Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-12-12December 12, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) A regula~ meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, on December 12, 1979, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Buildin Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 9:35 A.M.) and C. Timothy Lindstrom. Absent: Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. County Attorney; and Mrs. June T. Moon, Administrative Assistant. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:26 A.M. by the Chairl Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: 16, and October 10, 1979. July 18, August 8, August 15 (Night July 18, 1979: Dr. Iachetta was not present to report on these minutes. August 8, 1979: Mr. Fisher reported no corrections or additions. August 15, 1979: Mr. Dorrier reported no corrections or additions. August 16, 1979: Mr. Fisher reported no corrections or additions. October 10, 1979: Mr. Lindstrom noted on page 3, first paragraph, fifth line should be "meritorious". Mr. Lindstrom noted the following correction on page 12, item 16, seventh line, insert "presumption of legislative" between '~of" and "valid~ also noted in the tenth line the words "as an individual" should be changed to "by Mr. Lindstrom noted on page 4, agenda item 3c, additional information was req~ about the drainage problem on Route 29 North and such has never been received. He a follow up on the matter. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the staff reports, letters an¢ pertinent information which is now typed into the minutes could be xeroxed into thc book. Mr. Fisher said the Clerk would have to respond to that. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve minutes of August 8, August 15 (Night), August 16 and October 10, 1979 with the abc corrections. Roll was called and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Messrs. Iachetta and Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 3a. other dates.) Abandon Road off of Route 602 in Howardsville. (Deferre~ Mr. George McCallum, attorney representing Mr. Gerald Miller, briefed the Boar the negotiations underway and requested another deferral. Motion was then offered Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to defer this item to January 9, 1980. Roll was and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' Messrs. Dorrier. Fisher. He~lsv. T~h~ ~ T.~a~n~ ~___~ ..... December 12 ~1~__ ~Re ular~D~ Me~ Item No. 3c. Letters from Highway Department accepting roads into State System. ~oon presented the following letters from the Highway Department: mber 14, 1979 quested in your resolution dated August 8, 1979, the following addition to and onment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective her 14, 1979. ION LENGTH OhS 5, 6, and 7 of new location Rte. 665 between Sra. 28+00 ta. 57+00, Project 0665-002-167, C501. 0.40 Mi. 0NMENT OhS 1, 3 and 4 of old location Rte. 665 between Sta. 28+00 .ta. 57+00, Project 0665-002-167, C501. 0.37 Mi." mber 15, 1979 ~quested in your resolutions dated August 8, 1979 and October 10, 1979, the ~wing additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, ~tive December 1, 1979. !IONS LENGTH .ngton Woods Subdivision - Bennington Road - From end of maintenance, 1407 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.20 Mi. ltree Subdivision - Greentree Park Road - From Rte. 656 to end of ~e-sac. 0.03 Mi. )oorwill Hollow Subdivision - Cardinal Ridge Road - From St. Rte. end of cul-de-sac. 0.30 Mi. Woods Subdivision - Pinedate Road - From Rte. 1610 to end of ~e-sac. ~mber 23, 1979 0.23 Mi." ~quested in your resolution dated October 12, 1977, the following addition Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective nber 23, 1979. ~ION LENGTH ~brook Subdivision ~brook Drive - From end of Sta~e Maintenance Route 1505 to of cul-de-sac. 0.21 Mi." December 12, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) Ms. Mason Caperton, County Planner, presented the following staff report: "Location: Property described as parcels 9 and 10 as tax map 69, White Hall ~ located between the intersection of Routes 637 and 750 near Nelson CountN Acreage: Lots 1-10: 27.5+ acres Zoning: A-1. Proposal: Division of 10 parcels ranging in size from 2+ to 5+ acres, to hav~ on the State roads. Topography of Area: Steeper slopes in some areas. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: The 1978 traffic counts are as follows: section of Route 637 carries 41 vehicle trips per day and is currently 1~ tolerable. This section of Route 750 carries 150 vehicle trips per day a listed as tolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports no unusual soil problems. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation with a recommend of one unit per five acres. School Impact: Total projected enrollment of about seven students with a slig Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comment: The staff estimates that there may be about three entrances on and two on Route 750. The plat will meet the requirements of the Land Su and Development Ordinance and staff recommends approval subject to: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval: a. Written Health Department approval; b. No buildings or septic systems are to be constructed on slopes than 25%; c. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; d. Joint entrances shall be located where appropriate, subject to approval of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportat Ms. Caperton said on October 30, 1979, the Planning Commission denied the plat in their opinion, the seven lots (lots 5-10 and parcel B) on Route 637 constitute a to the public safety. The Commission feit that a division of the property would be if all lots have access on Route 750 only or from an internal road. Mr. Fisher said in a letter from the Highway Department dated September 7, 197 following is recommended: "Adequate sight distance exists for a private entrance t lots. We would recommend frontage improvements to Route 637 along its entire !engt the shoulder catch point at 15 feet from the existing center of road and the ditch feet. We would recommend frontage improvements to Route 750 from the property corn Lot 4/5, west toward the intersection of Route 637, placing the shoulder catoh poin feet, and ditch where necessary at 18 feet from the center of the existing road." if this recommendation was discussed by the Planning Commission. Ms. Caperton said September 25 and this was also recommended by the staff. However, the decision fro Supreme Court on the Hylton Enterprises case was received'in the meantime and this now prohibits governing bodies from requiring off-site road improvements. Therefor Highway Department recommendation was not recommended by the Planning Commission on 30. 'Ms. Caperton noted that the applicant had examined using an internal road sYst the topography of the land and the stream will not allow such. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Peter Naoroz was present and stated h desire that the Board look at the request as being from residents of Albemarle Coun not developers. He noted his concern about the condition of Route 637. Although, Planning Commission decided that any lots fronting on Route 637 would put Route 637 Decemb~rl2~RQ~ular Day_Meetin~ uart was present in support of the presentation made by Mr. Willis. .sher said the property is difficult to develop due to the stream and steep Ir. Dorrier noted that the Planning Commission decision did not mention the Caperton showed a.slope map and said a soil report was not available for the Immission to review. Mr. Lindstrom asked the condition of Routes 750 and 637 in .dth and surface. Mr. Roosevelt said Route 750 runs from Route 6 to Route 250 a short cut for people coming out of Nelson County going into the community of meets Highway Department tolerable standards. Route 750 is capable of handling .ssing side by side. The sight distance for private entrances, which is 200 ~e met at any point on the frontage of this land. Route 637, which is a gravel .s point, currently has 50 vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable. ~ed subdivision would put the traffic count at 75 vehicle trips per day and put ~to the nontolerable category. On Routes 637 and 750, private entrances can be ~t commercial entrances would be difficult. Mr. Roosevelt said further down ;he road narrows and sight distance for a commercial entrance is not adequate. _ndstrom then asked for the County Attorney's advice. Mr. St. John said the ~de requires the Planning Commission, when it denies a plat, to provide a statement the applicant can do to get the plat approved. Until the decision on the Hylton case, local governments were allowed to require off-site improvements where the ~ch improvements was generated by the subdivision itself. The Supreme Court, in ~n on the Hylton Enterprise case, clearly states that no matter what the need is, [ous the need, no off-site road improvements can be required, including the road ~ abutting the subdivision. No form of improvement to existing roads can be ~less a new entrance is being created or where a private entrance is being converted ~cial entrance. Mr. St. John felt the action of the Planning Commission and its ~as adequate. ~nley said there is a difference between someone building a commercial subdivision is for someone just cutting off five or ten acres. He felt when a person is in ~ment business, a few extra things need to be done. Mr. Henley said internal only one entrance onto a state road have been encouraged in the past and he felt ~ould be done now. He then offered motion to approve the subdivision with an ~ad connecting only to Route 750. Mr. Fisher said the action of the Planning was to deny the plat and a statement of how the plat could be changed was made. feel the Board should approve the plat with an internal road when such is not subdivision plat. Mr. St. John agreed and felt a statement could be made that ~uld be approved with that as a condition. Mr. H~nley said the applicant should ~tatement from the Board. Mr. Lindstrom said the statement of the Planning could be amended by stating that the Board felt the plat would be acceptable if ts had access onto an internal road exiting onto Route 750. Mr. St. John said ~uld be denied, and then the Board state that approval will be given if there is ~1 road serving all lots, which road exits onto Route 750. Mr. Henley then tion to deny the plat but stated that approval would be given if there was just ~iting onto Route 750. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same-carried by the ~ecorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, and Lindstrom. ~. Roudabush. aoroz said he would like to state for the record that the problem with Route 637 aue. An internal road cannot be constructed on this property. There will be a a with five acre lots, which is okay, He can put six lots on Route 637 with six atrances, so the problem will remain. He said he can guarantee that anyone December 12, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) (See minutes of April 11, 1979 for the easement granted to Ray L. Marshall) which easement for two parcels. He noted that Reverend Luck and his wife have access acI county roads and at this time can build at least one dwelling on their property. Fisher asked if the Luck's could give an easement across their property to other 1~ surrounding them. Mr. Williams was uncertain, but assumed they were the only two could use it since they are the only ones having access across the Xeene Landfill. Reverend Luck said the purpose of the division of land is for his sister-in-Is does not intend to sell any other portion of his land. He does have four children would like for them to have permission to use the property. Besides his immediate he does not intend to allow other people to cross this property. Mr. Fisher asked if Reverend Luck was agreeable to a condition that the land never be subdivided again; either the part he now owns nor this new four acre parce Reverend Luck said yes. Mr. Dorrier asked if this was the main road into the landfill. Mr. Williams s the existing right-of-way is the main road. Mr. Williams said in the agreement wit Marshall there was a condition that he construct a fence to a certain-point. There ~osts ready to accept the gate which is at the front entrance. It was at Mr. Marsh expense to move the fence and relocate the gate so that his access would be unobstr the gate. Therefore, Mr. Williams proposed the same be done in this case with addi fencing being required. Mr. Fisher favored a condition imposed for the requirements of a fence. Dr. I felt it was a serious error to allow a subdivision which does not have clear access Reverend Luck asked if there was any objection to a condition that the above fence would be changed when the landfill is no longer needed. When the landfill is sold, Fisher said the new owner would have control of the easement. However, the more ea across the property, the less saleable the property. Mr. Dorrier favored Reverend Luck having the easement. Mr. Fisher then reques motion to direct the Engineering staff to prepare the proper documents for the reco of a nonexclUsive easement to the Luck's property which consists of two parcels of the western side of the Keene Landfill. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to that e Mr.. Henley did not feel the Board should include the request made by Reverend Luck requirement for the fence would be changed when the landfill is abandoned. Mr. St. said this easement will be written as was the easement for Mr. Marshall. Mr. Fishe Mr. Marshall has two lots and this would be a nonexclusive easement and he or anyon he sold the land to could continue to use the easement. Mr. Williams said the ease~ would be for both. parcels. Dr. Iachetta said the intent of his motion was that no subdivision will occur on the two parcels owned by Reverend Luck. Mr. Henley secon motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Hen~ Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. At this time, Mr. Fisher recognized Youth in Government Day students from West~ Albemarle High School and welcomed them to the Board meeting. (Mr. Agnor arrived a~ A.M.) Agenda Item No. 3f. 14, 1979.) Request to designate Clearview Community. (Deferred from December 12, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) cry review of the drainage design included in the County Engineer's report en made and we are in basic agreement with the sizing. A more detailed review drainage design will be made at the appropriate time if it is decided to ~p a participating project at either location." ~chetta did not feel the letter offered any solution, and the problem still ~ felt a solution should either be found or the issue die. Mr. and Mrs. George .dents at 2424 Commonwealth Drive would definitely take issue with leaving the ks it is. Another rain like the recent one would wash part of his house into the )r. Iachetta felt the problem needed to be addressed as promptly as possible. :o the report by the County Engineer, there appears to be some past errors on the ~ County government in not seeing that proper drainage structures were built when ~s was developed. Therefore, he felt the problem with Route 852 should be addressed :hen the problem on Route 29 North which is even more serious since there are now ~ls affected when it rains. With the additional development taking place on ire, which is in the same watershed, the runoff will be greater than it is now, )blem will be aggravated even further. The question of funding is a problem Roosevelt has pointed out that there is no funding available other than regular ~d funding for the correction needed on Route 29 North. ~sher said he did not know of any positive action that Could be taken. It was sarlier that the Highway Department begin making improvements to Route 29 North e City limits and the South Fork Rivanna River. This could be included as one of sments that should be made. Mr. Fisher asked if this could be incorporated into ag for Route 29 which has already begun. Mr. Roosevelt said planning has not very far at this time, however improvements to the box culverts will be included ns for widening Route 29 North. Dr. Iachetta did not feel that was a satisfactory o the problem. He felt the Highway Department should be asked for a time frame, n this part of the work, so it can be done immediately. He said that waiting for ite period of time does not serve the needs of the citizens. Also, the County d a major shopping center in the area which will mean traffic Jams any way, and m will be worse if there is an impassable roadway when it rains. Mr. Fisher then Roosevelt when the widening of Route 29 North will begin. oosevett said aerial surveys are being done at this time and there is $50,000 for planning money but he was unsure as to when there might be additional allocation~ hat any project for improvements to Route 29 still has to compete against all .ary projects in the State. Planning the improvements and getting this project ist of priorities will require a minimum of five years. Dr. Iachetta then offered write a letter to the Highway Commissioner setting forth the problem with the ~nder Route 29 North and asking for some relief. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Ir. Roudabush. :achetta said the culvert under Route 29 is a separate problem from the drainage ~curring on Route 852, which is a secondary road. When this was discussed earlier ~ the County's secondary money was to be used for' Route 852. However, the letter ~ove indicates that Mr. Roosevelt does not believe this is an appropriate use of road funds. Mr. Roosevelt said, in the past, the Highway Department has participated ~e structure improvements based upon a pro rata share of water coming from land ~y Department controls and someone else pays the share for the water designated as ~m "other land" When Route 852 was taken into the State Secondary System, the Agenda Item No. 4. Appeal: Fairgrove, Phase III, Final Plat. Mr. Fisher noted that this plat was appealed by Colonel William Washington an. Norma Diehl, Of the Planning Commission and presented the following letters of app "November 28, 1979 I request that this action be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors with speci~ attention to road frontage improvements in this particular case. Further, I believe that the Commission (in turn the County) and the Highway Department relationships and understandings of what can be done on the one hand and what should be done on the other hand, and by whom, have reached a state of confus~ that merits direction of a specific effort by the Board of Supervisors to cla~ policy and procedures concerning frontage improvements. This confusion of col has to some degree been brought about by a recent court decision, and by what appears to be some changes in policy by the Department of Highways over the p~ year or so. Commission members themselves reflect concern for the reasonablel of some of the Department of Highway's recommendations, and may be falling in~ a practice of second guessing the Department of Highways in a way that could undesirable. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) William R. Washington Chairman Albemarle County Planning Commission" "November 28, 1979 I hereby request that the Fairgrove subdivision final plat be reviewed by the Albemarle County Supervisors. The preliminary plat was approved by the Planning Commission with frontage improvements some of us felt were absolutely minimal, given the condition of t road and the traffic increase projected by this development. The final plat deletes these frontage improvements and requires only approval of a commercial entrance. I feel the safety of present and future citizens traveling this road would be jeopardized by this change, and am therefore calling it up for further review. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) Norma A. Diehl" Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and presented the staff report: "Location: Property described as parcel 25 on Tax Map 30, Rivanna District; 1 on the east side of Route 662, north of Route 660 and east of the Rivanna Acreage: 81.35 acres Zoning: A-I, Agricultural History: February 27, 1979 - The Planning Commission approved the prelimina with ten conditions. lcker said the Planning Commission approved the plat on November 27, 1979, with ~onditions but deleted condition l(f). The staff had recommended a setback of re feet from Route 662 rather than from the interior road shown on the plan. The ~mmission agreed with the applicant's proposal of the seventy-five foot setback ~terior road. The Deputy County Attorney indicated to the Planning Commission ?dinance reads that setback shall be seventy-five feet from any street right-of- ~ment. So in his opinion, the Planning Commission could have required a seventy- setback from both, the interior and the state road, but the Commission felt what ~nt proposed was adequate. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant proposed to build ~ty feet from the edge of Route 662 or thirty feet from the right-of-way. Mr. ff up to thirty feet from the right-of-way. ~orma Diehl, Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission, was present and said her ically states her feelings on the plat. Route 662 is a narrow, graveled roa'd and t feel the road is adequate for the increase in traffic without the frontage ts which were required on the preliminary plat. orris Foster, representing the applicant, was present. He noted that when the y plat was acted on by the Commission he was dissatisfied with the Planning 's action but decided to appeal the plat in final form. The road is graveled and ision is about one half mile off of Route 660. The alignment and grade of Route one of the best sections from Route 660 to Free Union. In front of the subdivision oom for two cars to pass and he noted that some improvements would be done in urn lane and entrances being built on this road. Mr. Foster felt the negative due to road improvements. isher asked Mr. St. John to comment on the alternatives available. Mr. St. John is no way to require improvements to an existing road. Such improvement was n the preliminary plat but the Hylton Enterprise Case has deleted the County's require such improvements on an existing road. Such being the case, Mr. St. ot feel a subdivision which meets requirements of the zoning ordinance and the n ordinance can be denied. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel there was any other alternati' .at the Planning Commission had done. 'isher asked if the problem could be addressed by denying requests because there ~anism to require improvements so the roads can handle the increased traffic. He ~oard should let the matter go to court and see what happens. Mr. St. John felt would immediately hold against the County because under existing laws, the has an absolute right to approval. Approval of a subdivision plat is an administeri ~e only remedy for the County would be to make a change in the zoning ordinance. ~r suggested the issue be taken up with the General Assembly. Mr. Fisher noted problem is a priority item in the Virginia Association of Counties legislative tt the wording of the request is so vague that he did not feel anyone would know ~eing requested. Mr. Lindstrom felt the language should be made more specific · the recent decisions by the Supreme Court and agreed with Mr. DOrrier. Mr. St. perhaps the legislature thinks the Zoning Ordinance is the appropriate tool to ~se problems. Although piecemeal improvements are better than no improvements at not the solution. ~isher ~sked if there was a motion to change the Planning Commission's action. ;rom did not feel the. Board could change'the action since the decision on the ;erprise Case controls what can be done. This plat shows a situation where there ~rnal road and one entrance. Therefore, there is no other':alternative for road ~ts and under existing laws, the plat has to be approved. With no other suggestions, ~ of the Pla2ning Commission stood. December212, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) based on the unit cost stated in Mr. Ford's letter would add $432 to the 1980. As has been stated above, the proposed lighting is for security, rather than ] safety and/or convenience reasons. Since the requested lighting is proposed for security rather than for traffic purposes, I requested Sheriff Bailey's opinion on its effectiveness in reliew problem which Mrs. Whitted described. Sheriff Bailey's opinion is that the pi lighting would not curb the annoyance that the local residences have experien~ and that more effective remedies can be employed. The County Engineer does nc recommend the project. Esmont Community. Request for the Esmont Community is for the extension of si lights along State Route 627 from the existing street light north of the intel of its intersection with State Route 824 to its intersection with State Route This project was requested by the Reverend Carlton A. Luck and by others, ass~ in Mr. Dorrier's letters of September 21, 1979, addressed to the County Engin~ October 16, 1979, addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Benjamin F. Paige, Sr. There are six parcels of land along this section of State Route 627 and twenty-six 7000- are required. The road is quite serpentine and well shaded, which requires a close spacing of'lights. This last condition will probably adversely affect ~ lighting efficiency of the proposed project. Light poles will be required at locations. In addition, a service line must be built in order to light the is feet of State Route 627, south of its intersection with State Route 715. As to the value of the Esmont Community lighting project, the Engineer believe it is comparable with the lighting which was done a few years ago in the Port~ Precinct/Scottsville/Keene areas. There is one unfortunate feature to report: is, the vandalism of lights which APCO has experienced. APCO has reported th~ County Engineer and has stated they can no longer replace'broken lights at th~ expense. As was stated for Warren, in relation to costs, there is no likelihood that these lights could come on line prior to July 1, 1980. They will have no beaz on the 1979-80 budget. We have not requested a cost estimate from APCO but rc Mr. Ford's letter on the Warren project. We expect no cost of installation f¢ Esmont project. Charge for lighting will be $4 per light per month. Twenty,s lights will cost $12~8 for 1980-81. The County Engineer recommends the Esmont project on the basis of its use and benefit which is comparable to the existing lighting in the vicinity." Mr. Dorrier said the Warren area is unique because of its access to the river Warren Ferry. He was unsure whether~lighting was the proper method of controlling problems but felt the County should do something to alleviate the problem. Mr. Fis it appears that no appropriations are being requested for this fiscal year since tn company will not install the lights until July.and funding would have to be include next year's budget. Therefore, the only purpose of today's presentation is to get Board's feelings on including it in next year's budget. Mr. Agnor said also the po street lighting requires aPproval of the Board before the lights are ordered. Reverend Carlton Luck was present and noted that the lights are needed in the community. Accidents have occurred on a dangerous curve on Route 715 and lighting along the roadway would help the community. He also noted problems with "peeping t Ms. Ellen Nash was present and noted that at a meeting last week there was a q of the lights. She felt the ~eople in the area were anxious to b~v~ ~m~ ~t~ December 1~ 19~7~9~~larD~~i~ Route 653 which ties in approximately one-quarter mile up the road from Free Henley asked if the road was used very much.~ Mr. Roosevelt said Just by the live there. Mr. Henley was not opposed to the request. ~nor noted the location and design public hearing on the reconstruction of the Bridge on Route 631 (Rio Road) will be held Januar~ 24, 1980 at 7:30 P.M. at ttesville-A!bemarle.Technical Education Center. indstrom expressed his concern about the construction of the pedestrian walkway ~etown Road. He felt the Board needed to know immediately how much right of way ~cq~ired, either by donation or some other way. He felt that construction of the xcept for the curve improvement, should be done as soon as possible. isher said a request has been received from a resident on Reservoir Road (Route having the road improved. Mr. Roosevelt said this improvement is in the Six- ay plan and is scheduled to start the third year provided that right of way can d. Mr. Fisher felt that acquisition of the right-of-way should be pursued. Mr. said he would contact the residents. indstrom offered his appreciation for the directional signs at Old Salem Apartments. isher noted that reflectors have been placed the 250 bypass near 1-64 and on orth. Mr. Roosevelt said it is a federally funded project, an experiment, to see lps with the traffic. The reflectors will be in place for a year and then a be conducted to see if they still reflect. Mr. Roosevelt said the reflectors used on high speed roadways and he certainly recommends their use in this area. enley questioned the water standing on~Jarman Gap Road. Mr. Roosevelt said the partment has examined the situation and has agreed to put~a pipe in at the nd a head wall two or three feet above that to funnel the water into the pipe. is would take care of the problems. ~shley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, was present and noted that the extension 06 for approximately 680 feet had been a matter before the road viewers in July ar. Three items which needed to be done were: the property owners were to pay f the cost of Upgrading the road, the property owners were to dedicate the right-of-way (this is in the process of being redone because of a new property the'Board must adopt a resolution requesting that road be taken into the system. ~ms said Mr. Don SulliVan, Property owner on Route 806' has the money and will put ~of-way to record when the final easement is completed. Mr. Williams then requested ioard adopt a resolution to request the Highway Department to take the 680 feet of into the State Secondary System. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Sullivan was going to ~e improvements. Mr. Williams said his check will be one-half of the costs. Mr. said if the right of way for this section has.been settled and the deed reviewed, readY. Mr. Agnor said yes. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to request .y Department to'take 680 feet of Route 806 into the State Secondary System. Mr. ~conded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. December 12, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) WHEREAS, having reviewed and considered the Regulations and the Applicat covering administration and use of said funds; BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors: Hereby endorses and supports such a program for the County of Albemarle; Hereby expresses the intent to combine with the City of Charlottesville mutually agreed upon and coordinated program, contingent on approval of the ~ by the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litte and contingent on receipt of funds; and Hereby authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commissi to plan and budget for a coordinated anti-litter program, which shall represe program for all localities named in this resolution; and FURTHER authorizes the Charlottesville-Albemarle Clean Community Commiss to apply on behalf of all of the above named localities for a grant, and to b responsible for the administration, implementation, and completion of the pro as it is described in the attached application form LC-G-I; and FURTHER accepts responsibility jointly with the Charlottesville-Albemarl Community Commission (C-AC3) and the City of Charlottesville for all phases o the program; and FURTHER accepts liability for its pro rata share of any funds not proper used or accounted for pursuant to the Regulations and the Application, and th funds, when received, will be held by the County for disbursement upon proper certification by appropriate offices at the Commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT-RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarl County, Virginia, hereby requests the Department of Conservation and Economic Development, Division of Litter Control, to consider and approve the applicat. and program for calendar year 1980, said program being in accord with Regulatl governing use and expenditure of said funds. P.M. Agenda Item No. 6. At 12:25 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvene~ Agenda Item No. 7, Swearing-In.of Board Members, Sheriff and CommOnwealth's Deputy Clerk of the Circuit Court, Mrs. Grace Harris, swore in Sheriff George Supervisor Ms. Ellen Nash, Supervisor J. T. Henley, Jr. and Commonwealth's Attorne~ G. Dottier, Jr. Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriation: Fuel Assistance Program. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated November 29, 1979 from Ms. Morris, Director of Social Services: "SUBJECT: Fuel Assistance Program As I explained to you in my previous memo regarding the Fuel Assistance isher asked if there is a limitation on how much a family could receive from the ring the winter. Ms. Morris said yes, $200.00 per family. She noted that Carter has recently signed a bill that will allocate additional money through the Services Administration however she did not feel Albemarle County will get any funds since the State of Virginia made an error in the original allocation Federal law allows up to $400.00 per household and the state formula allows only Mr. Henley asked how much money is involved. Ms. Morris said $327,725.00 which nclude administrative costs. Motion was then offered by Dr.~ Iachetta, seconded dstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that 40.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred de 80B-109B--Administrative Costs Fuel Assistance Program. was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. ~e. Ir. Roudabush. Item No. 9. Quarterly HoUsing Report. lisher noted that Mrs. June Moon, Administrative Assistant, Mr. Russell Otis, ~ordinator, and himself had appeared on WVIR TV to discuss housing in the County. (ussell Otis, Housing Coordinator, then presented the following memorandum: ~ion 8 Rental Assistance--As of November 30, 1979 a total of 341 leases have been ~en by the Housing Office. This figure does not reflect the number of second or leases written for the same families and landlords for renewals. tdition to leases actually written, 587 applications have bee~ processed and there waiting list of ll8 families. From the time the program began, 103 local landlords received well in excess of $500,000.00 in Housing Assistance payments in behalf he clients of the Housing Office. This program is currently operating smoothly oroviding a great service to the low income citizens of Albemarle County. 1977--Albemarle County first became involved with Community Development Bloc ~s in January of 1977 at the request of the Jordan Development Corporation and the ~rsity of Virginia. At that time, the COunty applied for funding under two projects (1) the constructiOn of a housing complex and activity center for the elderly in Crozet; and (23 the acquisition of a facility to house a community health clinic .in Esmont. Meadows" in Crozet is complete. Elderly families began moving in on September 1979. Final payment to the contractor has been made and the Jordan Corporation is ~ring to close its books. Community Center on the site is now open with activities ranging from health ice clinics to arts and crafts classes. JAUNT is providing regularly scheduled sportation to and from Crozet and Charlottesville and local organizations are Mr. Fisher said he feels the County has done a great deal in the last three y trying to deal with Iow income housing. He also felt all the Board members should the "Meadows". Mr. Henley said the Housing Committee, several years ago, recommen~ the County set up a housing authority and he was against such action. He feels th is more effective and acceptable. He also noted that Mrs. Ann Franke, the County' on the Jordan Development Board of Directors, has resigned. Agenda Item No. 10a. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. Mr. Agnor sai~ Karen Morris, Director of Social Services has recommended Ms. Kathy Ralston be app~ the Advisory Council on Aging with said term beginning immediately and expiring on 1981. This is to replace Ms. Christine A. Walker who has resigned~ Motion was of~ Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Ms. Kathy Ralston to the Advis( Council on Aging for the term stated. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10b. Appointment: Airport Commission. Mr. Fisher noted tha~ Virgil~Marshall's term has expired on the Airport Commission and a recommendation received from the Airport Commission for renomination of Dr. Marshall. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Dr. Virgil Marshal another term on the Airport Commission; said term expiring on December 1, 1982. Re called.on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10c. Appointment: Community Action Agency. Mr. Lindstrom ss willing to serve on the Community Action Agency with a condition that he would have designated agent, Mr. Harold Bailes. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seco Mr. Dorrier, to appoint Mr. C. Timothy~Lindstrom with Mr. Harold Bailes as his des~ agent to the Community Action Agency. Roll was called and same carried by the foll recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10d. Appointments: Emergency Medical Services Council. Mr. said he was willing to serve another term on the Council. Motion was then offered Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mr. Fisher to the Emergency Medic Services Council; with said term expiring on December 12, 1982. Roll was called on foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: · AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Decembe~ ~ r 12,...!_979_~'ular Da_~etin~g~ a Item No. 10k. Appointments: Sign Commission. Mr. Fisher said two nominations received from the Hotel/Motel Association but only one nominee is a County Mr. Lindstrom had received a call from a member of the Sign Commission who a real concern that the vacancies be filled. Mr. Fisher said nominations have eceived from the Restaurant Association and suggested contacting them for same. then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. Wayne the Sign Commission to represent the Hotel/Motel Association. Roll was called egoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. r. Roudabush. a Item No. i0L. Appointments: Thomas Jefferson ¥1sltor's Bureau Commission. offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Miss Ellen Nash, Mrs. Peggy Denby and Mr. anquist to the Thomas Jefferson Visitors~Bureau Commission for the term of the signed by the appointing parties. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same the following recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Ir. Roudabush. ~a Item No. 10m. Appointments: Welfare Board. No appointments were made. Item No. 19. At 3:00 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded.by Mr. to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal, personnel and salary matters. Lded in the executive session were members of the Charlottesville City Council. ~alled on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henely, Iachetta and Lindstrom. Ir. Roudabush. ~oard reconvened into open session at 3:30 P.M. and continued with the agenda. La Item No. 11. Request for Appropriation: Albemarle High-Physical Education ~gnor reviewed the following memorandum dated December 7, 1979 from Mr. Ray B. · ector of Finance: ~ though Dr. McClure,-Mr. Hall, Mr, McCormick and.the archltect made every effort )mplete the Albemarle. High School project within themlllion dollar allocation, ~ was a $16,930.76 over-run due to unforeseen costs in the original contract in areas. ?ollowing is a listing o.f the five.areas. Wet t%p on water line and extension of storm drain. To provide for additional wa"ter flows and to prevent malfunction of an existing storm drain. $4,075,00 ~Dece~ber !2_~_19_~9_ (R~ularD~a~etin_ -~ ~ ~ Agenda Item No. 12. Lottery Permits. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for Camp Saponi, Ltd. for ca year 1980. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such p, Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roud~h~h. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for St. Anne's-Belfield Parel Auxiliary for an annual school fair to be held on May 3, 1980. Motion was offered Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the lottery permit in accordance witt Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the forego: motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYEs: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the East Rivanna ¥olunte~ Company for calendar year 1980. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by M~ to approve the lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for iss~ such permits. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the fol] recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the Earlysville ¥oluntee~ Department for calendar year 1980. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded bN Dorrier, ~to approve the lottery permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rul~ issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carrie~ following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit application for the Crozet Volunteer Department, Inc., for calendar year 1980. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, second Dr. Iachetta, to approve the lottery permit in accordance With the Board's~adoPted for issuance of such permits. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same car the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None, ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. ~srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. ~e. Ir. Roudabush. Ia Item No. 14. Statement of Expenses - Regional Jail for the month of November, ~resented along with salary statements for October, 1979. On motion by Dr. Iachetta ~y Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the recorded vote: ~srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. le. Sr. Roudabush. ia Item No. 15. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation ~ional Jail for the month of November, 1979 along with summary statement of Jays and statement of salaries of the Jail physician and paramedics, were presented. ~ offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve these statements as Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following rote: ~srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. le. ir. Roudabush. ia Item No. 16. Report of the County Executive for November, 1979 was presented ~ard's information. ia Item No. 17. Report of the Social Services Department for November, 1979 was in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. ia Item No. 18. Resolution: 911 Telephone System. Fisher said the University of Virginia is planning to establish a new telephone July 1981 and he had asked informally that the University incorporate provisions system. He noted that one of the problems identified in trying to get a 911 the community is that the University's telephone system is not compatible with the stem and such would have to be changed if there is to be a 911 system. Mr. Fisher solution should be adopted by the Board to formally ask the University to consider ovisions for the 911 system. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by from to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS Albemarle County officials and citizens are interested in providing atralized emergency telephone system for the community, known as a 911 call em; and WHEREAS representatives of the County, the City of Charlottesville, the ersi~y of Virginia, and others have met and considered the planning and ementation required for the installation of such a system; and WHEREAS the University of Virginia is planning the establishment of a telephone system by July, 1981; December 12, 1979 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom said he felt since the County Attorney's opinion on the legal ir of abolishing the Albemarle County Service Authority and estabishing a public work: has been received, that the matter should be pursued. Mr. Fisher requested this b~ on the January 9, 1980 agenda. At 3:55 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:07 P.M. Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion: Legislation. Delegates Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and James B. Murray were present t° discuss ti proposals for changes in State legislation. (See resolutions set out in the minut~ October 10, 1979.) Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about bingo laws and the reco~ requirements. He said these requirements are threatening the ability of volunteer to use bingo games to help with their expenses. Mr. Murray asked if the Board felt was necessary and how such could be simplified. Mr. Fisher felt different localit: the State have different problems and he feels Albemarle County needs a little mor~ in what is required. He would like the volunteer companies to be allowed to operat minimum of recordkeeping. He feels the requirements set Out in Virginia Code Sect: 18.2-340.1 through 18.2-340.12 are for major bingo operations and such stringent r~ are not needed in Albemarle County. Mr. Fisher said the Board has adopted resolut: concerning bingo laws and asked that the Delegates review same. Mr. Fisher said the Hylton Enterprise Case deleted the power of local governil bodies to require certain road improvements on subdivision or rezoning requests. [ Law requires that a subdivision be approved if it meets all the requirements of thc ordinances and no matter what road improvements are needed, they cannot be require~ subdivision cannnot be denied on this basis. Mr. Lindstrom said the State is not.1 local governments with any additional funding for road improvements and the recent Enterprise decision has removed the local governments ability to require road impr~ He expressed his frustration about applications for large subdivision on a road th~ totally inadequate. He also noted that a group called the State Land Use Task For~ been formed by the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Count: of the ,specific concerns of the task force is to look at the whole erosion of cour~ what seems to be the whole state of legislative validity. Mr. Michie said he had ~ reviewed the decision in this case yet. Mr. Fisher said the Board has not drafted on this concern and suggested that Mr. Michie and Mr. George St. John work togethe~ matter. Mr. Fisher also noted that the Board considers the condition of roads, wa1 sewer provisions in rezonings. With the new decision, even if the roads are inadec there is no way the Board can require the developer to participate in road improver either on or off-site. Therefore, the Board is faced with either denying the rezo~ approving it and letting someone else worry about the problem. The County relies c Highway Department for recommendations concerning road improvements and the Highwa] is saying they do not have any money for road improvements. Mr. Michie said he wol the problem. Mr. Fisher then noted a resolution adopted for a change on interest rates on taxes. He noted that the current rate for the County on delinquent taxes is fixed maximum of 8%. This interest is not collectable until July which is seven months taxes are due on December 5. A penalty of 10% is added on December ~ but no addit~ interest charges accrue until the following July. He noted that the delinquent ta: state income taxes is tied to the prime interest rate and'he feels the County shou[ the latitude to adjust the rate on property taxes to the same rate. Mr. Fisher sa~ is a problem with the wording of the resolution adopted on October 24, 1979 and se~ Virginia Association of Counties becaue the collecting officer for Albemarle Count~ the assessing officer, but in most localities this is done by two different office~