Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-03-08March 8, 1978 (Regular'Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 8, 1978, beginning at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (arriving at 9:15 A.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (arriving at 9:15 A.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 9:55 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:22 A.M. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: April 6 (night); May 11; May 16; July 6 and July 7, 1977. Dr. Iachetta noted misspelled word on page 172 of Minute Book 15, change word "back" to "block" Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the minutes as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Discussion: Westover Road. Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, said at a recent meeting of the Board of Supervisors, Mrs. Barbara Arnold made a request concerning the cul-de-sac at the end of Westover Drive (State Route 1701 It appears that when this Route was accepted into the State System on March 1, 1975, the temporary cul-de-sac provided for an the approved plat of the subdivision had never been constructed and therefore was not taken into the system. This is not normal procedure followed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The staff feels that since the plat for this subdivision has been recorded and lots are being sold, the Board of Supervisors should declare a building permit moratorium on Sections 1 and 2 of Westover Hills until such time as this temporary cul-de-sac has been constructed and accepted into the State Highway System or a bond in the proper amount has been submitted to the County to insure the construction of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, said the problem arises by the fact that the temporary cul-de-sac was constructed at the beginning of lots 31 and 38. When houses were constructed on these two lots, the driveways were put at the far end of each lot, thereby leaving a section of approximately 120 feet of unimproved road that must be travelled in order to get to the driveways. Also, at the present time, the cul-de-sac is not construct- ed within the easement as shown on the recorded plat. Mr. Harley Easter and Mr. Ashby Kennon, developers of Westover Hills, were present. Mr. Easter said the cul-de-sac was built and then approved by the State Highway Department. If it is not constructed within the easement, he will do whatever is necessary to have it moved to where it is shown on the plat. Mr. Fisher said that would not help the two people who are complaining about using this ~nimproved surface to get to their driveways, however, it would make the cul-de-sac conform to the plans which were approved by the County and the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said he could require that a standard 50-foot radius paved cul-de-sac with proper surface and drainage be built within the recorded easement. However, since it is expected that at sometime in the future this road will be extended and that the temporary cul-de-sac will be removed, he would recommend that the 50-foot cul-de-sac be gravelled and not paved. Mr. Fisher said he felt that was reasonable and the Board should give the developers a month to work out a solution to this problem and sign a contract for construction. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to request that Mr. Easter and Mr. Kennon work with the Highway Department to resolve the issue and that it be placed on the Board's agenda of April 12th. The motion was seconded by' Mr. RmudabUsh and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters: Appeal: Kirtley Realty Office Building Site Plan. Mr. Tucker said the property in question is located on the north side of Route 250 West, just ~st~of Hillcrest Motors. The property is presently zoned M-1. On June 17, 1974, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for the addition to the Distributing Company which is lo6ated at the rear of this property. This site plan is for an offica~_buitding. The property has received two variances from the scenic highway provisions of the zoning ordinance. One variance allows for a 76-foot building setback, and the other allows parking for employees and visitors at a 50-foot setback from the right-of-way. This proposal is to locate an office building on 3.4 plus or minus acres off of Route 250 West. The entrance to this o£fice building will be shared by the Distributing Company as well as Hillcrest Motors, Incorporated. The building will be served by a well and septic system. The applicant proposes to locate six parking spaces on the front of the property and seven spaces on the east side of the property. Mr. Tucker said the staff noted in their report that the property does not meet the minimum requirements of the Highway Department and should be extended to comply with those requirements of a 200-foot deceleration lane, 12 feet in width with a 200-foot taper. This condition is the subject of the applicant's appeal. Mr, Tucker said, on January 31st, the Planning Commissio~ approved the .~ite plan with the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of landscape plan. March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 3. The parking area in the front of the building must conform with the requirements set forth in VA-77-46. 4. Approval of this plan does not speak to any sign locations or sizes. 5. Written Highway Department approval. 6. Approval of runoff control officer.· Mr. Stuart Carwile was present to represent Mrs. Kirtley., He said they were appealing condition number 2 regarding Highway Department approval of a commercial entrance. They feel that there is already an existing entrance which, at the time it was constructed, complied with existing highway standards. There is no requirement at this time that Kirtley Realty get a new highway entrance permit or a road cut permit and therefore they do not feel the County has the ability to require that the deceleration lane be enlarged since the commercial entrance is already in place. Dr. Iachetta asked if this change in use will make any significant difference in the number ~f vehicles that presently use the entrance. Mr. Tucker said no. Dr. Iachetta inquired if the condition were one which was put on for safety reasons. Mr. Carwile said safety has not been a factor in any of the discussions to this point. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said the Highway Department cannot on its own authority require an existing commercial entrance user to upgrade ~hat entrance when there is a change in the nature of his business. However, if required by the County, or if the~developer comes in on his own, then the Department can require that the entrance be brought up to current standards He disagreed that safety was not mentioned. He said that in this area the traffic is coming out of a 45 mile per hour zone into a 55 mile per hour zone and along all primary roads that have 45 mile per hour or greater traffic, the Department is recommending deceleration lanes 200 feet long with a 200-foot taper. Mr. Carwile quoted State statute: "Any person desiring such an entrance shall first be required to obtain a permit". In this case there is already an existing entrance and they do not need a permit. The only issue is whether or not, through the site plan ordinance, the County has the ability to require through the Highway Department an additional deceleration lane. Mr. Fisher said if the Board followed Mr. CarWile's argument, there could be a lot of trouble because the first commercial entrance might not generate~much traffic but if there were subsequent developments along an existing entrance it could create a greater impact on traffic. Mr. Lindstrom asked to what extent the new use will,generate additional traffic at peak hours. Mr. Roosevelt said the right turn lane is not constructed for peak hour traffic. It is constructed to get the traffic using the high speed, high volume highway off of the high speed section so they can slow down in an area where they are protected. Mr. Fisher said peak hour traffic is not the consideration. If the realty company came in today and there were no deceleration lane in place, they would have to construct a 200-foot decelera- tion lane as required by the Highway Department. Mrs. Kirttey said most of the traffic using this entrance for her business will be during the middle of the day. Mr. Kirtley said this land was developed in 1969 at which time he put in the deceleration lane. This lane is at least as big as those for other businesses in the area and he did not see the necessity for extending same. Mr. Fisher said he felt it was a question of whether or not the Board would support the recommendations of the Highway Department as they have at other times. Mr. Roudabush said he agreed to some extent with ~Mr. Kirtl~eY that when the property was developed he put in the ist~ndard deceleration~ l~ne.i iIf the~e Were ~anY~chance ithat ~additional land coUld be added to th~s parcel thus ~expanding the'~isite~,'.ha.ifeIt ~thare would ba ~justificatlon for extending the deceleration lane.~ Ke 'than ~ofrer'ed mot~ion to waive Condition number' 2 ~as required by the Planning Commission with 'the_istipulatlon~mthat if any further subdivision', on this property should take place, or ther. e ~o~ld ha ian~ ~further ~eXpansion of' tha'development on this site, that it be brought back for further review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Dr. Iachetta said he was trying to look at the prOblem from a safety point and felt the waiver should be tied to the probability that it would be required in the future if the site becomes more intensely used. Mr. Roudabush said he was trying to do this but not be too specific since the Highway Department might~change their standard entrance requirement later. Mr. Lindstrom said he was reluctant to go against the Highway Department's recommendations. Mr. Henley said he would feel more strongly about this if Mr. Roosevelt had said absolutely the entrance was unsafe. M~. Dorrier said he wou~d also like to have Mr. Roosevelt answer that questi~since he had not heard him say one way or .the other. Mr. Roosevelt said he could not answer that question until the Board gave him a standard for safe or unsafe. Mr. Dorrier said he was not convinced that the traffic increase Will be so great as to require the addition of this deceleration lane, however, he felt the Board must work with the Highway Department. At this time~roll was called on the motion and the appeal was denied by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~ Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom, Agenda Item No. 3c. Public Hearing: 'Road Abandonment: Road off of Route 626 near Howardsville. (Deferred from February 8, 1978.) Mr. George McCallum and Mr. Bruce Rasmussen were present and requested deferral of this public hearing for another month. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3~. Street Sign Request: Oak Terrace. Mr. Agnor said that Miss Joanne Peters, a resident in Oak Terrace Subdivision has requested street name signs to identify Inglewood Drive and Inglewood Court at the intersection on the northern side. She has also agreed to incur the cost of the signs plus the handling charges. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the follow- ing resolution. WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Inglewood Drive (State Route 1411) and Inglewood Court (State Route 1429) at its intersection on the northern side; and WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards Set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 3e. Letters accepting roads into the secondary system. "February 10, 1978 ~s requested in resolution by your Board on November 9, 1977, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective January 1, 1978. ADDITIONS LENGTH IVY FARMS SUBDIVISION Lambs Road - Extension of Rte. 657 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.49 Mi. HOLLYMEAD SUBDIVISION Allen's Way - From: Rte. 1521; To: Rte. 1527. 0.08 Mil Lamkin Way - From: Sourwood Place; To: Rte. 1523. 0.10 Mi. Sourwood Place - From: Rte. 1520; To: end of cul-de-sac. 0.22 Mi." "February 10, 1978 As requested in resolution by your Board on November 9, 1977, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective January 1, 1978. ADDITIONS ~ENGTH WEST WOODS SUBDIVISION West Pines Drive - From: end of'~State~ Maintenance West Pines Drive (Rte. 1610) G~..35 mile~ ~smu~h~a~t'e~ly ~to~ end of cul-de'Sac. 0.35 Mi. Cedar Ridge Lane - From: West Pines Drive 0.20 mile northwesterly to end of cul-de-sac. 0.20 Mi." "February 15, 1978 Miss Lettie E. Neher, Clerk Internal Road - Housing Project Albemarle County Board of Supervisors for Elderly in Crozet 202 County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Miss Neher: Reference is made to your letter dated January 24, 1978, concerning the above subject. The Department has reviewed your request that the road serving this develop- ment, when properly constructed, be added to the State Secondary System for maintenance. The Department agrees that under the terms stated in your letter, it can, be expected that the road will be used by the general public. The road will, therefore, be eligible for addition to the State Secondary System provided a road is constructed to the State standards for design and quality. This project is currently being reviewed by the County Planning Office to determine the design standards for the road as well as other features. As is usual in cases of this nature, we will make our comments concerning the design of the road to the planning office. Yours truly, March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3f. Nottingham Road. Mr. Agnor said that Dr. Iachetta had asked the staff to review a certain problem with this road. Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, said in January 1969, the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requesting acceptance of Nottingham Road from its intersection at Westmoreland Subdivision past Berwick Court for a length of 1180 feet. On March 9, 1970, the Highway Department indicated that Nottingham Road had been taken in from Westmoreland Drive going in a southeasterly direction .22 of a mile to Berwick Court. The difference in these distances is about 110 feet past the intersection of Berwick Court. The road has been constructed back to the property line according to a typical section. On the road plans for this subdivision, there is no temporar~ turn-around shown on the recorded plot. However, on the master plan for the subdivision a temporary turn-around is shown in the vicinity of Lot 33. Mr. Williams says he understands that the owners of Lot 33 have complained because snow removal stops before it gets to their drive. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any land at this point for a turn-around. Mr. Williams said there was none shown on the recorded plat. Mr. Fisher asked what would h~ve to be done to get this section into the State Highway System. Mr. Roosevelt said there has been no indication that this road will ever be extended, and he felt a permanent cul-de-sac would need to be installed at the end of the road and then taken in as an extension of Nottingham Road. Dr. Iachetta said this problem was caused because the subdivision was approved with no land for a turn-around at this point, so the problem was caused by whoever approved the plans. Mr. Agnor said if it was the Board, s wish, the staff would study this matter and discuss it with the adjoining property owner who would have to be willing to furnish the land for the turn-around or there is no solution to the problem. Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff proceed with Mr. Agnor's recommendation. Agenda Item No. 3g. Request for Road Viewers. Mr. Roudabush noted that he had requested Mr. Roosevelt to look at a subdivision road that was platted in 1953 to see if it would be eligible for acceptance into the State Highway System if recommended by the Road Viewers. The only subdivision occurring along this road since 1959 has been into parcels of five acres or greater, which are exempted from the County subdivision regulations. The property owners have submitted their application requesting that the Road Viewers look at the road and also have agreed to dedicate the necessary right-of-way. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to refer this petition to the Road Viewers. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. DOrrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3h. Other Highway Matters: Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department was having a problem with the line on Route 637. The line passes through three septic tank fields near the landfill. In discussing this with the Health Department it has been determin- ed that the land will not support septic fields under present regulations, therefore, either the road must be relocated in that area or damage to the properties declared to be so great that they would have to be purchased and the families relocated. It was the consensus of the Board that the line should be moved. Mr. Fred Landess, representing General Electric Company, was present. He noted that yesterday in Richmond, the Industrial Commission and Mr. Harwood, the State Highway Commissioner, had discussed the County's resolution requesting industrial access funds. The Highway Commission knows that General Electric has quite a bit of road frontage on Route 29 and they have not been banned from an entrance on Route 29. The Highway Commission would like to restrict access to Route 29 in this area. General Electric is willing to restrict access between the two cross-overs and the Highway Commissioner accepted this statement, but thought it would be helpful if the Board of Supervisors sent a simple resolution stating their policy on development of properties 'in that area. Mr. Fisher noted that he had made a statement to the Highway Commissioner that ~the Alb~emarle County Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of reverse frontage roads ~for commercial development along Route 29, and that the Board will attempt to do whatever it can to' be sure that the land is developed in this way. He had no problem with. adopbing such 'a resolution if it were properly worded. He asked Mr. Landess to draft such a .resOlution'and b~i~g it backto the Board on Friday. In the meantime he requested a resolution from the Board asking .Senator' Harry Michael''and Delegate James B. Murray to provide input to the State Highway Department to encourage them to approve the Board's request for industrial access funds. Motion to this effect was off~red by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. WHEREAS the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County has before it a site plan for a General Electric Plant on Route 29 North; and WHEREAS the Albemarle County Planning Commission in its review of this site plan required that General Electric improve Routes 606 and 763 to specifications recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation, thus eliminating the need for direct access to Route 29 North; and WHEREAS the County's newly adopted Comprehensive Plan recommends that "industrial intersections should be planned to minimize traffic confliczs with other land use activities and with road functions"; and WHEREAS this Board adopted a resolution on January 11, 1978, requesting the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to make improvements to the access to this development'under the Industrial Access Law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby petition the Honorable J. Harry Michael, Jr. and the Honorable James B. Murray to encourage the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to approve this request. March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting). Dr. Iachetta asked about the right-of-way on Route 643. been no change since last month. Mr.'Roosevelt said there had Mr. Roudabush said he saw a survey team working at the Park Street bridge. Mr. Roosevelt said they are doing the survey work. The field work has already been completed. They hope that this project can be scheduled in about the third year of the six year highway plan. Agenda Item No. 5. Report on Open Burning Procedures. Present were Mr. Edson, Assistant Director of Forestry; Mr. Clark, Chief Forest Warden; Mr. Ward Butler, State Air Pollution Control Board; Mr. Ira Cortez, County Fire Marshal; and Mr. Bob Vaughn, ~irector of Inspections. Mr. Agnor noted that a recent article in the Daily Progress advised citizens that as of March 1, no open burning was permitted without permission of the State Air Pollution Control Board and State Forestry Service. It also listed telephone numbers for these agencies. In addition to this, it requested that a citizen call the County's Fire Prevention Officer when they are going to burn so that the fire departments would not respond to false alarms. The several agencies involved create obvious problems for the general citizens, especially for those trying to contact a certain agency on holidays or weekends. The citizens are entitled to a simpler procedure. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that a single call by all citizens be directed to the Fire Department's Central Dispatcher. The dispatcher can answer questions, advise citizens of regulations and log the information to prevent false alarms'. The dispatch- er is available at all times and not limited to office ~hours of the different agengies. The State Agency regulations and telephone numbers~could be disseminated from this local number if required by the state offices involved. After a considerable discussion among the parties present, Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff work out a solution in line with Mr. Agnor's recommendation. Agenda Item No. 4. Mike Gleason. Mr. Gleason noted that he had talked to the Board last week about a request received from a delegation from Italy. The Board at that time reactivated the committee that had worked during 1976 on similar arrangements for another delegation. It is the committee's recommendation that the City/County extend an invitation for a group of twenty persons maximum for April 13th and 14th which would coincide with Founder's Day at the University and the Dogwood Festival. Rooms have been found which are available for this time. The committee will raise one-half of the money necessary to carry out this program for two days and the other one-half will come from the City and the County. This request has been made to City Council and they have appropriated their share of the money which is $750. It was the general consensus of the Board that the invitation be extended and that the $750 be taken from the Board's travel expense account. Motion to accept the recommendation of the committee was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4a. Appropriation for tourist bromhure. Mr. Randy Wade was present representing the~hamber of Commerce. He requested an appropriation of $2,000 from the County for 60,000 brochures; the same brochure that had been used by the convention bureau. He said this is the only sales, public relation or tourist brochure that the Chamber has and they are no longer available. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution, with a stipuation that the County pay one-third of the actual bill for the print- ing of the brochures or a maximum of $2,000. BE IT RESOLVED by the'Board, of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,000. be, and the same 'hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 18~15.1,.~chamber of' C'o~mmerce 'Touri'sm, for prin~ing of' tourist brochures. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Paul Wood, President of the Chamber of Commerce, had requested an economic development policy from the Board and they would probably begin work on this in April. Agenda Item No. 8. Lease: Communications Equipment for Sheriff. Sheriff Bailey said that in 1976, he was awarded a federal grant to install teletype ~quipment in his office. This request is for signing of a lease for three years on this teletype equipment. By sign- ing a lease, it will save the County approximately $150 a year and the money for this expense is already in the sheriff's budget. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, authorizing the Chairman to sign the following agreement with Telex Terminal Communications. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. THIS AGREEMENT, made this 8th day of March, 1978, by and between TELEX TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS, a division of Telex Computer Products, Inc., Less~r~ and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, Lessee, WITNES SETH : Telex Terminal Communications ("Telex") and the County of Albemarle (the !~0ounty") agree as follows concerning an extended term plan purchase order for a communications terminal for use by the Albemarle County Sheriff's March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) !. The original term of the contract shall be for 36 months, beginning on April 1, 1978. 2. The County may cancel this agreement upon 30 days written notice should (a) funds for the lease of the equipment specified in paragraph 3 below not be appropriated by the Board of Supervisors of the County and (b) funds for the lease or purchase of equipment that will perform substantially the same services and functions as that performed by the equipment specified in paragraph 3 below not be appropriated. 3. The equipment covered by this purchase order shall be one TC241, serial number 4310. 4. The monthly charge for the equipment shall be as follows: Rental Maint enanc e TOTAL $122.00/Mo. $ 38.00/Mo. $160.00/Mo. Maintenance will be provided on a twenty-four (24) hour/day seven (7) day/week basis. 5. At the end of the original term of this agreement, the County may extend the lease on an annual basis at the monthly rental stated in paragraph 4 above. 6. In lieu of paragraph 5 above, at the end of the original term of the contract, the County may purchase any or all of the equipment in accordance with the following schedule: After 12 months': After 24 months: After 36 months: 70% of purchase price 40% of purchase price 20% of purchase price Purchase price is $5,350.00/unit. 7. So long as no event of default hereunder shall have occurred and be continuing, and upon 120 days prior to written notice, the County shall have the right any time to substitute for any item of the "original equipment" one or more items of "replacement equipment" having an aggregate Fair Market Value as of the date of substitution not less than the original acquisition contain- ing the items of equipment being replaced (the "original equipment") as of the date of substitution. The County will return any original equipment so replac- ed to Telex. In the event "replacement equipment" is installed, the purchase option in paragraph 6 of this agreement shall apply to the replacement equip- ment 12 or 24 months after installation of the replacement equipment. 8. The maintenance charges s~ated in paragraph 4 above shall not be in- creased prior to April 1, 1979. Any increase in monthly maintenance charge after that time will be limited to a percent equal to the U. S. Department of Labor Index Ratio~.as related to the index of this date plus 10% of the resultant increase per year. Agenda Item No. 6. Contract: Post Office Remodeling. Mr. Agnor presented to the Board a copy of the standard form of agre'e~ent between, an o~ner and an archi'tec't for conversion of the Post Office Building on Market Street 'and the' McIntire Library to a Central Library facility for the Jefferson-Madison Regional.Library, said contract with 'the' archftect'ural firm of Williams and Tazwell and AssociateS,' IncorPorated, and Jack Rinehart, Jr. He recommended that the contract be executed in the iform_ in w~ich it was presented. Motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the~. con~ract was 'offered by Dr. Iachet'ta, se'con'ded bY Mr'. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. June 30, 1978. Report on Estimated Expenditures and Revenues for year ending Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated March 3, 1978. "Per your request, the following information summarizes the unallocated (carry over) balance in the General Operating Fund beginning with the actual audited balance from FY-77, ending with the proposed balance for unanticipated needs in FY-79: General Fund Balance (Unallocated) July 1, 1977 Reserved for Cash Flow Requirements. Reserved for Five Year Capital Program Allocations Appropriations During FY-78 to date Actual Balance Unallocated 3/1/78 Estimated Carry-Over Funds from F¥~78 Operations Proposed Allocation for FY-79 School Budget Estimated Balance Unallocated 7/1/78 Reserved for First Revision Five Year Capital Program Estimated Balance for Unanticipated Needs FY-79 Balance as percent of FY-79 Proposed Operating Budget = 1.6% $ 7,142,976 - 3,500,000 - 3,099,138 - 206~895 $ 336,943 + 725,000 ~20,000 41,943' - 500,000 $ 341,943 The Revenue Sharing Trust Fund, and the School Operating,Textbook, Cafeteria, and McIntire Trust Funds are not included in the above summary." March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Not Docketed: At 12:07 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 1:40 P.M. Agenda Item No. 9. Curtis Crawford: Statement relating to Betz Report on the reservoi~ Mr. Crawford said although he did not wish to be the bearer of bad news, he had several charges to make today regarding the Betz Report. First, he feels the Betz Report is fraudulent and incompetent. Second, he feels that whatever mechanism the County and the City had to protect the citizens against a fraudulent and incompetent report failed to operate in this case. Third, after he had revealed what h~vfelt were fraudulent and incompetence in regard to central matters in the report to the Rivanna Authority on December no attempt was made to redress these defects. Mr. Crawford in particular was concerned about the figures noted in the report for phosphorus loadings to the reservoir. He called the figures arbitrary because he felt there was no basis for picking those particular figures against a very large range of other figures. He called the procedure fraudulent because instead of saying honestly to the people of the City and County that the comparative runoffs from certain acreages are not known, table after table of figures were presented and these figures were used in working papers by the County staff and the Planning Commission. He suggested that the Board order members of the County administrative staff to note in copies of the Betz Report, the following quotation. "The figures used in this table are guesses with a margin of error~ so great that they are grossly misleading and totally unreliable for any p~nning, administrative or legislative purposes". Mr. Crawford then proceeded to list numerous tables in the Betz Report where he felt this should be applied. Mr. Crawford noted that his criticisms were developed in two articles in the newspaper, one which appeared on Thursday, February 9th under the title "Betz Report has serious de£ects" and a second article appearing on February 10th entitled "Betz Report should be rejected", both written by himself. Mr. Crawford said he felt that he could prove the truth of his charges in any workshop or forum which the Board of Supervisors would care to set up. (Clerk's Note: A full copy of Mr. Crawford's comments is on file.) Agenda Item No. 10. Housing Survey: Mr. George Evans from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District was present to give the results of a housing survey financed by the Board. He said the survey was conducted in the rural magisterial districts of the County. The total sample was 597 dwelling units. 354 responses were received; 83.3% of all units surveyed were single family detached homes and an additional 10.25 were mobile homes. Hous- ing comditions based on plumbing facilities show 70.9% have complete plumbing; 27.4% are substandard or have incomplete plumbing and:there was no response received from 1.45. Review of cross-tabulating by plumbing facilities reveals significant correlations between poor housing and households which have low levels of education, have low incomes, have household heads and or spouses who are unemployed, are on public welfare, live in rented units, pay low rents, live in housing built before 1940, live in housing which lacks central heat, electric- ity and telephones, or do not have a car or truck in running condition. Furthermore, 38% of the respondents living in substandard units says their present housing is not satisfactory. Of these, two-thirds would prefer to rent or buy a new housing unit rather than rehabilitate their existing unit. The housing preference for those residing in substandard units is for single-family or mobile homes with yards. Almost 29% of these households would like to move closer to retail and medical services. A higher percentage of blacks (33%) then whites (24.8%) live in substandard units. Significantly, 11.75 of all units marked sound in the field survey, lacked complete plumbing facilities. Based on this field survey, the' Samuel Miller District had th~ largest percentage of substandard dwellinga (51.15) and Rivanna had the 'smallest (22.~%). Rivanna also had the smallest percentage of units ~i~hou'tl :comPle:t'e· plumbing facilities' with 'White Hall having the 'largest number. ~ousing cost'a 'appear to be 'h~gheSt in the 'Rivanna and lowest in the Samuel Miller, althomgh an unusually .hi'gh percentage Of units in SamueI Mill'er District are paid for The housing stock in Scottaville .and Rivanna is ~uch inewe~ than is the case in White Hall or Samuel Miller Districta. 0ve~ 3~% ~of'the~ hou'~e.~o.!~s 'in ~amueI Mi'll'e~ eXpresSed dissatisfac- tion with their present home and 25.6% expressed the desire to move to another area. Just over 24% of the households in Scottsville expressed a desire to move closer to retail or medical services. To summarize, it appears that White Hall and Samuel Miller Districts have the most serious housing problems, with Scottsville's problems being somewhat less serious and Rivanna's considerably less so. At the conclusion of his presentation, Mr. Evans said he felt this survey would be helpful to the County since there were a number of additional cross-ref~rences made. He would give the survey to the County's housing coordinator. At 2:34 P.M., the Board rece.ssed and reconvened at 2:40 P.M. Agenda Item No. 11. Continuation of public hearings on SP-98-76, James N. Fleming, and SP-77-11, Mulberry Corporation. (Deferred from March 1, 1978.) (Clerk's note: The follow- ing discussion is set out in transcript form.) "Fisher: As you Board members will recall, at our meeting on March the 1st, we held the public hearing on special permit 98-76 and special permit 77-11 and' closed~ those public hearings and deferred action until today for the purposes of soliciting from the Commonwealth's Attorney an opinion regarding potential conflict of interests of this Board in acting on the matters at hand and we have sent to the Commonwealth's Attorney a letter requesting that he rule on the question of material conflict of interest~ We received today, this morning, at nine o'clock, a letter, a response addressed to Mr. George R. St. John, signed by Mr. James E. Treakle, Jr., Assistan~ Commonwealth's Attorney: March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) "I have reviewed your letter dated March 2nd, 1978, in which you inquired as to whether there would be a conflict of interest for the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (hereinafter Board) in proceeding with a zoning application filed by James Fleming. This question has arisen because of pending litigation filed by the applicant against the Board. In particular you inquired as to whether a statutory conflict of interest exists by virtue of the pending litigation against the Board." Excuse me. Would you ask those people in the hall to move? "After reviewing the Virginia Conflict of Interest Act, other pertinent provisions of the Code of Virginia and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is my opinion that the current members of the Board should disqualify themselves from proceeding with consideration of~'the zoning application. My analysis oft~his issue is set forth herein. "The initial determination must be whether any of the individual members of the Board have a material financial interest in proceed- ing with consideration of the application. As related to the question presented, a material financial interest is defined as ~a personal and pecuniary interest accrming to an officer or employee (of any govermental or advisory agency)~. Va. Code" (what is Ann.?) Dorrier: Annotated. Fisher~ "Annotated, Section 2-1-348(f) 1977 supplement. "Since the action currently pending in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia is against individual named members of the Board and since the supervisors are not shielded by governmental immunity therein, the question is whether these supervisors posses a material financial interest as contemplated under the statute. As I understand the situation, the action pending in U. S. District Court is a contempt proceeding seeking both imprisonment of the supervisors and a fine to be levied against each 'supervisor individually.' In my opinion, the action contemplates a financial- interest, albeit a negative one, for each member of the Board. Granted, the financial interest may be a speculative one since it evolves out of pending litigation. However, it may be no more speculative than some real estate development ventures into which a supervisor might invest and which might come before the Board for consideration. ~By voting for approval of the application in question, a supervisor could negate the threat of financial loss which the pending litigation contemplates. "After determining that a material financial interest exists, the question is whether such an interest disqualifies the members of the Board involved in the pending litigation from proceeding with the appli- cation. Disqualification on a particular issue is required as a result of a material financial interest '...in any transaction, not of general application, in which the agency...is or may be concerned...' Va. Code Ann. Section 2.1-352, 1977 Supplement. It is my opinion that the area of proposed development covered by the application is not sufficiently substantial to affect the general welfare of the entire county. To the contrary, the application is very specific and limited in its impact. Since the application pertains to a specific property area and has a limited impact, the transaction is not of general application. In accordance with the statute, disqualification is mandated for those named defendants who have a material financial interest~as a result of the pend- ing litigation. In addition, any member of the current Board who ~as not specifically named in the original cause of action as filed by Mr. Fleming, is automatically substituted as a party thereto under the Federal Rules of Procedure. See FRC? 25 (d) (1). "In summary, it is my opinion that each individual member of the Board must disclose his interest and disqualify himself from participating in considera- tion of the application which is the subject matter of the litigation. This disqualification is mandated by the statute because of the existence of the material financial interest. Ail of the named defendants and their successors in office must disqualify themselves until such time as the contempt proceed- ing has been disposed of. .~ "I trust that my response satisfactorily clarifie~ the position that the individual members of the Board must take regarding this application. If I~ can provide you with any additional assistance, do not hestitate to contact me." Fisher: Further communications that we have r~ceived is this telegram which was received at l:05~?.M, today addressed to me regarding the withdrawal of SP-98-76 application: ~ "Dear Mr. Fisher: "I hereby withdraw my application for an amendment to special use permit 537 apProved as a PUD in May of 1976. I withdraw my application not be- cause it is the best thing to do but becau~e~iit appears to be the appropriate thing to do. Certainly this action sacrifices many of my interests as a develoPer as weI1 as the related interests of thelmany good people of Albemarle County. The amended plan is by everyon~a's admission much improved over the origi~nal from nearly every point of view'e.g, it's impact upon~ the ecology of the area, its physical attractiveness, the economics of its development, etcetera. I am withdrawing SP-98-76 solely because at least my ............... , .............. IL I ......... L ........ · March $, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) development rights are well defined with regard to SP-537. It is an approved plan and as soon as a final plan is approved by the Planning Commission you have assured me that construction may ~egin. It there- fore has some commercial worth at this time. "I'm advising you that I intend to continue to pursue all relevant legal claims presently before the courts. I hope however, that by withdrawing SP-98-76, the way may be cleared to allow all of you to begin looking more intelligently and without hysteria at the real problems of our community. It is clear to me, for example, from what has been said in Court this week that many other innocent property owners have recently had their lands confiscated without due process as a direct result of your various efforts to prevent the development of my property. This situation is a real tragedy for now I probably enjoy a much better position relative to the future use of my property than do most of the other property owners in the watershed area. "Yours truly, James N. Fleming, Ideal Realty Company." Fisher: I received today, at 2:08 P.M., another letter from Mr. Fleming addressed to me: "Dear Mr. Fisher: "I hereby withdraw my amendment to Special Permit #537 which was approved in May, 1976 for reasons stated in my telegram of today." Fisher: Those are the letters which we have received today. It is my understanding of the letter from the Commonwealth Attorney that this Board may not act on the special permit. It is my further understanding that this Board may not act in any way on this permit. That it may not approve it, deny it, or p~rmit it to be withdrawn; that it will stand in its present status until such time as the contempt litigation is no longer over this Board and ~atters of material conflict of interests are no longer present. Because of the peculiar nature of SP-537 which was originally brought to us as a single application for a single planned unit development and we are now faced with-a request from another applicant to withdraw a piece of that to provide a new planned unit development which is less than 100 acres and would therefore be non-conforming, it is my recommendation to the Board that both of these matters should be kept together, alive until such time as the Board can act on both of them without material conflict of interest. I wish at this time to disqualify my- self from action on SP-98-76 because of a material conflict of interest. The only action I believe this Board can take is to defer action indefinitely on both ~applications. Gilliam: Mr. Chairman? Lindstrom: Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that each of us needs to make a similar statement? Fisher: I presume Lindstrom: I will disqualify myself from acting on SP-98-76 because I have been advised by the Commonwealth Attorney that t have a material conflict of interest, a material financial interest causing a conflict of interest. Roudahush: Mr. Chairman, I hereby disqualify myself from acting on any matter related to this application due to the fact that I have been notified that I have a statutory conflict of' interest. Iachetta: Mr.~ Chairman, I herebY disqualify myself from further action on SP-98-76 on the grounds of the Opinion given us by the Commonwealth"s Attorney that we have a material conflict of interest, statutory. Dorrier: Mr. Chairman, I hereby disqualify myself on any further action on SP-98-76 because of the opinion of James E. Treakle, dated March 8, 1978, ~ay- ing I have a material conflict of interest. Henley: I'm gonna do the same thing, but I didn't feel that I had one because I felt we satisfied the Court's requirements in the first trial and I couldn't see how we could be found guilty o£ contempt, but if the Commonwealth Attorney has said that we had one, I don't,we have an option, I think we have to disqualify ourselves. Fisher: Mr. St. John, the question of deferring action since this matter was on our agenda. Is it appropriate for this Board to take, to vote on a motion to defer action indefinitely until there is no longer a material conflict of interest? St. John: That is probably the only action available to you. Lindstrom: I so move, Mr. Chairman. Iachet~a: Second. Fisher: Is this motion on SP-98-76 only? Dottier: There is another SP Lindstrom: Well, I guess to be correct, I would have to say on SP-98-76 because of the letter of the Commonwealth Attorney and that I include in that motion, a motion to also defer SP-77-11 of Mulberry Corporation since it is part and parcel of the other application and cannot be heard apparently without having both before 1£7 March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Iachetta: Second. Gilliam: Mr. Chairman? Fisher: Sorry, the public h~aring was closed on Wednesday night. matter is before th~s Board. This Gilliam: You will not permit us, the attorney for the applicant to speak? Fisher: Sir, you had your opportunity on March 1st and you were not present. We<~have your letter requesting withdrawal that has been read into the record. Gilliam: We take a position that there is nothing before the Board to act on since the application is withdrawn. It is not before the Board ..... Fisher: A motion has been made and seconded to defer action on both special permits indefinitely pending resolution of material conflict of interest. Gilliam: Is it your position, Mr. Chairman, that you have this on 77-11. Fisher: Mr. Gilliam, will you please? I have told you that the public hear- ing is closed. Is there discussion by the Board members? If none, call the roll. Clerk: Mr. Dorrier (Aye), Mr. Fisher (Aye), Mr. Henley (Aye), Dr. Iachetta (Aye), Mr. Lindstrom (Aye), Mr. Roudabush (Aye). Fisher: Both items are deferred indefinitely. St. John: You have a request for that opinion. If anybody has it, it should be made a part of the record. Mr. Fisher do you have a copy of my letter to Mr. Treakle, Mr. Dezio? That ought to be made a part of the record. Fisher: Will the room please come to order? Mr. St. John has suggested that I should read i~o the record a letter dated March 2nde,. 1978, from him to Mr. John A. Dezio, Esquire, Commonwealth's Attorney, re: James N. Fleming, et al., 12/1/76 application: ~ "A zoning application designated SP-76-98 filed by James N.Fleming and Flamenco Corporation is pending before the Board of Supervisors. This permit would alter a previously granted and judicially approved permit designated SP-537. "There is pending in the U. S. District Court for the Western District Court of Virginia a motion filed by Mr. Fleming in the nature of an order to show cause why the Board should not be punished for contempt and assessed monetary damages, for its failure to proceed with SP-76-98. A copy of this suit and the Board,s response thereto~is on file in the District Court Clerk's office. "On March 1, 1978, SP-76-98 was the subject of a public hearing before the Board of Supervisors. Members of the public raised the issue of whether the Board members, by virtue of the pending litigation against them, may have a statutory conflict of interest. Thereupon the Board resolved to seek your written opinion as to whether such a conflict exists. They must have this opinion no later than 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 8. "Your~early reply will be appreciated." Fisher: Do you have a copy of that ~let'ter for the Board's file? this one. Does that complete that?. Take St. John: Yes" Agenda Item No. 12. Request from City to downzone City properties in watersheds. Fisher read into the record the following resolution from City Council. Mr. A RESOLUTION URGING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO DOWN ZONE CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN THE WATERSHED AREAS OF THE SUGAR HOLLOW AND RAGGED MOUNTAIN RESERVOIRS. WHEREAS, this Council has on this date adopted a resolution requesting the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County to initiate a rezoning of certain properties adjacent to the South Rivanna Reservoir; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to demonstrate its good faith and belief that the "down-zoning" of portions of the watershed of public reservoirs is a valid, lawful, necessary and proper action to protect essential water resources; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Charlottesville, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County be requested to initiate action to rezone all City- owned properties lying within the watershed areas of the Sugar Hollow and Ragged MOuntain Reservoirs from their present classifications to the CVN-Conservation District classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. Adopted by the Council October 27, 1977" March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said the Mayor has stated that this resolution i~ still a standing request. He has also personally contacted the University of Virginia regarding a piece of land which they own to see if they will concur in this request. He asked if the staff would bring to the Board any other pieces of publicly owned property which are in any of the three water- sheds which may be rezoned to a conservation type zoning. Mr. Tucker asked if it was the Board's~intent to wait until all publicly owned properties could be united in one application. Mr. Fisher said the Board has this as a specific request and he had no objections to beginn- ing this with a Board resolution. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone all properties owned by the City of Charlottesville lying within the watershed areas of the Sugar Hollow and Ragged Mountain Reservoirs from their present classifications to the CVN-Conservation District classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle CoUnty Planning Commission is hereby directed to hold public hearings on this matter and to return a re? commendation to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried ~y!i~the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Set Public Hearing date on an ordinance relating to water cross-connections and back-flow prevention and providing for a penalty for violation. The County. Attorney briefly outlined the meaning of the ordinance and then motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to advertise for a public hearing on March 29, 1978. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS:~ None. Agenda Item No. 14a. -Audit of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court For the year ended June 30, 1977, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 14b. Audit for the General District Court for the year ended June 30, 1977, was presented as information. Agenda Item No. 15. Lottery Permit. Request for a lottery permit was received from the Arnold Air Society for the conduct of raffles. Motion to issue the permit in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits was offered by Dr. !achetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Claims against the Dog Fund. Claim against the Dog Fund was re- ceived from Mrs. Bertha D. Omohundro at Howardsville, Virginia, for seven hens killed by dogs on November 24, 1977, and five pullets killed by. dogs on December 15, 1977. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, Mrs..'OmohUndro was allowed $23.00 for this claim. Motion carried by the following recorded vot'~'~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.' None. · ........... Claim against th~ Dog Fund ~a~ r.e.c'eived from Mr. James Thacker of Scottsville for three geese and one ewe killed by dogs on February 14, 1978. On motion by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Henley, Mr. Thacker was allowed $100 for this claim. The motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. R. L. Bailey of Free Union for one ewe and one buck sheep ki.lled by dogs on January 8, 1978. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, Mr. Bailey was allowed $103 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Claim against the Dog Fund was received from Mr. J. W. Shanklin from Schuyler for three turkeys and six hens killed on November 23, 1977. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) by Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Shanklin was allowed $59 for this claim. following recorded vote: The motion carried by the AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindst'rom and Rmudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 17. was not complete. Report of the Department of Social Services for January 1978 Agenda Item No. 18. Regional Jail Cost for February 1978. Statements of expenses incurred in the operation and maintenance of the Regional Jail for the month of February 1978, along with summary statement of prisoner days, and salaries of the paramedics and the Jail Physicians were presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Statement of expenses: Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for February 1978. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Statement of Expenses: Regional Jail, February 1978. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, the statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments. A. Economic Development Commission. Ordered carried over. B. Industrial Development Authority. Ordered carried over. C. Mental Health and Retardation Services Board. Ordered carried over. D. Jordan Development Corporation. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mrs. Ann J. Frank as a member of the Board of Directors of the Jordan Development Corporation. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. E. Watershed Management Plan. Carry over. F. Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to reappoint Mr. John O. Higginson to a new germ as a member of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, said term to expire on March 29, 1980. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. G. Albemarle County Service AuthOrity. Carry over. March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) H. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Carry over. Agenda Item No. 22. Other matters which are not listed on the agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that a bill was passed by the General Assembly two years ago allowing for regional training centers for fire fighters. The Jefferson County Fireman's Association has talked to directors of the Vocational Technical School to see if they can locate a fire training center on that property. They have now been advised that there may be an allocation in the Governor's budget for localities who set up such training centers. If the locality intends to apply for funds in the next biennium they should write to the Department of EdUcation fire service training in Richmond. Mr. Agnor said he had a letter which has been signed by the Mayor and the City Manager indicating that the County and the City would be interested in cooperating in applying for funds if said funds become available. He asked for authorization from the Board for the Chairman and the County Executive to sign said letter for the County. Motion in th~s effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier] Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. 'Fisher: the agenda? Mr. Gilliam, do you have a matter that is not on George Gilliam: i guess. I would like to clarify Mr. Chairman, of what has transpired on item No. 11 on here. This is advertised on the agenda as a continuation of the public hearing. Fisher: That is an e~ror. The public hearing was closed on March 1st and deferred to today for action by the Board. Gilliam: I can understand what occurred with reference to SP-98-76. I do want to clarify that United Virginia Bank has no action pending, contemplated, at present, or anything else, against the County Board. We have withdrawn SP-77-11. It is not my understanding that is an action that, that that is not an action on our part that requires any action on the part of the Board. There is either an application before you to act upon or there isn't. Our position is that ~here isn't. It has been withdrawn. It was withdrawn a month ago, and you stated that something was going to be continued indefinitely and I would just like to know what.it is that is being continued indefinitely. Fisher: This Board has not taken action to authorize the withdrawal of that permit. Gilliam: Is it the Board's position that they have to p~rmit the withdrawal or is that something that is solely under the applicant's control. Fisher: It is something that the Board does Gilliam: in it's discretion? Fisher: Yes. Gilliam: Are there any statutes or ordinances describing how the Board is to exercise it's discretion .... Fisher: I can't answer that question at this point, but you are welcome to look' Gilliam: I have looked ..... ? Fisher: Yes. Gilliam: But, you are not aware of any guidelines or any authority that describes to you how to exercise that discretion? March 8, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) St. John: I don't think the Board has to, I think Mr. Gilliam ought to be allowed to put anything in this record that he wants to because the agenda did say it was a continuation of a public hearing. I think as far as this matter is concerned and because of the Commonwealth's Attorney letter, you all are a non-Board as far as that is concerned. There 'is a Lindstrom: Well, it seems, doesn't it seem to you though that we are pre- cluded from acting St. John: Yes. Lindstrom: On that permit and an~thin~ related to it as directly as the property the Bank has would certainly effec~ the status of that permit when it comes back here. St. John: Well. Lindstrom: The intertwining of the two St. John: I think the two are inextricably intertwined and connected and I don't see how you can ...one with the other. Lindstrom: What we do with the one effects the other, so to the extent that we act on Mulberry's permit, we may have in effect acted on the other one which we have been precluded from doing. That's the problem. St. John: He can take the position there is nothing before you to act on and that has been put in the record and I recommend that you do nothing. Henley: Iachetta: Henley: I don't think we can deny him from That's all you're asking for .... I'm not a party to denying him from withdrawing. I just don't see where you can deny him. I don't think you can take any action either on it. If he doesn't need us to do anything to withdraw it, he is in good shape, but I don't think we should deny him from withdrawing. Fisher: Gilliam: Fisher: Henley: Iachetta: We have not. You have not denied the withdrawal? We have deferred action. We're just not taking any action. We have neither affirmed it or denied it.~ Agenda Item No. 23. Executive Session: Property Sale or Acquisition. Motion was offer- ed at 3:29 P.M. by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session to discuss property acquisition. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~ AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 24. The Board reconvened at 4:15 P.M., and motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting to March 9, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. ~ Ca~g~m~n