Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-06-06NJune 6, 1979 ~Regular N~ght Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,. was held on June 6, 1979, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arrived at 7:40 'P.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officers present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who asked for a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. SP-79-17. William Lewis Gardner. To locate a mobile home on 4.00 acres zoned A-i~ Property is located east of Route 640 approximately one mile north of the intersection of Routes 640 and 22. County Tax Map 66, Parcel 71. Rivanna District. (Advertis in the Daily Progress April 17, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: Character of the Area This property is located on an access road about 200 feet east of Route 640. A single-family dwelling is on this wooded property~. There are several small lots north and west of the property developed with single-family dwellings and two mobile homes. Staff Comment- Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends: 1. Maintenance of woods to screen mobile homes from adjoining properties; 2. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. TuCker Said the Planning Commission, on June 5, 1979-, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the two conditions stated above. Mr. Tucker said he had received one letter of opposition to this request; however, the person who opposed the petition was not in attendance at the Planning Commission's meeting. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. Mrs. Joyce Gardner was present for the applicant. Mr. Fisher asked if anyone else was present to speak for or against the petition. There being no one else present, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. Mr. Roudabush said the property was located off the main road and with the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, he did not think it Would adversely affect the adjoinin properties. He then offered motion to approve SP-79-17 as recommended by the Planning Commissi Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs'. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3. SP-79-24. John L. Barnes. To locate a mobile home on 2.00 acres zoned A-1. Property is located on the southeast side of Route 622 at the Fluvanna County line. County Tax Map 131, Parcel 47C, part thereof. Scottsville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 1, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: Character of the Area There are ten conventional single-family dwellings and two mobile homes in the immediate vicinity. Seven of the conventional dwellings have recently been constructed. The land north of Route 622, where the newly constructed dwellings are located, is wooded. The land south of Route 622 is rolling pasture with groves of field pine and some hardwoods. Staff Comment The applicant proposes to locate a mobile home in an open field approximately 350-400 feet from Route 622 behind an existing conventional dwelling and mobile home. The mobile home would be visible from Route 622 traveling east and partially visible from Route 622 traveling west. A division of two acres, on which the mobile home is to be placed, came before the Commission and was approved in March, 1979. Should the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Screening with evergreen trees from Route 622 to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator; 2. Compliance with Section 11-14-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. ~d 32'4 June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) -- Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on June 5, 1979, unanimously recommended approval of this petition, .subject to the two conditions stated above. Mr. Tucker also said there was one letter of opposition to this petition from Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Stallings, who were present at the Planning Commission's meeting. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Barnes was present at the meeting in support of his petition. Mr.. Lawrence Stallings was present to voice his opposition. He owns the property across the road and has subdivided it into lots with new homes ranging from $50,000 to $80,000. He feels a person should be able to do what they want with their property but does feel that a mobile home in this area would be detrimental to the surrounding area. In additio~ he feels the lot where the mobile home will be located will not be large enough as some of the tot lies in Fluvanna County. He said the portion of the lot that lies in Albemarle County is only about three acres total, and that, with the existing home and trailer, the density would be three dwelling units on three acres, however if adequate screening is put on the lot at the beginning, he would not object strongly. Mr. Barnes said he has been paying taxes on his lot in Albemarle County. Eventually, he hopes to build a home on this property. With no'~one else present to speak for or against the application, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier said he felt Mr. Stallings made a valid point. This area has been upgraded and improved. He supports the idea of mobile homes for people who want them, but feels there are places for them and places where they should not be allowed. He said he knows Mr. Barnes owns the land and he would not deny him the right to have a mobile home. However, he feels there should be adequate screening to protect the area and asked what success there had been in requiring evergreen screening. Mr. Tucker said the White Pine tree is suitable to the soil in most of Albemarle County and is relatively fast growing, although it may take three to five years to provide screening. Mr. Dorrier asked what other type of screening might be required in the meantime. Mr. Tucker replied that opaque fencing might be a suitable substitut Mr. Henley said if he had a farm across the road, he would make the owners screen the houses because they would be obnoxious to him. He felt the requirement could be carried too far. Mr. Barnes said the other two mobile homes in the area are right on the road. His mobile home will be back off of the road. Mr. Fisher asked if there were three dwellings on the property at this time. Mr. Barnes said yes. His father had owned two acres and then inherited-12 acres from his father. When Mr. Barnes decided to put a mobile home on this parcel (14 acres) two acres were picked, surveyed, platted and approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. St. John if this subdivision had to be approved by Fluvanna County also. Mr. St. John said the subdivision has been approved by Albemarle and the land is taxed by Albemarle. The owner has the right to build on his property. The County cannot refuse to allow him to build because Fluvanna County has not approved the subdivision. If something is wrong with the subdivision legally, that is between Mr. Barnes and Fluvanna County. Mr. Barnes is putting the mobile home on the portion of the lot that lies in Albemarle County and there is no reason to question this legally. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve SP-79-24 subject to the two conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. Dorrier said he would support the motion with the understanding that condition No. 1 would be strictly enforced by the Zoning Administrator so there will be adequate screening between the mobile home and Route 622. Mr. Roudabush said his questions were technical in nature and did no~ deal with whether to put a mobile home in this location. He agrees the Board cannot dictate what type of home a person should live in or where they should live. He said he would caution Mr. Barnes that since part of the lot lies in Fluvanna County and Fluvanna may have different regulations, Mr. Barnes may have a problem if he does not proceed cautiously. Roll was then called on the preceeding motion, and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. 16, 1979.) ZMA-?9-06. Liberty Land, Ltd. (Northridge RPN). (Deferred from May Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff's report: "Requested Zoning: RPN/A-1 Acreage: 485 acres Existing Zoning: A-1 Location: Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 51 (part), 55C, 55; and Tax Map 79, Parcels 1 and 2 (part), is located on an acess road behind "Ski Land" north of Route 250 East. Character of the Area This property is primarily wooded though some acreage has recently been cleared/ graded. Elevations range from about 540 feet near Route 250 East to 1350 feet on Trevillians Mountain, the last peak forming the southern end of the Southwestern Mountains. Most land in the site is in the 600-900 elevation range. Access to the property is provided by the private road serving "Ski Land" which intersects with Route 250 East near the Odyssey Supper Club. The site is bordered on the southeast by Glenorchy and Shadwell Mountain Subdivisions. Other adjoining ~ro~erties are undeveloped/underdeveloped. June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 325 Zoning in the Area Properties zoned B-i, A-I, and R-3 are in this area. Comprehensive Plan This property, adjacent to low-density residential in the Urban Area, is recommended for Agricultural Conservation/Critical Slope designations. Other relevant aspects of the Plan are: woodlands; hillside development; critical slope; residential standards and rural development; and visual quality. As to the Plan's recommendation of Agricultural Conservation uses in this area, staff opinia~iS~hat such designation would be appropriate only to a limited area of the site and, therefore, will not discuss that topic. "Woodlands - Wooded or partially wooded areas subject to residential, commercial industrial, or institutional development shall be protected by prohibiting clearance of more than 10% of the trees remaining on the site after clearance for allowable building coverage and required circulation/parking area has been deducted. Open areas subject to residential, commercial, or institutional development shall provide the equivalent of 10 trees per gross acre which is subject to development. No tree within 15 feet of any natural (open) drainageway shall be permitted to be cut." Staff opinion is that these standards could be satisfied by appropriate conditions of approval. Because of the potential impact on Visual Quality, these standards appear to be of particular importance in this case. "Hillsides - Roads constructed on slopes of 15% or more shall be generally dis- couraged. When necessary, such roads shall follow the natural topography in a way that minimizes grading, cutting, and filling. Hilltops or ridges bordered by land with slopes of 15% or more shall not be graded. Natural drainage channels in areas of slope of 15% or more shall be maintained in the natural state or stabilized to protect the natural drainage systems from adverse impacts of development activity. Cuts shall not exceed 15 feet in vertical height, 400 feet in length, or create a finished grade in excess of two feet horizontal to one foot vertical if stabilization is necessary." Some of-~these standards have been compromised by clearing/grading activities which have already taken place. "Areas of critical slope (slope over 15%) are divided into three categories of development capability. Whirle development should be allowed in such areas, it should not occur at the expense of environmental damage. The highlights of the plan proposals for critical slopes are: -Residential development should be allowed on any slope where no significant damage to the natural or visual environment will result. -On slopes of 15 to 25%, the gross density will not exceed one dwelling unit/two acres. -On slopes of 25 to 40%, the gross density will not exceed one dwelling unit/five acres. -On s~lopes of over 40%~ the gross density will not exceed one dwelling unit/ten acres. -As the slope increases the percentage of disturbance of the natural environment should decrease. -Clustering to better utilize environmentally suitable building sites should be encouraged. -Ridge lines should be left in their natural state. -No hillside structure should be located so that any part of its construction exceeds the elevation of the adjacent ridge. -Transfer of development rights should be encouraged to enable the use of appropriate land while keeping the land ill suited for development in perpetual open space." Applying methods recommended by KDA, staff calculated an average slope of 23% for this site, while the applicant calculated 20% average slope. Referring to Hillside Development Standards the recommended density is one dwelling per two acres which is consistent with the applicant's request. Clustering has been employed in the RPN plan as recommended. Ridge lines would not be left in a natural state. Visual Quality: The Southwestern Mountain is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan as a "scenic area". Because of the relatively high elevations of portions of this property, ~care in planning an~ development is required to minimize adverse visual impact to surrounding areas~ particularly to the east, south, and west. "A prime factor that is of importance to foreground impac~ is the horizon. In a county with as much topography (sic) as Albemarle, natural horizon becomes very prominent. Any serious modificatiOn of the natural ridge lines in the County will modify the visual character of the entire area. In general, man-made objects should .¢ June 6, 1979 (Regular Night_Me~t~ More specifically, the Plan recommends that development not occur on ridge lines or critical slopes, but that it be located in valleys and first slope plateaus. In this case, "valley" development is unsuitable due to a high seasonal water table and no substantial plateaus exist. Combined with soils limitations to development (preliminary soils report), it appears that the ridges in this case, from a point of view of physical suitability, are more appropriate for development. Accommodating development under these circumstances and minimizing visual impact will require careful house siting. Residential Standards; Rural Development: The Comprehensive Plan recommends an increase in the rural areas of 1594 dwellings by I995; Northridge RPN would represent about 13% of the recommended increase. Additionally, Northridge RPN would have a greater population than most of the Villages recommended in the Plan. In reference to developments of this scale, the Comprehensive Plan states: "-Conventional Developments - Conventional developments, generally involving construction of new roads, are recommended at a scale between 20-75 units, with larger projects recommended to be Planned Unit Developments. Developments of this type are to be one dwelling per acre. In addition to traditional design improvement standards, developments of this size should incorporate the following two features: -Mini-neighborhood identify, including recognizable boundaries and focal point for resident gatherings/activities. -Logical connecting features with adjoining parcels of land. -Planned Unit Developments - The scale at which application of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) concept is recommended begins at the 75-100 dwelling unit range, where a viable homeowners' organization can maintain meaningful open space, recreation areas, and pedestrian linkages. Although PUD's are recommended primarily as neighborhoods or mini-neighborhoods within designated communities and the urban area, other locations may be considered by the County where the possibility of establishing a "new village" or the nucleus of a future community exists and where the development of such PUD's would not preclude achievement of the County's objectives for the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages. The suggested maximum scale standard for planned unit developments is between 5,000 and 7,000." Since no villages are in the vicinity and since this development would represent less than 5% of the recommended population increase for the urban area, conflict with development objectives for these areas would be minimal. Staff opinion is that this area is inappropriate for a "new village" or nucleus for a future community. However, it should be noted that this site is located adjacent to the Urban Area. Soils, Geology, Groundwater (refer to preliminary soils studies) Soils information available from Soil Conservation Service (SCS) at this time preliminary field sheets) indicate that depth to bedrock varies from 20 inches o about eight feet. In most soils, the water table is estimated at six feet hough some areas of high seasonal tables were identified by the applicant's ssils scientist. The information available from SCS relates to soils capabilities for agriculture and only very general opinion statements are appropriate with respect to development. Ail soils are listed as either an erosion hazard or with stoniness/ shallowness present. As to erosion, staff opinion is that a limitation of land disturbance would be appropriate. In respect to stoniness, septic drainfields can be accommodated dependent upon the size and amount of loose rock present. Two areas of shallowness have been identified (one by SCS; and one by Mr. Earl Brunger, the applicant's soil scientist). It does not appear that either area is proposed for development, however, more extensive testing should be conducted, especially in the vicinity of identified shallowness. At least two wells have been drilled by the applicant at this time. Wilbur Nelson in Geology and Mineral Resources of Albemarle County (Division of Mineral Resources, 1962'), in a discussion of groundwater states: "The Catoctin greenstone, composed of metamorphised, basaltic lava flows with interbedded metamorphised sediments,-is a very dense rock and produces very low yields of water. Most of the wells produce only a few gallons per minute. The numerous estates, located on the east side of the Southwestern Mountain in the Catoctin greenstone belt, receive their water from the many springs located on the side of Southwestern Mountain." A major source of groundwater in Albemarle County occurs in formations where such activity as faulting and folding have occurred. No such activity is described in the Division of Mineral Resources text and mapping for this area. NOTE: Information presented in the preceding section is generalized and should not be deemed conclusive in any respect. Soils can vary dramatically in short horizontal and vertical distances. Geological information available is generalized. Available information on groundwater in inadequate. June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Comparative Impact Statistics* Dwellings Population Vehicle Trips per Day Water Consumption/Day School Children Existing A-1 A-1/RPN 242 208 726 624 1,694 1,456 96,800 83,200 138 120 *Staff has employed a density of one dwelling unit/two acres for existing zoning. Given restrictions to development, staff opinion is that impact figures under existing ~oning are unacceptably high. Land Use Summary Residential lots Road right-of-way 0p. en.S.pace Acres Percent 29~ 61.3 19 3.9 169 34.8 Total 486 acres 100.0% Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes 208 cluster lots resulting in a gross density of one dwelling unit/2.34 acres with about 35% of the property remaining in common open space. A combination of public (1.8 miles) and private roads (2.6 miles) would serve the development. The open space areas would be interconnected by a series of trails. The existing Hansen House would be renovated as a community center with two tennis courts and a swimming pool provided for ~ctive recreation. Lots would be served by a central well system. (A system capability of 150,000 gallons,/ day would be required). A pond and dry hydrant system would be provided for fire protection. Staff Comment In staff opinion, the major areas of concern in this application are: (I) the scale of development; and (2) the encroachment of development on the Southwestern Mountain. Scale of Development: This topic has been discussed in the preceding text. Staff has recommended that: (1) this development would not significantly interfere with growth objectives for the Urban Area, Communities, and Villages, however, this site is not an appropriate location for a "new village" or other growth center; and (2) the density requested is consistent with the Critical Slopes recommendation. As in previous applications, a comparison to development under existing zoning is appropriate. Because of physical constraints to development, staff opinion is that the full 242 potential lots under A-1 zoning is highly improbable. Given the existing road layout and acreage in lots, about 150 lots could be realized. Staff would estimate the number of achievable lots under existing zoning would be between 150 and 240 lots. Encroachment of Development on the Southwestern Mountain: There are basically two methods of protecting areas which are sensitive to development: (1) prohibit development; and (2) accommodate development in a fashion which will minimize its adverse impact. In staff opinion, the County does not have adequate tools available to realize the first alternative. The RPN offers the best approach for realizing the second alternative. In the case of the Southwestern Mountain, "sensitivity" is in terms of v~sual quality and physical capability of the land to support development. The most important aspect in relation to visual quality is the maintenance of as many trees as possible, particularly in areas of development. Staff has discussed with the applicant's planner the concept of having both a minimum and maximum setback a~d providing trees in open areas to aid in this objective. Summary The concerns outlined above would be present whether this property is developed under an RPN or under the existing A-1 zoning. As in the past, staff recommends that the RPN approach is more appropriate than development under existing zon±ng. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on May 29, 1979, unanimously recommended approval of this petition subject to the following conditions: Approval is for a maximum of 208 dwellings subject to conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the Approved Plan-Sheets 1, 2, and 3. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved. No grading or clearing shall occur within any area of the site until final site plan and/or subdivision plat has been obtained for that area. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Ail lots shall be served by one or more central water systems approved in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Health, the Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law. 328 June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot. In such approval, the Health Department shall be mindful of the County's intent to discourage the location of septic tanks and/or drainfields on slopes of 25% or greater, since such practice has been described as questionable by the Health Department and by the applicant's soils scientist. Any lot not having adequate septic System sites shall be combined with a buildable lot and/or added to the common open space. County Attorney approval of homeowners' association agreements prior to final approvals. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access to Route 250 East. Roads shown as public roads on the Approved Plan-Sheet 2- shall be designed and constructed to Virginia DeparHment of Highways and Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System; all other roads shall be in accordance with the private roads provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Fire Official approval of fire protection system. Such system shall be provided pr±or to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Private Road "X" (Sheet 2 of Approved PIan) shall not serve more than 28 lots in addition to lots shown on plan. 10. Access to Route 250 East shall be relocated across from the entrance to Worrell Newspapers as per Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of May 25, 1979. At the time of final approvals: 11. Planning Commission approval of areas to be cleared including areas to be cleared on individual lots; Planning Commission approval of dwelling locations on each lot. 12. Ten trees per acre shall be provided in the area marked "TREES" on the Approved Plan-Sheet 1. Deciduous trees shall be 1 1/2 - 2 inches in caliper; non-deciduous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Locations shall be determined at the time of final approval of Phase I. 13. Phasing of recreation improvements shall be as stated on the Approved Plan- Sheet 3. Mr. Tucker said that Dr. Charles W. Hurt, owner of the adjoining property, appeared before the Planning Commission to request that an access be provided from this proposed development to his property. After some discussion, it was determined that 28 lots were the maximum number of lots that could be realized from Dr. Hurt's property. The Planning Commissi~ then imposed condition No. 9 to allow for private road "X" to serve Dr. Hurt's property. Mr. Roy Parks was present to represent the applicant and explained the existing condition~ of the property. Mr. Parks said some of the area had been cleared 10 to 15 years ago by Mr. Hansen and now has secondary growth. Those areas will be replanted. He said the visual impact from existing public corridors (Route 20 East, 1-64 and Route 20) were of concern to the applicant so major buffer areas of from 30 to 100 feet have been provided. He showed a slope study on a colored map he had prepared. This map showed 89 acres were over 25% slope with approximately 397 acres less than 25% slopes. Mr. Parks showed on the map six or eight sites which are targeted for well sites and the location of three wells which have already been drilled. The wells were tested at 50 gallons per minute, 15 gallons per minute and 17 gallons per minute but have not yet been chemically tested. Mr. Keller of the State Water Control Board has approved the sites. Mr. Parks said there would be about 170 acres left in their natural state for a wildlife habitat. The existing Hansen House will be used as a recreation center with a swimming pool and two tennis courts. Renovation of the house will be done in Phase 1 of the overall plan, the tennis courts will be completed in Phase 2 and the remaining recreation facilities will be completed in Phase 3. Mr. Parks asked the Board for approval of this application as approved by the Planning Commission, with conditions No. 2 and 11 reworded'so that grading and clearing for the roads and the pond (for fire protection can proceed'~. He said he followed the criteria of the zoning ordinance to evaluate the entire site. Lots, roads and recreational facilities follow the natural slopes, swales and creekbeds of the property. Mr. Fisher said the dams for the two ponds will be on neighboring property. Therefore, it is important that the homeowners' agreements clearly state the responsibility of the homeowners to rebuild the dams should they be damaged or destroyed. Otherwise, there will be soil erosion and damage to adjacent properties. Mr. Roudabush said in looking at the plan, it appears that about one-third of the total home sites fall within the limits of the Stormwat~ Detention Ordinance which mandates that the rate of runoff be no greater after development than before. He said Mr. Parks has stated that he plans to control runoff on both sides of the property by use' of ponds, and asked if it were Mr. Park's intention to adhere to the requirements of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance on the entire site. Mr. Parks said he did not know this property was in the Rivanna Watershed, but the only practical way to control runoff is by using ponds which will create no increase in runoff. Mr. Roudabush said the land on the west side of the property, which is primarily ridge line, falls within the area controlled by the ordinance and the other side is not. He asked Mr. Parks if the entire area will be controlled. Mr. Parks said yes, but he did not know there was such an ordinance. At this time the public hearing was opened. Mr. Robert Franklin, resident of Northfields, felt the name of "Northridge" could be confusing. He said the proposed development is located southeast of Charlottesville, near Southwestern Mountain, just a little way from Key West Subdivision. He suggested naming the development "Highridge" since it is higher than Pantops, or "Starlight Ridge" or "Forest __Ju~ne 6. '_ 1~_~- ~'R ue lar~Ni .ht Meetin~ Ms. Sue Lewis, First Vice President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle League of Women Voters, read tha following statement: "The League of Women Voters urge.s the Board of Supervisors to give thoughtful consideration to approval of any development plans for lands with steep terrain, a history of poor water supply, or any other ecological frailty. The recent heavy rains have reminded us once more how easily eroded the soils of Albemarle County are. In the vicinity of recent development deep water on Route 29 North has resulted in property damage while on 5th Street, flash flooding has cost a woman her life. Top soil lost through runoff is lost forever and its deposit elsewhere causes damage and expense. The "Report of the Albemarle County Runoff Control Ordinance" on page 21, indicates that soil loss from forested land is 95 lbs. per acre per year compared with 42,350 lbs. per acre per year from bare land; a saving of 99.78% of top soil when natural forest can be ~reserved. It is hoped that the developer will be required to leave intact any forest now on steep slopes, and that the planting of evergreens and other vegetation be done on those slopes already stripped. Strict adherence to the Performance Standards passed by the Board of Supervisors last fall should be enforced. Likewise, adequate septic fields are more difficult to locate and install effectively on such sloping land, even on slopes less than 25%. A survey of soil on each lot by a soil scientist might help. The developer and Planning Staff should be commended for requiring central well systems, but has the availability of adequate water been assured by inspection and approval of wells by the State Department of Health? Some of this area has a poor record of water supply. One of the several wells at the Sheraton Inn is 525 feet deep. It'would be unfair to ask either the purchasers of these lots or the tax-payers to pay for bringing public water from the State Farm line to this development if these wells fail. Development of this type of land with high elevations and steep slopes brings with it added responsibilities and problems which must be realized and addressed." There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said it appears that a great deal of planning has gone into this proposed development. His main concern is that this rezoning request constitutes an increase in density on some of the steepest slopes in the County. Dr. Iachetta said this plan is well done, if the idea is to create as many lots as possible on the property. He was concerned about creating an area here (such as one in his district where septic tanks have failed) with city densities on land t~at may or may not be able to absorb the effluent. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with the concept of this RPN at the density proposed because this area of the County is a part of the Urban Area and is served by roads that are adequate. He feels conditions can be placed on the developer to assure that the individual septic systems will work. He is in agreement with a central water system. Mr. Lindstrom said his concern is that the houses be sited so as to preserve the visual quality of the area. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor (who had talked with representatives of the Health Department about their normal testing methods. Mr. Agnor said that normally they do not test each lot individually unless this test is required by the County. If this were made a requirement, such testing could exceed their capabilities and the Health Department could have the testing done by a private laboratory. Mr. Parks said his client would not object to having each individual lot tested by the Health Department or that location for a back-up drainfield be required. Mr. Roudabush suggested that Condition No. 9 be reworded to state: "Private Road 'X' shall not serve more than 28 dwelling units." Mr. Parks said since part of the adjoining property is zoned R-3, the applicants would like for another condition to be added making the homeowners on that adjoining property subject to the 13 conditions being recommended for this petition, plus making those homeowners members of the homeowners association for Northridge. Mr. Fisher was not sure that all 13 conditions could be imposed on the adjoining property owner, but felt that if the homeowners in that development wanted to use Private Road "X" they~should enter into an agreement for its maintenance. Mr. Parks said the major focal point of Northridge is the amenities. The developer wants to have a community that is self- contained. He made the following three points: 1) They do not want cars from these 28 units traveling through Northridge unless those homeowners are subject to the homeowners agreements and help to maintain the roads. 2) The addition of this traffic puts some of the roads into higher highway standards and the roads will cost more to build. 3) This is the only road in the development of which he is unsure of the exact location. From the bottom of the cul-de- sac to the bottom of the ridge the slope is about 10%, but, between these two points, the slope goes up to 18%. There will have to be a detailed vertical alignment worked out before the exact location of Private Road "X" is known. Dr. Iachetta said ±f the Board includes condition No. 9 as worded, the Board has essential given approval for 28 dwelling units on the adjoining property. He did not feel this is correct since the Board has no petition before it for that property. Mr. Lindstrom recommended leaving out this condition and working out some agreement when the property is developed. 33'0 June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) At 9:55 P.M. the Board took a recess, and reconvened at 10:00 P.M. Mr. Fisher said he di~ not know why the Board was trying to provide access for a development which is not before the Board at the present time. Mr. Lindstrom preferred to Just delete the condition. When Mr. Fisher noted that Private Road "X" is shown on Sheet 2 of the approved plans, Mr. Lindstrom suggested wording the condition to read: "A reservation shall be left for Private Road "X" as shown on Sheet 2". Mr. St. John said this is not just a rezoning request which is before the Board tonight, but a rezoning for an RPN category. Any deviation from the approved RPN plan must be resubmitted for approval to both the Planning Commission and the Board. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested: "Private Road "X" (Sheet 2 of Approved Plan) shall not serve more than 28 dwelling units; owners of said dwelling units shall become members of the homeowners' association of Northridge property association and subject to all regulations governing such association. This condition shall not be construed as approval of any subdivision or plat." Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-06 subject to conditions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12 and 13 as recommended by the Planning Commission and conditions 2, 5, 9 and 11 as amended above. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier; Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Non~ (Conditions as approved by the Board are set out in full below:) 10. Approval is for a maximum of 208 dwellings subject to conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the Approved Plan-Sheets 1, 2 and 3. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space whall be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots approved. No grading or olearing for street construction shall occur within any area until the final Stormwater Detention and drainage plans for subject sub- drainage basin have been approved for concurrent construction. No grading or construction on slopes of 25% or greater except as necessary for road construction as approved by the County Engineer. Ail lots shall be served by one or more central water systems approved in accordance with the regulations of the Virginia Department of Health, the Code of Albemarle County, and all other applicable law. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations on each lot. The Health Department shall either supervise or test each lot utilizing both soil tests and percolation tests. Such tests must demonstrate that two septic drainfields can be located on each lot without encroaching on any slope exceeding 25%. Septic tanks and/or drainfields shall not be located on any slope of 25% or greater. Any lot not having adequate septic system site shall be combined with a building lot and/or added to the common open space. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Association agreements prior to final approvals. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access to Route 250 East. Roads shown as public roads on the Approved Plan-Sheet 2- shall be designed and constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications and dedicated for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System; all other roads shall be in accordance with the private roads provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance. Fire Official approval of fire protection system. Such system shall be provided prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Private Road "X" (Sheet 2 of Approved Plan) shall not serve more than 28 dwelling units, owners of said dwelling units shall become members of the Homeowners Association of Northridge property association and subject to all regulations governing said association. This condition shall not be construed as approval of any subdivision or plat. Access to Route 250 East shall be relocated across from the entrance to Worrell Newspapers as per Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of May 25, 1979. At the time of final approvals: 11. Planning Commission approval of areas to be cleared on individual lots; Planning Commission approval of general dwelling location on each lot. 12. Ten trees per acre shall be provided in the area marked "TREES" on the Approved Plan-Sheet 1. Deciduous trees shall be 1 1/2 inches to 2 inches in caliper; non-deciduous trees shall be four to five feet in height. Locations shall be determined at the time of final approval of Phase I. 13. Phasing of recreation improvements shall be as stated on the Approved Plan-Sheet 3. Mr. Dorrier said he feels this is an example of an RPN which took an area which was hard to develop and created something of quality. Mr. Lindstrom said this is an example of the Board's willingness to deal with this type of land use when the property is close enough to roads and has easy access. Mr. Fisher suggested Mr. Parks consider a name change for this development so as not to have confusion when he is trying to sell his lots. He said the Board did not want to become involved in a name change but felt this could be done with little difficulty if it was the desire of the applicant· Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-79-01. Barbara C. Corbett. Petition to amend the A-1 zone of the County Zoning Ordinance to provide for senior citizens' group home. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 23 and May 30, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the County Planning staff report: June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) "Barbara Corbett is requesting an amendment to the A-t Agricultural District to provide for "Senior Citizens Group Home" for up to 20 persons. Staff recognizes that such use is desirable in the A-1 district due to the quiet, rural setting provided by that zone. As a use by special use permit, peculiar aspects of such use could be addressed (i.e., rescue squad response time, fire protection, ambulatory vs. non-ambulatory occupants). Section 2-1-25(41) Home for Adults Staff Favors use of the State Code definition and licensing requirements for two main reasons. Firstly, such approach would discourage questionable applicants (i.e., home for adults vs. apartment house). Secondly, the County has no adequate mechanism for insuring the health, safety, and welfare of the occupants, where in the case of required licensing, the State Welfare Department would have authority (this is similar to the approach staff has recommended fo~ children's day care centers). Therefore, staff recommends the following definition: Section 16-42.1 Home for Adults: A place, establishment, or institution, public or private, licensed as such by the Virginia Department of Welfare and Institutions. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 8, 1979, unanimously recommended adoption of the above stated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Richard Hilton was present to speak for the applicant. He said the applicant purchased the Tuckahoe Motel which is not generating business as a motel, and they are looking for another source of income. The applicant feels this motel would make an ideal home for senior citizens as all the rooms are on one level. The facility would be for ambulatory persons only. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hilton if he was aware of State requirements for handicapped facilities. Mr. Hilton felt the motel could already meet some of the requirements. Improvements are being made at the present time and then he will have the Fire Marshall check and give his recommendations. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Hilton check with the Virginia Department of Welfare since State requirements are much more stringent than County requirements and could involve extensive renovations at a considerable cost. There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he has no objection to this type of use in certain districts but he feels that requirements;for-water, sewage disposal and fire protection will be difficult to meet in most of the A-1 zone. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Sections 2-1-25(41) and 16-42.1 as set out above. Mr.-Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said the amendments merely state "adults", and do not give an age or say "elderly". This might imply that anyone over 18 years of age would be considered an adult. Mr. St. John said Section 63.1-172(A) of the State Code, "Home for Adults" sets out restriction and that is why Section 2-1-25 was titled in this way. Mr. St. John suggested getting a copy of the Code and reading the definition to the Board. At this point, action on this petition was deferred until later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-79-02. Harlowe Auction Ltd. To amend the B-1 zone of the County Zoning Ordinance to provide the following as a use by special use permit: "Auction House for the periodic sale of new and used goods by auction to the general ~ublic." (Advertis in the Daily Progress May 23 and May 30, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the County Planning Staff report: "Harlowe Auction, Ltd. is requesting that the B-1 General Business district be amended to provide for 'Au¢'tion house' as a use by special use permit as follows: Section 7-1-42(15) Auction house for the periodic sale to the general public of new and used goods. Staff opinion is that this use is appropriate to the B-1 zone. The special permit approach would provide opportunity to address peculiar problems associated with such use. Staff recommends the following: Section 7-1-42(15) Auction House. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 8, 1979, unanimously recommended that this amendment be adopted with wording recommended by the staff. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Gallo was present to represent Mr. Harlowe. (Mr. Harlowe was also present.) Mr. Gallo said this operation would not be a flea market type of business. There are no permanent outdoor sales proposed and no sale of livestock. Mr. Fisher said under this definition of "Auction House", auctions could be held any day or night except where restricted by a special use permit. He did not understand why this use is not already under a business category. Mr. Tucker said according to the Zoning Administrato~ auction houses are not included under the B-1 category. Mr. Gallo said they had tried to get this use under "retail sales" in the B-1 zone, but this was denied by the Zoning Administrator. There being no one else present to speak for or against this petit±on, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to amend and reenact the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of Section 7-1-42(15) as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier d 332 June 6'~, 1979 [Regular Night Meeting) At this time, the Board returned to Agenda Item No. 5. Mr. St. John read the definition of "Home for Adults"from the State Code which specifies "aged, infirmed or disabled." He said a non-aged person would not qualify. The-Board was in agreement that the proposed definition would cover this petition. Roll Was then called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-79-11. Harlowe Auction, Ltd. To rezone 10.000 acres from A-1 to B-1. Located west of Route 616 north of Boyd Tavern. County Tax Map 94, Parcel 39A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 23 and May 30, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "Requested Zoning: B-1 Business Acreage: 10.0 acres Existing Zon~.g: A-1 Agriculture Location: Property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 39A, is located in the southwestern quadrant of the 1-64/Route 616 interchange near Fluvanna County. Character of the Area This property is wooded and undeveloped. Three single-family dwellings (one dilapidated) are across Route 616. The surrounding area is rural in character with sparse residential development. Route 616 between 1-64 and Route 250 East is pavementrmarked for 'no passing.' Comprehensive Plan This area is recommended for 'other rural land' indicating no significant environmental features requiring special attention. The plan 'encourages commercial land use activity within planned population concentration areas including the urban area, communities, and villages'. The Keswick Village committee has recommended deletion of Keswick in the plan as a village. Staff Comment There have been three successful rezoning requests at this interchange, resulting in over 24 acres of B-1 zoning in three quadrants (ZMA-024, ZMA-156, ZMA-22-76). This represents an equivalent of up to eight neighborhood shopping centers. As stated in past applications, staff opinion is that B-1 zoning is inappropriate to the rural areas of the County. Staff recommends denial of this petition for the following reasons: 1. B-1 zoning is inappropriate to the rural areas. 2. Over 24 acres of vacant B-1 exists at this interchange. 3. The request does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Tucker said on May 8, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the following: Rezoning of Tax Map 94, Parcel 39A, a distance of 60 feet in a line parallel to the common property line between parcels 39A and 39; to the width of parcel 39A. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Harlowe is purchasing Paroel 39 which is already zoned B-1 and fronts on Route 616. Mr. Harlowe presented a schematic drawing to the Planning Commission showing the general location of the auction house. Under B-1 zoning, there is a 50-foot setback required from any residential or agricultural area, so the Planning Commission recommended an additional 60 feet of B-1 zoning so as to allow the applicant enough area for the required setback. Mr. Fisher asked if the required setback on the front of the property would prevent the auction house from being built on the existing B-1 zoned parcel. Mr. Tucker said the applicant would like to set the auction house to the back of the property so it would not be visible from Route 616. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Gallo was present to represent the applicant. He showed to the Board members a plat of the proposed site. Mr. Gallo said the currently zoned B-1 parcel is shallow compared to its frontage. The present B-l_portion is devoid of trees and there is a ditch across the front of the property. In order to make this operation as unobtrusive as possible, the applicant proposes to put the building in the woods on the back of the property. Also, Parcel 38 which is zoned B-I, is owned by an oil company and the applicant would like to be able to protect himself from possible uses on that parcel. Mr. Fisher asked if the applicant agrees with the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gallo said if the Board would grant an additional 40 feet of B-1 zoning (making a total strip of 100 feet), the applicant would be satisfied. There being no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush asked if there is any prohibition against a parking lot in the A-1 zone. Mr. Tucker said there was none. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the building could be placed on the property and still keep the 50-foot setback between the A-1 and B-1 zones without granting this additional 60-feet of B-1 zoning since the parking lot can be constructed on the A-1 portion of the property. Mr. Dorrier said he would like to see the building as far back from the right-of-way of Route 616 as possible. Mr. Fisher said if the auction house can be built without expansion of the B-1 zone, he would like to encourage this because of the constraints the Board has placed on itself in the Comprehensive Plan. Also, there is a large amount of vacant B-1 land in the area. June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 333 Mr. Henley asked if there were any buildings on the other B-1 zoned properties in this area. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Roudabush said rezoning 60 feet to B-1 wouldnot make that much difference, but it would create a greater setback from the road. Since there is already~ B-1 zoning on this interchange, any additional setback would be helpful. Mr. Henley said he would not agree to any rezoning larger than the 60 feet recommended because of the large amount of B-1 property in the area. Mr. Dorrier did not think the additional 60 feet will make any difference. If this 60 feet will allow the building to be set back further from the road, he will support the petition. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-11 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he could not support the motion because he feels there is an ample amount of B-1 land on which the building can be built. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 8. SP-79-18. Harlowe Auction, Ltd. For an auction house on 2.486 acres zoned B-1. Located on west side of Route 616 north of Boyd Tavern. C~unty Tax Map 94, Parcel 39. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 23 and May 30, 1979). Agenda Item No. 9. SP-79-19. Harlowe Auction, Ltd. For an auction house on 10.000 acres zoned A-1 (proposed to be rezoned B-i). Located on west side of Route 616 north of Boyd Tavern. County Tax Map 94, Parcel 39A. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 23 and May 30, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the following staff report on the above two petitions: "SP-79-18 - 2.486 acres, Tax Map 94, Parcel 39 SP-79-19 - 0.56 acres, Tax Map 94, Parcel 39A (Amount of acreage allowed under ZMA-?9-11; not the 10.000 acres as requested.) Request: Auction House Zoning: B-1 Business LOc'at'ion: Property is located in the southwestern quadrant of the I=64/Route 616 interchange near Fluvanna County. Staff Comment: Auction houses are generally viewed as "event" type uses which generate traffic impacts for short periods similar to a theater. Such use generally attracts single purpose traffi~ and therefore location with respect to other commercial activities is not a major factor. Since staff has not supported recent rezoning requests in this area, a recommendation on this request is awkward. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this request, staff recommends the following-conditions: 1. No signs visible from 1-64. 2. Site plan approval. In the development of the site plan, tha applicant shall be mindful of the following: (a) The building and parking areas should not be visible from I~64; (b) Maintenance of as many trees as possible to serve as screening from 1-64 and Route 616. 3. No outdoor sales, display or storage. 4. No outdoor amplification system. Should a loudspeaker be used indoors, the noise level at the nearest residential property line shall not exceed 40 decibels. 5. Any refreshments, food, or drink use shall be accessory to the auction house and shall not be operated except during auctions. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 8, 1979, unanimously recommended approval if the above two petitions subject to conditions #1, #2 and #5 as recommended by the staff, ~ut rewording #3-and #4 as follows: Outdoor sales limited to six calendar days per year. Amplification system noise level at the nearest residential property line, ownership other than the applicant, shall not exceed 40 decibels. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Frank Gallo said the applicant had no problem with ;he Planning Commission's recommendations. He said condition No. 3 was changed at the Planning ~ommission hearing to allow outdoor sales which would be primarily farm equipment as it would hot be feasible to hold farm equipment auction sales in a 60 feet by 80 feet building. Mr. ?isher said in changing #3, the Planning Commission had deleted the prohibition against ~utdoor display or storage. He asked if the applicant had made this request. Mr. Gallo said ho. There being no one else present to speak for or against these petitions, the public searing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom recommended changing condition #3 to read: "Except on days scheduled for utdoor sales, there shall be no outdoor display or storage." Mr. Henley said he felt this ~ondition might be too restrictive since Mr. Harlowe might need to bring in farm equ±pment ~ver several days before an auction. Mr. Fisher said he was not concerned about short-term [isplay or storage but he feels any long-term outdoor storage might be a problem. Mr. Roudabush suggested adding a Section (c) to condition No. 2, reading: "Building to 334 June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom then suggested adding a condition No. 6 as follows instead of~his previous recommendation: "Except on a temporary basis in connection with the outdoor sales permitted in condition No. 3 above, there shall be no outdoor display or storage." Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve SP-79-18 for 2.486 acres and SP-79-19 for 0.56 acres subject to conditions Nos. 1 - 5 as amended above and the addition of a condition No. 6. (The conditions as approved are set out in full below). 1. No signs visible from 1-64. 2. Site plan approval. In the development of'the site plan, the applicant shall be mindful of the following: (a) The building and parking areas should not be visible from 1-64; (b) Maintenance of as many trees as possible to serve as screening from I64 & Rt. 611 (c) Building to be located at least 150 feet from right of way of Route 616. ~3~~ i~_Qu~d~o~sates,~I~ited to six days per calendar year. These sales shall not take place nearer-than 150 feet to the right-of-way of Route 616. 4. Amplification system noise level at the nearest residential property line, ownership other than the applicant, shall n~t exceed 40 decibels. 5. Any refreshments, food, or drink use shall be accessory to the auttion house and shall not be operated except during auctions. 6. Except on a temporary basis in connection with the outdoor sales permitted in condition No. 3 above, there shall be no outdoor display or storage. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. William Houchens. Presentation: Nuclear Environmental Impact. Mr. Houchens handed out to the Board members nuclear information brochures and statements which told of the dangers of nuclear power and a list of states (Connecticut, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, to name a few) which have adopted ordinances to regulate the shipping of hazardous materials. He talked to Dr. Burke, Radiation Safety Officer, University of Virginia, who is currently conducting classes for the Albemarle County Sheriff's Department, the Police Departmel the rescue squad members and the Fire Department and the information contained in these brochures are the guidelines Dr. Burke uses for his classes. Mr. Houchens then handed out information on what other areas (Shaker Heights, Ohio and New York City) have done and a copy of House Bill 1918 which was adopted by the General Assembly this past session. He did not go into a detailed discussion of this information as he felt each page was self-explanatory. Mr. Houchens asked the Board to enact some ordinance or resolution to regulate the shipment of radioactive materials through Albemarle County similar to what other states have done. Mr. Houchens then handed out an Environmental Impact Statement on Nuclear Power and its Effects on Albemarle County, June, 1979, which he had compiled. He did not have an opportunity to discuss the petition signed by 200 persons.when the petition was presented to Mr. Lindstrom on April 4, 1979, but the statements contained therein are what he would like to see enacted. (This petition is set out in full in the minutes of April 4, 1979). He said the above mentione~ document (Environmental Impact Statement) contains a map which shows the relationship of the proposed Norwood nuclear electrical plant in Nelson County to Albemarle. After checking with the Airport manager, Mr. Mike Boggs, it was determined that Albemarle County is under the influx of southwesterly and northeasterly winds. Although surface winds are variable according to geological formations, general air movements remain fairly constant. Sinc~e the proposed nuclear plant at Norwood lies due southwest of Albemarle, it is conceivable that in the event of a nuclear accident at Norwood, Albemarle would be affected. Mr. Houchens urged the Board to consider some ordinance or proposal in relationship to what Shaker Heights, Ohio and New York City have adopted in order to give some support on regulating the shipment of nuclear waste to the General Assembly. He feels that any ordinance or policy which the Board might enact will be helpful in regulating these materials. He knows one county does not interfere in another county's affairs; but since nuclear wastes are being shipped through Albemarle County, he feels if the Board does adopt an ordinance for public safety, Albemarle will not be stepping on another county's toes. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Houchens for the presentation and said he would study the informati~ on the shipping of radioactive materials because he feels this is becoming an issue in the State. (The brochures and nuclear are ~' on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). Mr. Fisher said he is Director of Emergency Services for the County; Mr. Agnor is Deputy Director. The Office of Emergency Services is responsible for handling emergencies in the County, either nuclear or non-nuclear. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be interested in knowing what measures the Office of Emergency Services has taken to deal with such emergencies. Mr. Fisher said they have not done much planning because there is no money. Mr. Lindstrom said it is a logical deduction from looking at the map and noting the proximity of Albemarle County to the North Anna nuclear plant in Louisa county and the proposed Norwood nuclear plant in Nelson County that radioactive materials would be shipped through the County. Dr. Iachetta said there has been a nuclear reactor in operation in Charlottesville since 1959 and nuclear materials have been shipped in and out since that time. He does have some concern about the shipping of these waste materials but feels if all nuclear plants were shut down, there would be an economic disaster in the nation. He said it would be impractical to try to stop construction of the plants which are already under construction without causing serious economic problems and he said he will not support anything which leads to this objectiv Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a brochure from the Virginia Office of Emergency and Energy Services. This brochure deals with the Three Mile Island controversy and closes by saying: "Perhaps the most awful long range outcome of Three Mile Island~would be for Americans to allow themselves to be pummelled with it by the vocal opponents of nuclear power. Without nuclear power, the nation may well be headed for economic cataclysm. The public must not t, June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 335 Mr. Lindstrom hoped the Board would discuss at a later time the ability of the Board to deal with this problem. Agenda Item No. 11. Sharing Projects. JAUNT. State Aid for Experimental Mass Transportation and Ride- Mr. Agnor said the Transportation Committee had met with Mr. Lloyd Wilson, Executive Director of JAUNT, to discuss several aspects of the grant program. This program is a grant from the State for innovative or expanded use of transportation systems for one year. He presented to the Board two proposals for experimental projects to be administered by JAUNT in the next fiscal year, funded 100% from State grants funds: (1) A bus route from the vicinity of Earlysville to University Hall, 15 round trips per day, from 7 A.M. to 6 P.M., four morning express runs at half hour intervals from 7 A.M. to 9 A.M., seven local runs at one hour intervals from 9 A.M. to 4 P.M., and four evening express runs at half hour intervals from 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. Estimated cost $45,300. Estimated fuel savings 31,200 gallons. (2) Establishment of a ride-sharing information office to receive inquiries and match carpool riders and drivers. Estimated cost $24,500. Estimated fuel savings 242,666 gallons. Mr. Agnor said the Committee recommends that both of these proposals be sent to Richmond with Albemarle County being the applicant. Mr. Fisher asked if the second proposal were funded, if the ride-sharing project would be in competition with JAUNT's operation. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels that ride-sharing would work in areas that are not suitable for other types of transportation. There are areas of the County that would not have sufficient ridership to support mass transportation and those areas would be more likely to benefit from ride-sharing. Mr. Wilson was present and said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom's interpretation. A secondary benefit of the ride-sharing project would be to establish in the public's mind that JAUNT is offering a public transportat~ service. He said the marketing effort, which is the key to the success of a ride-sharing project, is something JAUNT has been trying to do for some time. Mr. Agnor said a model resolution had been produced by the State Highway Department. He also presented to the Board copies of the two proposals in letter form. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any likelihood of getting the proposals funded. Mr. Wilson thought there is an excellent opportunity of getting funds for the 29 North bus route because it is unlikely that any other proposals will have this degree of documentation. Mr. Lindstrom said in proposal No. 1, it states "Passengers would be charged $.-50 per one way trip for service." The committee discussed this charge and it was decided that $.50 would not pay for thins service. He said $1.00 will pay for the service if the projected ridership is realized. Mr. Lindstrom said after some debate by committee members it was decided to leave out the charge. He feels the type of ridership this project will generate can afford to pay and he feels the project should not be subsidized; it should be self- supporting. He recommended changing this sentence to read: "Passengers would be charged for service." At this time, Mr. Roudabush offered motion to approve the filing of the two proposals, to authorize the Chairman to sign same, and adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS State funds have been appropriated by the General Assembly to initiate experimental mass transportation and ride-sharing projects in.the Commonwealth of Virginia (Chapter 850, Budget 621 of the 1978 Acts of the General Assembly); The County of Albemarle.requests that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, as the administrator of the program, consider the enclosed proposals for innovative, experimental mass transportation projects in the Albemarle County area. AND, if these proposals are found to be acceptable, the staff of Albemarle County and the Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc. will work with the staff of the Department to develop an in-depth project scope of work. Albemarle County realizes that one or both of these projects may be funded up to 100% of the capital and operating costs for one year and cannot be undertaken until'approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Commission. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded e: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush, None. Agenda Item No. 12. Appalachian Power Company: Contract. Mr. Agnor said the negotiations between the Virginia Association of Counties-Virginia pal League Steering Committee and the Appalachian Power Company have been concluded. The results are incorporated in a three-year contract which provides for an accelerating rate each year which includes a rate for fuel. The details of the negotiated electric power rates agreement are as follows: Basically, the agreement is for 3.65 cents for schools and 3.45 cents for all other uses for the first year of the contract; 3.82 cents for schools and 3.60 cents for general uses for the second year of the contract; 4.0 cents for schools and 3.76~cents for general uses for the third year of the contract. Included in this rate is 1.28 cents for fuel. This June 6, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) APCO's first proposal and the two-part rate for the first year of the contract would have amounted to an increase of $1,503,000 based on kilowatts consumed in the test year. The agreed on contract amounts to an increase for the first year of $678,314.00 which is approximat 45% of APCO's request and less than a 10% increase overall. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the contract as presented and authorize the County Executive to execute same. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said, recently there was an article in the Richmond Times Dispatch by Peter Bacque related to electric rates in Albemarle County. The article said there were five power companies serving Albemarle County, the most of any single jurisdiction in Virginia. The article also stated that rates varied from one company to another by as much as 25% for the same residential service. ~- Agenda Item No. 13. Renewal: Housing Assistance Payment Program Agreement. Mr. Agnor said this is the third year renewal of a five year Housing Assistance Program. This year's agreement has the exact wording as last year's agreement with the same reimbursemen rates. He recommended that the Board approve the agreement. D~. Iachetta then offered motion to approve the renewal of an Administrative Services Agreement with the Virginia Housing Development Authority, dated May 1, 1979, and authorize the County Executive to execute same. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Report: Tourism Committee. Dr. Iachetta said the committee appointed on April 18, has agreed on a number of issues. However, there are some areas that need to be clarified and resolved. Of primary concern to the committee is the location of the Bureau. Dr. Iachetta said it is possible to begin operations at the Bicentennial Center. If the Visitors Bureau begins operations in the Bicentennial Center, it creates a problem for the Chamber of Commerce since their contribution was for "in kind" services (i.e., office space, personnel, etc.). There will be no rent charged for space at the Bicentennial Center, but the parties to this agreement would have to hire a director, secretary and furnish the office. Mr. Fisher said it does not make sense to put up signs directing people to the Chamber of Commerce for one year and then to change the signs directing them to the Bicentennial Center. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Visitors Bureau should begin operations at the Bicentennial Center. Mr. Fisher said the Board had agreed to a Visitors Bureau as a joint effort of the City/County/Chamber of Commerce. Therefore, he feels the management of the bureau should not be by a person on the staff of those bodies. Dr. Iachetta said the committee has discussed setting up a Board consisting of the City Manager, the County Executive and the Executive Vice President of the Chamber of Commerce. A Commission would then be made up of nine members, three appointed by each of the aforementioned bodies, whose responsibilities would be policy, management and advisement, including advisement on fund expenditures and review of criteria effectiveness. Dr. Iachetta said the committee has a list of 15 areas which would be judged to see if the tourism effort was effective. Mr. Fisher said he feels that i~f the Bureau is started in one place, it will never get moved to another location. Mr. Agnor said in the original proposal, the Chamber of Commerce suggested that the Bicentennial Center is an ideal location for the Bureau, but had said the space would not be available until 1983. Therefore, the Chamber suggested that it be started in the Chamber's offices and moved to the Bicentennial Center in 1983. Now that the Bicentenni Center is available for immediate location of the Visitors Bureau, this question arose. Mr. Agnor said it was the feeling of City Council, at their meeting on June 4, 1979, to have the Visitors Bureau begin operations in the Bicentennial Center. Mr. Lindstrom, Mr. Dorrier and Mr. Roudabush all agreed that the Visitors Bureau should begin operations in the Bicentennial Center. Agenda Item No. 15. At 11:50 P.M., Dr. Iachetta offered motion to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing land acquisition. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 12:15 A.M. and immediately~adjourned.