveling at miles per hour or less. The traffic engineer referred back to the maximum safe spec which indicated that posting of this section of Route 839 with a 45 miles per hour s limit would give a false sense of security to motorists since this roadway curvey. In conclusion, Mr. Roosevelt recommended that maximum safe speed signs be p at the curves and delay restudying the problem until additional development occurs the road and determine at that time if there is sufficient volume for the road to b~ as a subdivision street. Mr. Lindst~om felt 45 miles per hour was too fast and noted more development hs occurred in the area since the last Highway Department study. Mr. Roosevelt said ms safe speed signs are not enforceable. Mr. Fisher then suggested that copies of the Department correspondence and reports be distributed to the concerned citizens in t~ If the resident~ still want to pursue the matter, then the issue can be discussed 1~ Dr. Iachetta noted his disappointment that speed limit signs are not posted because will enforce th~ law. Agenda Ite~ No. 3h. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt noted letter dated January 7, 1980, from Mr. Lindstrom concernin~ study on Georgel~own Road. Mr. Roosevelt said he has discussed this with the traffic and if the weat~er is agreeable, the study should be completed by February 1, 1980. Mr. Roosew~lt then informed the Board of the public hearing on rebuilding Park Bridge, which i~ to be held on January 24, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. at the Charlottesvill~ Albemarle Technical Center. Mr. Lindst~om asked if any progress has been made on the right of way situatio~ Georgetown Road Mr. Agnor said the Engineering and Planning Departments are worki~ the matter. Agenda Ite~ No. 4. Appeal: Cropp Final Plat. (Plat showing 10.4289 acres, P~ on Sheet 105 Co~nty Tax Maps, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, Ltd., dated ~ 28, 1979.) Fisher noted the following letter of appeal dated November 29, 1979: Mr. "Dear Members of the Board: The undersigned adjacent property owners wish to appeal the November 20, 1979 ¢ of the Planning Commission approvin$ the division of one 10-acre parcel and an JanuaryS9 ~1980 (~Regular Day~ Meeting) ~ry: January 27, 1979 - the Planning Commission approved a 100-acre subdivision for C. C. Kirtley leaving 92+ acres as residue; it was not recorded. March 20, 1979 - The Planning Commission approved a 30-acre subdivision for C. C. Kirtley leaving 135+ acres as residue and it was recorded. ~sal: A division'of one 10-acre parcel leaving 31.497 acres as residue. ~n for Planning Commission Review: The parcel is served by an easement off Route 728 ~raphy of Area: Gently rolling and open land. ~tion of Roads Serving Proposal: Between RoUte 620 and Route 729, Route 728 is consi~ tolerable with 38 vehicle trips per day." ?ucker then noted approval of the Planning Commission on November 20, 1979, with ~ing conditions: This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: Health Department approval; Virginia Department of HighWays and Transportation approval of a private entrance; Compliance with the private road provision, including: County Engineer approval of the road; County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement; d. Correct the residue to 31.497 acres." 'isher asked if the road which will exist across the access easement be on someone ~perty. Mr. Tucker said yes. The purpose of Condition lC is for assurance that be maintenance of that road. Mr. Fisher asked if the parcel from which this is ded has other access. Mr. Wilson Cropp was present and said he owns road frontage cess all the way to Route 729. He is not requesting approval of the easement already exists. Nash asked if a roadway is presently constructed on the easement. Mr. Tucker d not know. Mr. Lindstrom said he had checked the deed book and he could not sement being granted other than the upper easement. (A 50-foot easement runs xisting'driveway from Route 729 to the 30-acre parcel shown on "Plat of 30.0 nga portion of The C. C. Kirtley Property shown as parcel 8 on Sheet 105, County Aubrey Huffman & Associates, February 16, 1979.) Miss Nash had also examined ooks and found no reference in a deed granting this 20-foot easement; only the n the plat that a 20-foot easement exists. Dr. Iachetta asked if there are four Tucker said four lots are shown as being on record and all have road frontage. ick Nordstrom an adjoining property owner spoMe next in opposition and presented ing objections: adjacent property owners are appealing the November 20, 1979 decision of the ing Commission~approving the division of a 10-acre parcel and an access road off orth side of Route 728. ttached petition (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office) demonstrates the extent of upport we have from the citizens living in our rural community. We are aPpealing th ssion's decision for the following reasons: Several issues and questions were left unclear and unresolved at the November 20th meeting. January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Construction of such a road would cause the destruction of an enormo~ tree (at least 50 years old), a dense grove of evergreens currently a pleasant separation between the Farrell and Craig houses, as well for birds and small wildlife, and numerous rare persimmon trees. This proposed road would result in a potentially dangerous traffic hl where three driveways (Craig, proposed, Farrell) would enter onto Ro~ in close proximity, 20 feet between each. Soil erosion onto Route 728 and into the Craig property is a sarious if such a road is built. This access would effectively surround the Farrell property by roads three sides and the Nordstrom property on two sides, thus reducing p~ values. 6. A safety hazard for children and pets is created by a road through ol Any amount of traffic on this proposed road would be a safety hazard Craig's horses, necessitating that she build at least 500 feet of fei them and making it difficult, if not impossible, for her to build an her riding shcool. The Farrells may also feel obligated to build a fence or plant trees their 600 foot boundary with the proposed road. As an enterprising farm manager/owner (horse breeding and training) just starting out on her own, Miss Craig cannot afford to help build a road that will in no way enhance her operation or property value. 10. A possible alternative access would require construction of a road a' 200 feet long to reach the 10 acre plot. This alternative would tak. of the road already constructed in the 50 foot ingress and egress wh access to the Cropp house (Deed Book 679, page 292). It would not r destruction of a single tree. In summary, we feel that as adjacent property owners we would suffer substanti property depreciation and inconvenience if the proposed access road and 10 acr~ were allowed. The potential destruction of the rural nature of our neighborho as the hazards which would be created by the access road pose serious problems County as well as the neighborhood." Miss Claudia Craig, (owner of Parcel A) (See plat showing Parcels A, B & C, be parcel 8P on Sheet 105, County Tax Maps, B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates, August 16, was present in opposition. She said she and her parents had bought the property so could be improved and she will train horses to help pay her way through graduate sc The easement question is creating a lot of tension in the neighborhood. She reemph that she cannot afford to build a fence to protect her horses from traffic on this Mr. Fisher asked if the easement shown on the plat was a condition on the prop when she bought it. Miss Craig understood it is all on the plat. Mr. Fisher asked Craig if she felt it possible to build a road on the easement. Miss Craig felt it possible but would be difficult to maintain because of drainage problems. The road need a considerable amount of fill. January 9, 19~ (Regular Day Meeting) is no question about the easement, then approval would be mandatory. Mr. Henley 'eel the County Attorney should have to certify the easement. Mr. St. John preferred : the easement himself because this would be creating a subdivision. Motion was red by Miss Nash, seconded by'Mr. Lindstrom, to defer this hearing to January 14, allow the County. Attorney time to examine the validity of the easement and whether conforms to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Roll was called on the d same carried by the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. da Item No. 5. Dr. Richard Prindle: Annual Report, Regional Health Department. Richard Prindle, DirectOr of the Regional Health Department, was present and he Board on the Health DePartment's Annual Report for July 1978 through June 1979. a great deal of growth has occured in the Thomas Jefferson Health District and has been created in order to meet the growing needs in the area. Dr. Prindle said roblems which have occurred will affect the budget for the fiscal year 80-81. One s in the school area. The State abolished the positions for two nurses, a nursing a dentist as of January 1, 1980. This affected the services Which were provided ho°ls by the use'of the two nurses. In discussing this with Dr. Clarence McClure, adent, Dr. Prindle said he had recommended that the positions for the two nurses ~d in the County budget in order to maintain the programs. The costs would be he same. Dr. Prindle then pointed out that the Health Department has no obligation ~ provide any °f~the services it has been providing to the school system since aot a school health program in the state. A decision has not been made on whether vices should be rendered through the Department of Health or the Department of He reemphasized that this program is very desirable and needed. Another problem ae Esmont Health Clinic. Funding for the operation and personnel for the clinic included in neXt year's'budget. This facility will not be a Joint program of ~nd County because the City will not be using the clinic. Because of this, an L $9,000 will be needed from the County and $11,000 from the State, to provide the ~rs.a week of a public Health nurse and related items. Supplies will be coming ioint budget since it is felt this service will help the entire area. ?rindle apologized for the delay in submitting the Health Department.budget and this was because guidelines on salaries had not been received from the State and ~re 80% of the budget. Another major cost in the budget will be the increase in [owances. ?rindle said the Health Department has been receiving inquiries from developers as , two drainfields are required for a sewage disposal system. The Health Department' ting of the present County regulations is that two drainfields are required in · eas but not in other areas. The Health Department would prefer having two drainfiel although the Health Department cannot force the issue and noted such rests entirely ~oard. He pointed out that new sewage regulations are being promulgated by the an intensive training program will be held in Henrico County next Monday to ~w regulations and the effects of same. ~indstrom said there are three new regulations proposed by the State Health Departme~ ~ew regulations that may be of interest: 1) Paving not be permitted over drainfields ~e the distance between septic fields'and wells to 200 feet; and 3) room for an one-half of a drainfield. 'rindle added that the Health Department had received a grant of $103,000 from HEW ~is that the Health Department wanted to expand services such as those bein~ agencies. The incident has been concluded to be an accident althoUgh installation ~ system did not comply with modern code standards; in other words, single regulators relief valves. This was the last such regulator on the City'~s gas system, all such having been replaced with double, regulators. Mr. Cortez noted that the line has be~ repaired and one of the apartment units has been put back into service. Dr. Iachetta asked if the fires which occurred later were the result of gas po~ the walls and not from leaking gas. Mr. Cortez said yes. The gas was turned off i~ If these buildings had~been built under today's building code standards, the buildil would have been better ventiliated. The buildings were well-constructed and the fi~ did exactly what they were designed for. The biggest damage occurred on the second Mr. Roudabush asked if when the apartments are put back into operation, if the be any potential danger from appliances. Mr. Cortez said the service.lines are not problem. These lines will be inspected and about 56 appliances in Berkshire will h be replaced. Dr. Iachetta said the response by the County's volunteer fire companies cannot overstated. The manner in which this tragedy was handled also speaks well for City cooperation. Mr. Agnor said he had talked with Mr. John Brent, City Director of Pu Works. The City reenacted what occurred that day and it took only eight seconds to off the system after the line was broken. But, the surge of gas had passed into a one-quarter of a mile long. Mr. Agnor also noted the tremendous spirit and coopera the community in helping the~victims of the fire. Agenda Item No. 7. Executive Session: Legal Matters. At 12:25 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session discuss legal matters. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the fo recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:45 P.M. Agenda Item No. 8. Request from Electoral Board. Mr. Landon Birckhead, Chairman of the Electoral Board, was present. He reque~ permission to move the present polling place for the Keswick Precinct from the Kes~ Community Center to Stone Robinson School.~ The Community Center has become too sm~ the number of voters and parking is inadequate. Mr. Roudabush said the Community Center is very congested due to the parking and the center itself is very uncomfortable. He then offered motion to adopt the resolution, with the change to be effective for the next general election: BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereb~ in a request from the Albemarle County Electoral Board that the polling place Keswick Precinct be changed from the Community Center in Keswick to Stone Rob~ School in KeswiCk. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following vote: January 9~ 198Q~Meeti~_ _ ia Item No. 10. Request from Industrial Development Authority. ~isher said the following letter was received on.~November 12, 1979: ?d of Supervisors Sirs: Our authorizing ordinance of 12 May 1976 limits the number of active bond issues ~ree. Currently we have 2 issues - Eldercare Gardens issued and Windham (Crozet) sold ~xpected to be closed and issued in 2 or 3 weeks. We also have the committment we, and the Board, have approved for Ronnie Morris's apartment project. This ~ill in the stage of development of plans, etc., under HUD. Ail of these are quietly and environmentally beneficial to the County. >Is and no smoke stacks. No load on Prospectively we will have for consideration the Retirement Homes of Virginia (Ednam ~es) life care facility.- This is a substantial project in size and, from preliminary 'marion, looks to be feasible and desirable. While we have not considered this in .1 as yet (nor are we ready to bring it to you for approval) we think it appropriate .is time to request an increase in the number of active bond issues we can have. Accordingly, in view of the type projects handled to date and the probable near term projects, we respectfully request you amend our ordinance by changing in paragraph .e number of bond issues from 3 to 6. ctfulty submitted, ED BY) Holden, chairman" isher said he had not put this on the Board's agenda in December because he felt ave some bearing on a zoning hearing which was also scheduled in December. onald Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present. He uthority has had three bond issuances. Inquiries are still being received and ity cannot consider the requests unless the limit is increased. achetta said he does not consider the bonds issued so far as industrial at all. against the idea of additional issuances but would like more emphasis placed on type uses. Mr. Roudabush preferred increasing the number of issuances before a e applicant comes in. Mr. Lindstrom had reservations about increasing the issuances when it is unknown what the requests will be. Mr. Henley agreed with ush. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to 'advertise for public hearing on 0, 1980 an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-52, Chapter 2, Article IX of rle County Code to change the number of bond issuances for the Industrial Develp~an from three to five. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. He noted the Windham project one of the more beneficial projects in the Crozet area for a long time. Roll alled on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments. Nominations for the Equalization Board wer~ as follows: Miss Nash nominated Mr. Barry R. Plotnick. Mr. Henley nominated Mr. R~ T. Swisher. Dr. Iachetta nominated Mr. James A. Ward, Jr. Mr. Lindstrom recommend~ reappointment of Mrs. Sharon Hamm~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seco~ Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint the above four persons to the Equalization Board for cale~ year~1980. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorde¢ AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Dr. Iachetta requested that persons serving on the Equalization Board during 1! written a letter thanking them for services rendered. Mr. Fisher then nominated Mrs. Peggy M. Hancock to replace Mrs. Norma Diehl to Board of Directors of the Industrial Development Authority; said term expiring on J~ 19, 1984. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to make ti recommended appontment. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the foll~ recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher had received a suggestion to appoint Mr. Paul David to the Library Directors. However, he has not had a chance to speak to him yet and will do so in immediate future. Mr. Fisher noted that the County Code requires the Board liasion to the Plannil Commission be appointed yearly and requested action to this affect. Motion was thel by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to reappoint Mr. Lindstrom as the Board's to the Planning Commission for calendar year 1980. Roll was called on the motion a~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr~. Lindstrom. Mr. Roudabush offered motion to appoint Mr. Horace W. Daniel to replace Mr. Li~ Dorrier, Jr. on the Welfare Board; said term expiring on June 30, 1981. Dr. Iachet' seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said the appointment to the Albemarle County Service Authority need: be discussed further. He noted an editorial in the Daily Progress suggesting that ~ Of the Board of SuPervisors be appointed as members of the Service Authority. Dr. i said if that is done, the Service Authority would be a County Department. He also ] that Mr. Agnor has been requested to investigate this question. Mr. Agnor said the. is still pending, iMr. Henley felt that Judge Berry previously made it clear that ti groups were to be separate. No action was taken this date. ~srs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~e. THIS CONTRACT, entered into this 22nd day of january~1980, between the 'Y OF ALBEMARLE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, nafter referred to as County, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, a ipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter referred City. W I T N E S'S E T H : WHEREAS, the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir (hereinafter SFRR) is cally located in Albemarle County and provides the principal drinking supply for the City and the urban area of the County; and WHEREAS, both the City and the County are greatly concerned for the nued viability of the SFRR; and ~HEREAS, the parties therefore wish to monitor the SFRR and to s the development of the watershed thereof in a manner consistent the continued viability of the SFRR; and ~HEREAS, the parties desire to apportion the cost of such monitoring ~nagement; ~OW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions contained, City and County agree as follows: [1) County will create the position of Watershed Management Official ?or the County. [2) The Watershed Management Official shall perform such dubies as ~hall be set forth in a job description approved by the governing )odies of the parties and such further duties as may be prescribed Dy the County Executive from time to time. [3) The Watershed Management Official shall report directly to the ~ounty Executive and be under his immediate supervision and control. 14) Operations of the office of the Watershed Management Official ~haI1 at all times be open for inspection by the City Manager and ~he governing body of the City. '5) The Watershed Management Official shall provide annually on 'anuary 1st to the County Executive and the City Manager a detailed !escription, including estimated gross cost, of the planning for the ~ctivities of his office for the forthcoming contract period, and a omplete accounting of the gross cost of the activities of his .ffice for the previous ~contract period. 6) The city shall review the detailed description and estimated iross cost of such activities as presented by the Watershed Management .fficial.· 7) The City Manager shall report to the County Executive, on or January 9, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Ztem No. 14. Statements of Expenses - Director of Finance, Sheriff and Attorney for December, 1979 were presented along with salary statements for the Dir~ Finance and the Sheriff for November, 1979 and salary statements for November and D~ 1979 for the Commonwealth's Attorney. Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. these statements were approved as presented. (Mr. Roudabush left the meeting at 3:1 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. 15. Statements of Expenses - Regional Jail. Salaries for the of December were not available. Expenses for the month of December, 1979 were pres, On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, this statement was approved as p~ 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. 16. Regional Jail Report - December, 1979. Statement of expe incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of Dec 1979, along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician an of salaries of the paramedics and the classification officer were received. On mot Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as presented. motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Roudabush returned to the meeting at 3:05 P.M. Agenda Item No. 17. Information: 1979. The report was not available. Report of Department of Social Services, No Agenda Item No. 18. Claim Against the Dog Fund. Claim was received from Mr. Thomas Wetsel for four ewes and one lamb killed du month of December, 1979. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to allow $375.00 to Mr. for the claim. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted copy of letter from Mr. George R. St. John dated January 3, Delegate Thomas J. Michie regarding the proposed land use legislation. (Copy on f~ the Clerk's Office.) He was very pleased with the letter and felt the issues were ~nor noted response from Louisa County about the study conducted on the Regional !he study is complete and Louisa County has decided to remain as a member of the .brary for at least two years, and had some requests for adjustments in the way handled in Louisa County. He also noted a letter received from the Library ~tober of which he has been holding until the results from Louisa County were The Library Board has sent letters to all jurisdictions suggesting t~at there be the contract under which the library system operates. The change is on how the figures are calculated. Mr. Agnor said a report~on recommendations for a he Library system would be forthcoming. cketed. At 3:27 P.M., motion was offered by offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adjourn ire session to discuss legal matters. Miss NaSh seconded the motion and same the following recorded vote: rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ard reconvened into open session at 3:35 P.M. Item No. 20. Adjourn. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, g was adjourned to January 14, 1980, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the ce Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and' Mr. Roudabush.