Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-11-21NNovember 21, 1979 (Regula~ Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia, wa on November 21, 1979 at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesvil Virg~aia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., Iachetta (Arrived at 7:42 P.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairm~ Agenda Item No. 2. Request to set a public hearing to include Key West and Cee Hills Subdivisions under the dog leash law. Mr. Agnor Said a petition containing approximately 170 names has been received the residents of Cedar Hills and Key West Subdivisions requesting the Board to adopl ordinance to include the subdivisions under the dog leash law. Mrs. Ilene Rutschow, resident of Key West, was present and noted that over two. of the residents in the subdivisions desire the dog leash law. She requested the B~ favorable consideration of same. Mr. Fisher asked if any residents were in opposition. Mrs. Rutschow said yes. Messrs. Robert Pence and Lawrence Rogers, residents of Key West, were present support of the dog leash law. Mr. Fisher felt a public hearing should be set since significant interest has shown, Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to set a hearing for January 2, 1980 to include Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivision under t leash law. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the followi recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-65. Alfred Cobianchi. Locate a mobile home on 5.01 zoned A-1. Loc'ated northeast side of Route 620 approximately 1/10 mile north of th of Routes 728 and 620. County Tax Map 104, Parcel 26. Scottsville District. (Adv in the Daily Progress on October 2, 1979.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, presented the following staff "Request: Mobile Home Acreage: 5.018 acres Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Location: Tax Map 104, Parcel 26, approximately two and one-half miles north of Woodridge on Route 620, near Buck Island Creek November 21, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 'ucker said the Spencers were notified of this meeting and their basic objection .~stion of access. That has now been resolved. ~n the meantime another resident ned about the visiblity of the mobile home. ~Mr. Tucker said he felt both concerns een resolved. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve SP-79-65 with ions recommended by the Planning Commission. Dr. lachetta seconded the motion arried by the following recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. e. r. Lindstrom. a Item No. 4. SP-79-64. A~rian Pols. Petition for a public garage on 1.69 d A-1. Located west side of Route 20 at Eastham. County Tax Map 63, Parcel 5A. strict. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7, 1979 and November 14, 1979. ucker then presented the following staff report: est: Public garage. ge: 1.69 acres ~: A-1 Agriculture ion: Property, described as Tax Map 63, Parcel 5A, is located on the west side of Route 20 North south and adjacent to Redbud Creek. cter of the Area: A single-family dwelling with attached garage exists sn the property. (This structure was the Eastham Market, which had gasoline ~umps and repair facilities.) Old Route 20 is between the dwelling and Route 20 North. The property is lower than Route 20 and the dwelling, located 75 feet from the centerline of the road, is visible from Route 20. shensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan recommends thiS area for agricultural ~onservation. Comment: The applicant ~roposes a repair garage with no employees, signs ~r structural changes to the building. Operation would be by appointment. In the preapplication interview, the applicant emphasized his intent that ~peration at this site would be short term, not to exceed 18 months, while ~he business is being established. Zn the past, staff generally has ?ecommended that uses of this nature be located in the growth areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, staff is also concerned about the ~roximity and visibility of the dwelling/garage to Route 20, however, the ~roperty is well maintained, and has been improved by conversion from the old ~tore and removal of the gas pumps. Generally, staff does not recommend ~xpiration of a special use permit, however, since the applicant has ~mphasized his intent that this be a temporary location and since no improvements ~o t~e structure are proposed, staff would recommend expiration of the permit ~fter two years. recommends the following conditions: This special use permit and all authority granted herein shall expire two years after approval by the Board of Supervisors; No signs shall be permitted; No employees shall be permitted; Ail work is to be conducted within the garage; No outside storage of parts including junk parts; Fire and Building official· approval; Staff approval of site plan; November .21, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. SP-79-67. Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. Locate electrical distribution substation on 0.53 acre zoned A-1. Located northeast side 602 near Schuyler. County Tax Map 132, Parcel 5, part thereof. Scottsville Distri (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7, 1979 and November 14, 1979.) Mrs. Tucker presented the following staff report: "Request: Electrical distribution substation Acreage: 0.53 acre Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 132, Parcel 5, is located on the sou side of Route 602 approximately 0.9 mile east of Route 800 near Schuyler. Character of the Area: This site is adjacent to an existing 100 foot transmis line easement. The area is characterized by scrub woods with sparse residential development. The power substation would not be visible from dwellings in the area. Staff Comment: While no decision has been made by CVEC, this substation may provide only temporary (5-10 year) service to the area~ The relatively s substation would have wooden rather than steel towers. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: Dedication of 25 feet from the centerline of Route 602 by plat or de Site plan approval by staff to include landscape screening and tresp fencing; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entra Removal of equipment and strutures and reforestation of site to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator should the site abandoned or service discontinued." Mrs. Tucker said on November 13, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously reco approval subject to the above conditions. Mr~ Fisher noted that Nelson County has been informed of tharequest and had n The public hearing was opened. Electric Cooperation, was present. apProval. Mr. Bruce Williams, representing Central Virgi He noted the site will be permanent and request With no one else to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing'was ~Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudbush, to approve with the conditions of the Planning Commission. Roll was called and same carried b following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta.and Roudabush. None. Mr. Linds.trom. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-79-35. Ren&ta Tosti-Noc. Rezone 4.00 acres from B-1 Located south of 1-64 and approximately 600 feet north of the Southern Railway and 29. County Tax Map 75, Parcel 53A. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Da Progress on November 7, 1979 and November 14, 1979.) Mr. Tucker Presented the followin~ staff report: November 21, 197~ _~ ~ 9 ~(Reg~l~r Night~.Me~ting_ ! ~ would note that much of the existing commercial zoning including this ~ty has been recommended for deletion on the proposed zoning map. However, time of this writing, staff knows of no opposition from adjoining Iandowners." mcker said on November 13, 1979, he received a call from a person owning property a, but who lives out of state, in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Tucker said ag Commission on November 13, 1979, by a 7-2 vote, recommended approval of the ublic hearing was opened. Ms. Renata Tosti-Noc, applicant, was present. She she had purchased this property about six years ago and developed her grooming s she had done at its previous location on Route 29 North (The Pines Kennel). t aware that a kennel was not allowed since the realtor had informed her that the proper for a kennel operation. As for the number in the telephone directory, was still operating the establishment on Route 29 North and the 29 South number nly for notification. She said she can only board six dogs at a time, and noted rew of dogs are old. Ms. Tosti-Noc said the only way she can make a living is by few dogs and washing and grooming them. She said the house is on top of a hill operty consists of rocks, is very steep and separated from anyone else. She dogs in the basement in a large room and there is a crate for each dog. dward Jackson spoke next in opposition. He felt this would be spot zoning and by his from the rest of the area, it would be downzoning. He did not like for Ms to not be able to engage in her business and if the B-1 zone could be amended to to run a commercial kennel, then there would be no objection. However, Mr. id based on the request as it stands he was opposed. no one else present to speak for or against this request, the public hearing was isher asked if a kennel is allowed by right in the A-1 zone under the current inance. Mr. Tucker said no. A commercial kennel is allowed by special permit e A-1 and M-1 zone. Mr. Roudabush asked if the present operation is one of r a kennel service. Mr. Tucker said the~ Zoning Administrator determined that commercial kennel because Ms. Tosti-Noc is interested in boarding dogs. Mr. ked if this operation was out of keeping with the commercial development in the Tucker said a special permit could regulate the operation. Mr. Dorrier did not .rea would grow as a big commercial area. Dr. Iachetta felt it was a bad precedent n B-1 zoning would surround the subject property. Mr. Fisher did not feel the .ited for very intensive commercial development and he would support the request. Tosti-Noc has a problem by not being able to operate a kennel and he preferred ~ad of amending the Zoning ordinance to permit kennels in the B-1 zone. Mr. freed and did not feel a small kennel would be incompatible with the limited uses that could develop in the future. Mr. Henley said he supported the request ~ felt it was a satisfactory solution to the problem. Mr. Roudabush did not the spot zoning aspects of this application. If the area is found to be more business use in the future, then it could be rezoned. He hated to deprive ~f the opportunity to continue their business particularly on a technical point. ~ush noted that his motion is not a committment that he would support any downzoning ~ire area to agricultural. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-35 as recommended ~nning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following ~ote: Isrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Iachetta. (He felt it was spot zoning.) Ir. Lindstrom. November 21, 1~9 (Regular Night Me~ting) Mr. Fisher said the houses were built in violation of the R-1 zoning years ago owner at that time came to the Board and requested a rezoning to R-2 mak~n~.~h~b~! comply. This was approved. However, Mr. Fisher noted that he did not support that He felt Mr. Dickman has gone to a lot of trouble to make his lot conform and suppor' request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to ac~ recmomendation of the Planning Commission. Roll was called and same carried by the recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. -Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said since the following three agenda items pertain to parcels whic] all adjacent to each other, the staff reports and public hearing will be held for al but action will be taken separately. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-79~8. Frank C. McCue, III and Clifton L. Wright. Rez~ 1.139 acres from A-1 to B-i, with a proffer. Located east side of Route 29 South, 600 feet northeast of intersection of Routes 29 South and 692. County Tax Map 99, 2. Samuel Miller District. Agenda Item No. 9. ZMA-79-39. Frank C. McCue, III and Clifton L. Wright. Re~ 0.686 acres from A-1 to B-i, with a proffer. Located east side of Route 29 South, 300 feet northeast of intersection of Routes 29 South and 692. County Tax Map 99, IA. Samuel Miller District. Agenda Item No. 10. ZMA-79~0. T and D Enterprises, Inc. Rezone 0.737 acres to B-I, with a proffer. Located in the northeast quadrant of intersection of Route~ South and 692. County Tax Map 99, Parcel 1. Samuel Miller District. (The above th~ items were advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7, 1979 and November 14, 19~ Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report for the three requests: "ZMA-79-38. Frank C. McCue, III and Clifton L. Wright 2~!~?~ Acreage: 1.139 acres Description: Tax Map 99, parcel 2 Current Use: Single-family dwelling ZMA-79-39: Frank C. McCue, III and Clifton L. Wright Acreage: 0.686 acres Description: Tax Map 99, parcel iA Current Use: Vacant ZMA-79-40: T and D Enterprises, Inc. Acreage: 0.737 acres Description: Tax Map 99, parcel 1 Current Use: General Store Location' Properties are located in the northeast quadrant of the intersectio~ of Route 692 and Route 29 South. Character of the Area: The Crossroads Market is located on the southernmost ~ingly, and pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-491..2, the undersigned reby voluntarily proffer the conditions in said rezoning application that rezoning of said parcel to B-1 District the following uses permitted by and by special use permit under the existing Zoning Ordinance be excluded or ~ed as hereinafter set forth: 7-1-2 7-1-17 7-1-21 7-1-29 (1) Excluded Uses: Automobile sales, service and rental Hotels and motels Newspaper publishing Public utilities: Office, equipment, storage, dispatch centers and warehouse facilities 7-1-39 Theaters (indoor) 7-1-42 Motor vehicles sales, service and rental 7-1-43 Printing shops. 7-1-44 Condominiums with site plan approval 7-1-46 Retail sales and service of fire extiguishers and safety and security products 7-1-48 Assembly and testing of electrical appliances, electronic instruments and devices, radios, and phonographs. Also the manufacture of small parts such as coils, Condensors, transformers, and crystal holders. 7-1-42(2) Drive-in theaters 7-1-42(3) Machinery sales and service 7-1-42(4) Yeterinary or dog or cat hospitals 7-1-~2(5) Wholesaling and processing not objectionable because of dust, smoke, noise, odors, or heavy traffic 7-1-42(6) Mobile home and travel trailer sales and service 7-1-42(7) Private educational institutions 7-1-42(10) WarehOusing, light 7-1-42(12) Unless such uses are provided in this Article USES PERMITTED in Article 6, RESIDENTIAL, GENERAL DISTRICT R-3, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to Section 11-13 7-1-42(13) Helistop 7-1-42(14) Contractor's office and equipment and material storage yard ~2) Modified~Uses: 7-1-19 Laundries, coin-operated (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation) 7-1-42(9) As stated, but excluding multi-legged tower structures. WITNESS the following signatures this 4th day of October, 1979. SIGNED BY: Clifton L. Wright and Frank C. McCue, II! (BY: George B. McCallum, III, Attorney at Law)" 'ucker said on November 13, 1979, the Planning Commission made the following .tions: 1) ZMA-79~8-~$y~a vote of 5-4, recommended approval subject to the Lbmitted as part of the application. Mr. Tucker said the dissenting vote was ~e northernmost parcel is a concern since there is a dwelling on the adjacent ~nd is very close to ZMA-79-38 and ZMA-79-39 and would serve as a buffer between .ing and the requested commercial district~ 2) ZMA-79-39--By unanimous vote, ~d approval subject to the proffer submitted as part of the application. 3) .-By unanimous vote, recommended approval subject to the proffer submitted as part ~lication. November 21, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) could be put on the property it was very objectionable. She noted her house is fif~ feet from the property line and her three bedrooms are on the south side facing pro] ZMA-79-38. She felt the rezoning would alter their way of living. If all three paz are rezoned and a shopping center is placed there, some consideration should be giw the dangers at the intersection. She also noted that the house on property ZMA-79-1 built in the 1830's or 40's and the thought of it being demolished or made into a bi was not very pleasing. However, if it were made into an antique store it would be I because the appearance would not be changed. She felt it was terrible when someone not a resident tries to change the community's way of living. Mrs. Woodson reitera' she was not opposed to ZMA-79-39 or ZMA-79-40 but was opposed to ZMA-79-38 since it known what will be placed there. Mr. Fisher said along with the activities which are currently at Crossroads, tl County is trying to accommodate the existing population and some future population. asked if that was objectionable. Mrs. Woodson liked the rural atmosphere there at and was opposed to this area being designated a village. Mr. Woodson was also present in opposition to ZMA-79-38 since the parcel is so to his house. .Ms. Eleanor May, a resident of Route 692, spoke next. She supported the villat concept Saying she had worked on the citizens committee of the Comprehensive Plan. idea of the Plan is to keep Route 29 South from looking like Route 29 North with to~ curb cuts. The existing intersection is already dangerous. She said the current essential to the area and it contains many miscellaneous uses. She was curious as uses would be put on the three lots if these rezonings are approved. Ms. May then the Comprehensive Plan recommends that all three-lots be commercial. Mr. Tucker sa~ plan is not specific as far as parcels are concerned but rather designates only gen~ areas. He noted that the general corner of Route 692 is recommended to be commerci~ Speaking next in opposition was Mrs. Janet Cutright an adjoining property owne~ Route 692. Her concern was the quality of the commercial use to which this propert~ be put and felt it would set a precedent for anything else built. Mr. Fisher said Board does not control quality; just types of uses. A proffer has been submitted various types of uses. Mrs. Cutright said her husband donated the property for the station and was not opposed to the village concept but did want it to be a good beg~ Mr. Cutright spoke next. He noted that the lot (ZMA-79-39) was very narrow an~ 140 feet at the widest. There is a stream of water which runs down the middle of il the time the setback regulations, etc., have been complied with, there will be no r~ the lot for a septic system or anything else. ~ Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. McCallum would like to respond about the single e~ Mr. McCallum said the applicants would be agreeable to a single entrance for ZMA-79- ZMA-79-39. However, the concern of Mr. Wright is the impact that an agreement mighl on what is currently there which is an entrance right at the intersection. With no one else to speak for or against the petitions, the public hearing was Mr. Tucker noted letter received from Mr. Larned Randolph dated November 5, 19[ stating opposition to ZMA-79-38 and ZMA-?9-39 but stating he is not opposed to ZMA-[ which contains the existing store. Mr. Fisher felt the store property (ZMA-79-40) should be rezoned. The existin~ property on Route 692 behind the store and the property under ZMA-7.9-39 makes a sma[ commercial zone which can probably serve the needs of the community for a few years for the northernmost ~arcel (ZMA-79-38). he was uncertain because such rezonin~ a~ -November 21, 1979 (Regular Night Me~eting~) _ __-- ~ n was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve ZMA-79-39 w r submitted. Roll was called and same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Henley and Roudabush. srs. Fisher and Iachetta. '~2U'E~a° r. Lindstrom. n was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve ZMA-79-40 w: r submitted. Roll was called and same carried by the following recorded vote: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. e. r. Lindstrom. 45 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:55 P.M. a Item No. 11. Resolution of intent to amend the Albemarle County Subdivision and Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to control access from private property to divided highways. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 7, 1979 and 4, 1979.) ucker presented the following staff report: ctober 11, 1979, the Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution of intent .end the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances to provide for control of s to multi-laned divided highways in accordance with ¥irginia Department ghways and Transportation's recommendations in the U.S. Route 29 North dor Study. rimary purpose of these amendments is to control access within 500 feet median crossover as a matter of highway safety. Such provision would: e rapid cross-cutting, limit side friction near crossovers; reduce U-turning ~ents; and generally protect the functional integrity of crossovers through olled access. Additionally, these amendments would codify Commission .w and approval of access to public roads. recommends the following additions to the Subdivision Ordinance and the .g Ordinance: .ivision Ordinance) Section 18-37 General Standards of Design. (o) Entrances onto Private Roads. Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from such subdivision shall be subject to the approval of the commission upon the advice of the highway engineer and shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. In the case of any mutti-laned divided highway, no such entrance shall be permitted within 500 feet of any crossover in the median of any such highway. .ng Ordinance) Section 17-5-8.01 Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from each development shall be subject to the approval of the commission upon the advice of the resident engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department of ~hw~v~ ~ ~~t~.t~o~. T~ the ~ase of any multi-!aned divided November 21, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr..Henley asked if someone with two acres within parcel .500 feet of a crossow could~get an entrance onto 29 North. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department has to one entrance from any parcel, but it does not have to be commercial. However, if a is within 500 feet of a crossover and it is proposed to be used for a convenience si alternatives could be used if there was no other practical way to provide an entran~ H~e~r~e~npthefl it ~aulda~efd~ntedo~ai~e~e~P~en~mnsafe such as just over th~ of the hill with no sight distance unless the multi-laned highway is cut down. The~ that is the reason for the last alternative. Mr. Henley felt some of the things be: requested by the Highway Department are ridiculous. Mr. Roudabush did not feel there was any way a 100 or 200 foot lot on Route 29 could~be cut off and meet this criteria unless the frontage is opposite a crossover Mr. Fisher felt the exceptions listed at the end of the wording for the Zoning amendment should be inserted in the Subdivision Ordinance also. Mr. Roudabush felt created a real headache because some of the crossovers on Route 29 North are to be and this will only compound the problems. Mr. Fisher thought the purpose of amendi~ ordinances was to bring County regulations into conformity with what the Highway De] has recommended in the 29 North crossover study. Mr. Henley did not want to be tie, so tight that a person with two acres of land, four hundred feet from a crossover, way to get an entrance. Mr. Fisher felt that was the purpose of the exceptions. D: Iachetta agreed. Mr. St. John supported the exceptions in the Zoning Ordinance being included il Subdivision Ordinance. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Hel adopt the following ordinance: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code, Subdivision of Land, be amended by the addition of Section 18-37(o) reading as follows: Each entrance onto any public road for vehicular traffic to and from such subdivision shall be subject to the approval of the Commission upon the advice of the Highway Engineer and shall be constructed in accordance with the design standards of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation In the case of any multi-laned divided highway, no such entrance which is not directly opposite any crossover in the median of any such highway shall be permitted within 500 feet of any such crossover except upon findings by the Commission that (1) there is no other~reasonabl~ practicable access to such subdivision except within 500 feet of any such crossover; (2) that no reasonable means of alternative access is available to such subdivision; and (3) that the provision of an entrance within 500 feet of any such crossover will be consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. Roll was called and the foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vot AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Article 17 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, be amended by the addition of Section 17-6-8.01 readin~ as follows: Wov~m~ :~l.. 1_~.79 (Re u~lar Ni-]ht Meetin~ enley expressed his concern about the lien on the property and said there was no that the $60,000 advance payment will be applied to the lien. Mr. St. John said did not want to be involved in their internal expenditure of funds but it c'ould ed without being writt'en into the ~greement. Dr. Iachetta felt this agreement consistent with what has been done for other fire companies and that is to support fforts but not to buy equipment, etc. Mr. Agnor suggested the check be made both the fire department and the mortgage holder. He also noted that this is ~mount needed to satisfy the lien. Mr. St. John felt the motion should make it her the check would be written in a lump sum or increments and if it should be ~ the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department and the noteholder. Dr. Iachetta ed his motion to state that the check shall be written to the Stony Point Volunteer tment and the noteholder, whether the $60,000 is paid out in increments or as a Mr. Roudabush accepted the amendment and the motion carried by the following ste: srs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. r. Lindstrom. "THZS AGREEMENT, made this 12th day of December, 1979, by and between ~unty of A,lbemarle, Virginia (the "County"), and the Stony Point beer Fire Department ("Stony Point"), W I TNE S SETH: ~actual Background: (a) Citizens of Albemarle County have organized beer Fire Company under Virginia Code Section 27-8, 27-8.1, and 17-9, aated the Stony Point Volunteer Fire Department, which is currently ~ing fire protection services in Albemarle County, particularly in the Point area and its adjacent territory. (b) Stony Point is the owner of all that certain lot or parcel of land ~ning 8.02 acres of land in Albemarle County, Virginia and designated as on a plat of Thomas D. Blue, dated April 23, 1975, and recorded in the 's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed 575, page 495. This property is the same property in all respects that ~nveyed to Stony Point by deed of John C. Biller, dated June 16, 1975, =corded in such Clerk's Office in Deed Book 575, page 493 (hereinafter ~ the "Property"). Stony Point has constructed a fire station on the ?ty for use in housing the volunteer fire company. (c) The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has made annual appropriation ~ds to Stony Point for fire protection services and now wants to insure ~ssential fire protection services continue to be provided to citizens ~ in the vicinity of Stony Point and surrounding area of the County. ~OW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration .of the premises and the mutual ~nts and obligations herein contained, the County and Stony Point agree ~lows: (1) Services Provided. Stony Point agrees, beginning July 1, 1980, and ~uing thereafter for a period of ten years, through June 30, 1990, to ~e fire protection services for the County, including operation and proper ~nance of their existing fire station on the Property. Stony Point shall ]e fire protection services for the Stony ?oint area and adjacent territory, ~all be available to provide services to any area of the County, as. the need ?ise. [2) Payment for Services Provided. In consideration of the services to be ~ed by Stony Point pursuant to this agreement, the County shall pay to Point the sum of $60,000. Such payment shall be in lieu of future annual ~ts to Ston~ Point of $6.000 for the fiscal years 1~80-81 throu~ ~8~-~0. November 21, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said a notice dated September 5, t979, has been received from the S Corporation Commission concerning an application by J. Meak Barton for a license as broker of transportation of passengers by motor vehicles from the City of Charlotte and the Counties of Albemarle, Buckingham, Fluvanna, Greene, Madison, Nelson, Orang Prince Edward to all points in Virginia. At the November 20, 1979 meeting, a letter from the City of Charlottesville st that the City had received a $20,000 grant from the Virginia Department of Highways Transportation to fund a review of the area's mass transportation needs and asking County appoint representatives to an Advisory Committee, to develop recommendations discussed. At that time, the Board requested that Mr. Agnor contact Mr. Richard C. State Transportation Planning Engineer, for his reactions to this study. The Board concerned that this study may encroach upon completion of the CATS study. Mr. Agnor said he discussed this grant with Mr. Lockwood today. The letter wh Lockwood had written to Mrs. Joan Graves as Chairman of the CATS Policy Committee w written prior to a full briefing and meeting with City staff members on their indep transit study. Mr. Agnor said he asked if this independent study should be done by CATS group. Mr. Lockwood felt it would be useful to a limited extent but his main was that this new study be coordinated with the CATS effort. This was the reason h the same representation be on this advisory committee established by the City as on CATS study. Mr. Agnor also asked how the CATS study was progressing and if this ne would slow it down~or~rep~ba~ti~Mri~Lo~doSaid there has been a great deal of faction about the progress of the CATS study and the Highway Department assumes fu! responsibility due to changes in personnel. Mr. Lockwood intends to call a joint m of the Technical and Policy committees of the CATS study before the end of the year the study back in gear and target a date for completion. In Mr. Lockwood's opinion grant to the City will not slow down, nor replace the CATS study. This grant comes new division in the Highway Department called the ?ublic Transportation Division. City of Charlottesville has attempted to obtain funding for the replacement of thei smaller buses because of an increase in ridership. In order to receive the capital needed, the Federal Department of Transportation, of which this new division in the Highway Department is a part, has stated that a study of the City's bus system woul to be done to prove the need. The City applied for a grant to do that study and we informed that the study had to be on a regional basis. Therefore, the City revised application to accommodate this stipulation. This process began last July and the date of the study is February 1 in order to meet deadlines for the City budget and needed by the Charlottesville Transit System. It is also to meet deadlines for app for capital funds. Mr. Agnor then recommended that appointments be made to the Adv Committee in order for the County to be involved in the first meeting with the cons next week. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mrs. Joan Graves, Dr Hoel and himself from the CATS Study Policy Committee to this Advisory Committee es by the City. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following rec vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Agnor said State Farm Insurance has made arrangements with the Sheriff for duty deputy to help direct traffic at 4:15 P.M. Monday through Friday at their new. on Pantops Mountain (Route 250 East) beginning December 3, 1979. Since a County ca~ be involved, the Sheriff has requested concurrence by the Board. Mr. Agnor noted tl State Farm will be paying all expenses. Mr. Fisher supported the request. Motion offered by Mr. Roudabush.