Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-10May 10, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May t0, 1978, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr. (Arrived at 9:04 A.M.), Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta (Arrived at 9:20 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:06 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. t. The meeting was called to order at 9:14 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted that today is Youth in Government Day. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: June 8, August 3 (Afternoon), August 10, August 17 (Night), September 7 (Afternoon), September 8, September 14, September 21 (Afternoon September 21 (Night), September 28, September 29, October 3, October 5 (Afternoon), October 5 (Night), October 7 and October 12, 1977. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve the minutes of June 8, 1977, August 3, 1977 (Afternoon), August 10, 1977, August 17, 1977 (Night), September 8, 1977, September 14, 1977, September 21, 1977 (Night), September 28, 1977, October 5, 1977 (Afternoon), October 5, 1977 (Night), and October 12, 1977. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta arrived at 9:20 A.M. and noted the following corrections: page 386, first paragraph, eighth line, change the word "consistency" tm "inconsistency"; October 7, 1977, page 410, item 4(d), first line, change the word "foundation" to "fountain". Motion to approve the minutes of September 7, 1977 (Afternoon), September 21, 1977 (Afternoon) September 29, 1977, October 3, 1977, and October 7, 1977 with the above corrections was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: September 29, 1977 AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3a. April 12.) Highway Matters: Vacate road in Howardsville area. (Deferred from Mr. Fisher read a letter dated May 8, 1978 from Mr. George McCallum III, requesting the Board to again defer this until the June 14, 1978, meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to defer this item. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Request to vacate a portion of Powhatan Drive in Carrsbrook. Mr. Fisher noted request received from Mr. John A. Dezio,-_--- .. '~. '~v-t~r~, on behalf of Richard Bertram and Company, for vacation of a portion of ?owhatan Drive described as follows: Extending from U.S. Route 29 in a southeasterly direction along the western boundary of lot 4, Block C, Section D, Carrsbrook. .This public road is shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 376, page 224. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to advertise the requested vacation for public hearing on June 14, 1978. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. (Clerk's Note: After investigation of this matter, the Clerk found that this plat was vacated on October 10, 1973 and filed in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court.) Agenda Item No. 3c. Resolution to accept Ivy Farms Road into Highway System. Mrs. June Moon, Administrative Assistant, sitting in temporarily for the County Executive presented a letter dated March 27, 1978, from Mr. James M. Hill, requesting to have roads in Phase I of Ivy Farms Subdivision, taken into the State Secondary System. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolutions: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Phase I of Ivy Farms Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+10 of Wingfield Road, a point common to the intersection of the northern edge of pavement of Ivy Farms Drive (station 30+98.83) and the centerline of Wingfield Road; then with Wingfield Road in a northeasterly direction 2,001.72 feet to station 239 May 10, 1978 (Regular--Day Meeting) vote: AYES: NAYS: Beginning at station 0+10 of Barracks Hill, a point common to the intersection of the southern edge of pavement of Wingfield Road (station 20+01.72) and the centerline of Barracks Hill; thence with Barracks Road~in a southeasterly direction 706.42 feet to station ~?+16.42, the end of Barracks Hill in Ivy Farms. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50,foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 591, pages 441 and 442. Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3d. Letters from Highway Department, Mrs. Moon then read the following letters into the record: "April 4, 1978 Route 64, Albemarle County Reference is made to your letter dated February 15, 1978, transmitting a resolution from the Board of Supervisors concerning three requests for signing along Route 64 in Albemarle County. The Sign Committee of the Highway and Transportation Commission has reviewed all three requests. The logo signing program for Route 64 will follow a previously approved pro~ram for Route 81. Since it is a Federal project, and must have plans and be let t.o. contract, there is no feasible way that these signs could be erected immedi'atety. The County's resolution certainly makes the Department aware of their.concern and we will proceed with this project as rapidly as possible. Signs for Monticello now in place at the Route 20 interchange are in accord with the interstate signing policy. It is the feeling of the Committee that with logo signing to be erected at each interchange in the near future, spacing of such signing will become a problem. It is, therefore, the opinion of the Committee that no additional signing for Monticello should be permitted as this will further decrease the space available. Concerning the signing at the Ivy interchange denoting the distance to Route 250 and the condition of the road, such signing is deemed unfeasible. My office and the District Traffic Engineer are agreed that the solution to this problem is the removal of the existing gas, food, and lodging signs at this intersection. This proposal is now being reviewed by the Department's Traffic Engineer. At such time as a decision iS rendered, I will advise you. Yours truly, (S NED) D. S. Roosevelt Resid.~nt Engineer" ';Aprii 10, 1978 Gentlemen: As .requested in resolution by your Board on February 15, 1978, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective April 1, 1978. ADDITIONS LENGTH THE. PINES SUBDIVISION Fence'Road - From Route 764 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.16 Mi. Unnamed Road - From Int. of Fence Road southwesterly to end of cul-de-sac. 0.05 Mi." "April 24, 1978 Reference is made to my letter dated April 4th, 1978 concerning the Board of Supervisors' request for certain signing along Route 64. In that letter I indicated the Department would review the gas, food and lodging signs at the Ivy Interchange and that I would be in further touch with you. The Department has reviewed this signing and feels this signing should remain in place at this time. The District Traffic Engineer's office will place additional signing at the intersection of Route 677 and Route 250 to better direct tourist traffic to the services advertised at the Ivy Interchange. The Department will review this matter once again at the time logo signing is installed alon~ this section of Route 64. May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 240 "May 4, 1978 Gentlemen: As raquested in resolution by your Board on December 14, 1977, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective May 1, 1978. ADDITION LENGTH DEER RUN SUBDIVISION Deer Run Drive From: Rte. 743 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.15 Mi." Mr. Fisher then introduced the Youth in Government DaY Students to the Board. Agenda Item No. 3e. Other Highway Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and noted National Transpor- tation Week, May 15-19, 1978. He said open house will be held from 7:30 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. at the local Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt said the new Highway Commissioner, Mr. William Wrench, would like to meet with the Board to discuss highway problems particularly the Romte 29 North Corridor. Mr. Fisher suggested June 14, 1978. Mr. Roosevelt said road viewer requests have been received and suggested that the road viewers meet June 7, 1978 at I0:00 A.M. in the County Executive's Office. Mr. Roosevelt noted that the Highway Budget Hearing (formerly the Annual Road Hearing) to be held on May 22, 1978, will basically follow the Six-Year Plan. However, the items i±sted are recommendations and can either be adopted as presented or changed. Mr. Dorrier asked if Route 805, an unpaved gravel road which serves the Covesvitle Baptist Church and has a great amount of traffic, could be paved. Mr. Roosevelt said would check into the matter. Dr. Iachetta asked the situation with the light at Georgetown and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Roosevelt said a decision has been made to install the light with existing conditions and when the right of way and easements become available, a turn lane will be constructed. He has met with the traffic engineer on the matter and permission is being sought to attach to the VEPCO pole. Mr. Roosevelt felt the light would be installed ±n a month. Dr. Iachetta then asked about the light at Georgetown and Barracks Road. Mr. Roosevelt was stymied since the property owners are dealing directly with the Highway Commissioner. Dr. Iachetta noted that he and Mr. Roosevelt met with the owners in Bedford Hills. The road problems seem to be internal and a sight distance problem exists on the right of way which involves some trees and a bank. Dr. Iachetta said he plans to submit a request for _r~ improvements at the budget hearing on May 22. Dr. Iachetta asked the situation on Route 643. Mr. Roosevelt said Virginia Land Company is willing to sign the omnibus deed form; therefore, work is a matter of time. Dr. Iachetta asked when he planned to work on Route 651. Mr. Roosevelt said he will start on Route 643 first and work on Route 651 will commence later in the summer. Mr. Fisher asked the situation on Route 637. mid-summer advertisement. Mr. Roosevelt said plans are for a Mr. Fisher said he has not received a reply from the letter written to the Highway Commissioner concerning withdrawal of the County's support for the Kloeckner-Pentaplast Industrial Access road. Mr. Roosevelt had heard nothing. However, he did talk with the Secondary Roads Engineer about the county's possible withdrawal of support for the project and work has stopped which involved condemnation. He said he would call the Commissioner's office on the status of the letter. Mr. Roudabush asked if the short cul-de~sacd±n!~A~rp~rt.~res~h~di~bean completed. Roosevelt said no, it will be done as soon as possible. Mr. Mr. Roudabush said he had received several calls about dumping of trash along the right of way of different highways. He asked if the Highway Department or any other agency could do anything about it. Mr. Roosevelt said as far as enforcement, they have no more power than any other individual. The only thing the Highway Department can do is by pulling a ditch across or putting up posts. Mr. Henley thanked Mr. Roosevelt for repairing the roads in his district which were damaged in the winter. Mr. Lindstrom said the bridge over Ivy Creek on Barracks Road is very rough. Mr. Roosevelt said perhaps something could be done temporarily but hopefully it will be resolved this year since there are plans to plant mix that section of Barracks Road. Dr. Iachetta said an application for funds to train school bus drivers has been approved by the State Highway Safety Division. The Safety Division will provide $7,095 and the county will provide $2,130 in in-kind monies. Ma~ 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meet.i~ Agenda Item No. 4. Tom Hill: Quarterly Report - Albemarle Housing Improvement Program. Mr. Tom Hill was present and reviewed what the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHI is. He said the University has leased a building to AHIP for $t.00 a year. The building was dilapidated and they have invested $700.00 into making it a usable building for an office and storage space. Mr. ~ill said a grant through the Rural House Alliance in Washington will be used for personnel. At this time, he presented slides of the accomplishments of AHIP during the last quarter. Mr. Fisher asked about the survey of housing that was conducted in the County by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. He understood a high percentage of housing in the County was considered substandard due to the lack of running water, septic fields and some structural problems which were observable. Mr. Hill said the survey revealed about 1,500 substandard units in the County with 600 of that amount substandard due to the lack of plumbin facilities. Major upgrading of substandard housing will involve a large commitment of capital from somewhere and it currently has to come from the families themselves. Many of the familie would rather live in substandard housing than to incur liens on their property. Mr. Hill said AHIP has the manpower and the support of the County but the main problem is getting loans which is the purpose of the application for funds from HUD which will be discussed later in the meeting. Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal. Ivy Woods, Section II, Final Plat. Mr. Ro%ert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the following staff report into the record: "Location: On the east side of Route 682 Zoning: A-1 Agricultural Proposal: Twenty-one (21) lots ranging in size from 2.0 to 9.8 acres. Average size '3.0 acres. Proposed state road and private road. Individual wells and septic systems. History: Preliminary plat approved May 17, 1977 subject to Highway Department approval of entrance and internal road. The Commission also noted that the question of improvements to Route 682 would be addressed at the final plat stage. The applicant requested a reconsideration by the Commission and on August 30, 1977 the Commission denied the request to delete the requirement of improvements to Route 682. Staff Comment.: On the preliminary plat, lots 8, 9 and 10 were shown as one pipestem lot with access on the new roadway. Also lots 2 and 3 were shown as one lot with an easement over that pipestem. The applicant now proposes a private road to replace the pipestem, which would serve lots 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10, an increase of three (3) lots over the preliminary. This proposal requires two waivers: to allow lots 2 and 3 to have double frontage, and to allow lots 6 and 7 to enter directly onto the proposed state road rather than the private road. The private road requirements state that lots 6 and 7 should also enter onto the private road and staff cannot recommend such a waiver. Several of the lots are affected by the 200 ft. setback for septic systems. The Health Department has reviewed the lots in question, which have a limited area for septic systems. They have stated that only one of the lots does not have room for a second drainfield, unless an easement is given on the adjacent property. This has been shown on the plat, adjacent to lot 1. Staff Comment: On previous subdivisions, the Commission has decided that lots can be approved which contain sufficient area for two septic systems. The idea of an easement for drainfields has'not been discussed. If this easement is approved (as opposed to increasing the area of the lot) staff foresees many more such requests in the South Rivanna watershed. Recommended Conditions of Approval: 3. 4. 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance, internal road and improvements to Route 682; Ail private road requirements must be met; Waiver of double frontage lots 2 and 3; Note on plat: "Lots 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 shall enter onto private road only; Increase area of lot 1 to allow for alternate septic field." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission gave conditional approval to the plat on April 25, 1978 with conditions 1 through 3 to read the same and changing 4 and 5 to read as follows: Note on plat: "Lots 2, 3, 8, 9 and 10 shall enter onto private road only; Waiver granted of private roads requirement that Lots 6 and 7 enter onto the private road ~:c~t _ The P~anning Commission did not agree to the staff's recommended condition #5, but the applicant will show on the plat an easement for a second drainfield on property adjacent to lot #1. Mr. Lindstrom, who requested the plat be reviewed by the Board, felt the Board should discuss the concept Gf '--~ ......... *o on adjacent ~v~ ~ ~ a of requiring~~/~~,~.~~.~Z~'~ ~ ~'' ~ ~-~~~ ~' . X/~/~y~f Mr. Tucker said an alternate septic field was borrowed by easement (which is recorded) from adjacent property at Langford. If the primary drainfield goes bad, there is an easement on the adjacent property to use for the separate drainfield if such is needed. After some discussion by the Board, Mr. Lindstrom felt he understood the situation better and did not have any objection to the condition. Mr. Lindstrom said the other issue is with lots 6 and 7 having a driveway onto a public road rather than onto a private road. He felt this condition was contrary to the recently adopted ordinance which was to discourage the use of a ~ublic road when there is a private May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 242 and he can make the private ~road a public road and still have entrances onto a public road. Mr. Fisher asked if lots 6 and 7 have access on the state road, if that would drop the number of lots on the private road. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. William Stevenson, applicant, was present and said with the setback and the topography, it is more desirable to use the public road. Mr. Fisher did not feel there was any disadvantage to the traveling public whichever way they came out and felt~the recommendation of the Planning Commission was reasonable. No action was taken on the matter. Agenda Item No. 6. Request from Watershed Management Plan Committee. Mr. Edgar Garnett, Chairman of the Watershed Management Plan Committee, was present. He presented to the Board a report dated May, 1978, entitled "Request for Supplemental Funds for the ~evelopment of a ~etailed Watershed Management plan for the Rivanna Watershed." He noted this r~port is to be submitted to the State Water Control Board. Mr. Garnett called the Board's attention to the following paragraph in a letter dated May 3, 1978 from Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer: "Pursuant to the instructions of the Watershed Management Plan Committee, I am submitting fur your review a proposal for supplemental funding from the State Water Control Board. The committee requests that the County make application to Mr. R. W. Stapleford, State-Wide 208 Coordinator, State Water Control Board, 2111 North Hamilton Street, P. O. Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia, 23230, for funds to aid in the preparation of the Watersh~ Management Plan. The availability of funds was suggested to us by Mr. Pollis of the Regional Office, EPA--who advised us to make application through the Board of Supervisors to the State Water Control Board. Since then, Dr. Browne, the committee's consultant, has been in conversa' with Mr. Stapleford and he is expecting this proposal. The committee also requests that the Board of Supervisors adopt a resolution, providing for a minimum of two public hearings relative to the development plan, as stated on page 7, item 3.3 of the request document." Mr. Garnett said the target date for the completion of the report is November. Many different agencies are involved in the assimilation of information, but in order to obtain the more detailed information needed, it is necessary for the Committee to go beyond the funds available. The total amount of requested funds is $15,000. Mr. Bailey said the funding is not entirely 208 ~u~!!ii2~ coordinated. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve application for funding with the county executive signing same and two public hearings on the development of the plan to be held by the Watershed Management P~an Committee~ Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted comments received from the League of Women Voters, dated March 1978, entitled "Environmental Quality - Water Resources". After a brief discussion by the Board, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to ask for comments from the Albemarle County Service Authority, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Charlottesville Public Works Department and the County Department of Inspections on the recommendations contained in the above stated letter. 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. 7. Lottery Permit Application. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application from the Martha Jefferson Hospital for a raffle on May 12, 1978; proceeds to be used for the Martha Jefferson Hospital. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the permit for the calendar year 1978 in accordance with the Board's adopted rules. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher noted memorandum received from the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Benjamin Dick, concerning traffic control for the Foxfield races. Mr. Dick recommends that the special permit be amended to incorporate additional requirements. Mr. Fisher requested this item be placed on the June 14, 1978 agenda. Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriation: Clean Community Commission. Mr. Agnor said funds for the Clean Community Commission have been received from the State Litter Control Grant in the amount of $5,714 for the County and $4,079 for the City and deposited in the County's General Fund. In accordance with the conditions set forth in the Clean Community Commission resolution adopted by the Board on February 8, 1978, th6 County is to act as fiscal agent for the Commission. ::Therefore, an appropriation in the amount of $9,793 is requested. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $9,793 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 18A.1-20 - Clean Community Commission and broken down as follows: 18a.l-20a Office Supplies $2,938 18a.l-20b Printed Materials 2,938 18a.1-20c Awards 1,959 18a.l-20d Communications 979 18a.l-20e Miscellaneous 979 Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: 2 t3 May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8a. Appropriation: School Buses. Mr. Agnor said earlier this year nineteen school buses were authorized to be ordered but no money was appropriated for such since deliYery was not expected until the next fiscal year. However, the buses are now ready to be delivered and $263,023.65 is needed for payment. Funds will be derived from four separate sources. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $187,439.25 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated: from the_ General Fund, $172,439.25, and from the School Operating Fund, $15,000.00, said funds to be coded to 17K-400; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following transfer of funds ~s ~r~by approved and authorized to be coded to 17K-400: From 17Sabl From 17SAG-295 From 17Sab2 From 19.19-226 $40,224.00 5,576.OO 469.00 29,315.40 Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Appoint Auditors for the 1977-78 County Audit. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a proposal dated April 25, 1978 from Dulaney & Farmer, Certified Public Accountants, for consideration to audit the County records for the year ending June 30, 1978. Mr. Henley offered motion to reappoint the firm of Dulaney & Farmer as the auditors for the County's 1977-78 fiscal year audit. 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. 10. Community Attention Home Agreement. Mr. Agnor said this matter was unresolved last month because of insurance coverage provisions. Mr. Bob Stripling, Assistant City Manager, was present and said an allocation formula has now been worked out based on proposals for federal programs. Mr. Agnor recommende the corrected agreement be executed. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to authorize the Chairman to sign the following agreement; sand')agreement to be effective April 1, 1978 through June 30, 1978: THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 23rd day of May, 1978, between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, party of theJfirst part, and the CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, party of the second part. WITNESSETH: In consideration of the mutual benefits set forth in this agreement, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville agree as follows: 1. The City of Charlottesville operates Community Attention Residential programs. Children from the County of Albemarle participate in these programs. 2. The County of Albemarle agrees to pay to the City of Charlottesville the following fees for each child who resides within the jurisdictional boundaries of the County of Albemarle, who participates in a Community Attention program, and whose custody has been awarded to a social service agency: Boys' Home Program - $493.00 per month Girls' Home Program - $74.00 per month Family Group Program - $168.00 per month The amount to be paid shall be pro-rated on a daily basis for each fraction of a month that each child participates in any Community Attention program. 3. Payment shall be due the City of Charlottesville on the 20th day of each month for services provided during the prior month. Payment may be mailed to Community Attention, P. O. Box 155, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22902, or delivered to the offices of Community Attention at 416 East Main Street, Charlottesville, Virginia. 4. The City of Charlottesville agrees to provide room and board, counseling, recreation, clothing, and medical services for each child from the County of Albemarle who participates in the Community Attention programs. The City of Charlottesville shall be responsibile for the cost of medical services for each child in an amount not to exceed $I00.00. The cost of any medical services for a child in excess of $100.00 shall be the responsibility of the parents or guardians of the child. 5. This agreement shall be in effect from April 1, 1978, through June 30, 1978. It may be terminated by either party at any time prior to June 30, 1978, provided written notice is given to the other party at least 30 days in advance. May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 244 vote: AYES: NAYS: Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 12:22 P.M., the Board recessed for'lunch and reconvened at 1:42 P.M. Not Docketed. A letter was received from the State Department of'Agriculture and Commerce advising Albemarle County of a pilot program for control of Johnsongrass. The Department is offering $5,000 per year for ~:he three year pilot program. (Letter dated May 1, 1978 from the Department of Agriculture and Commerce on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.) Mr. Fisher requested Mr. Henley to comment on the letter. Mr. Henley felt the County should not participate in the program because the landowners are taking care of the problem themselves. The Board concurred in responding negatively to the proposal. Mr. Fisher noted application received from the Winn Bus Lines, Incorporated, dated April 28, 1978 for a public hearing before the State Corporation Commission on May 9, 1978 at 10:00 A.M. for revision of time schedules. This revision affects the' bus service between Richmond and Charlottesville by discontinuing its scheduled Sunday run. (Application on file in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.) Agenda Item No. 28. Discussion: Discontinuance of Southern Railway passenger service. Mr. Fisher noted that the Southern Railroad is considering discontinuing passenger service on trains 1 and 2 of the "Southern Crescent." A month ago, Amtrak proposed to take over the system but a study was conducted of that operation and it was found to be unfeasible. City Council adopted a resolution on May 1, 1978 requesting the postponement of such discontinuance and he requested that the Board adopt a similar resolution. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Interstate Commerce Commission is respectfully requested to postpone the discontinuance of Trains 1 and 2, "The Southern Crescent," by the Southern Railway Company and The Alabama Great Southern Railway Company until such time as Amtrak assumes the operation of equivalent passenger train service without any interruption in service to and from Charlottesville. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: Whippoorwill Hollow Subdivision Final Plat. Mr. Fisher said the Planning Commission on April 25, 1978, gave conditional approval to this plat showing thirty individual wells. Due to concerns expressed by the citizens in the area that this was not the responsible way to meet the water needs of this development, he requested that the Board review the plat. In reviewing recent developments such as Whittington, Meriwether Hills, Westwoods, Lewis Hill East and West, central wells or public water systems were encouraged. Therefore, he felt the same should be required of this development. Mr. Fisher was concerned if the subdivision was approved with individual wells and the wells fail, there would be no way to obtain Wateree H~als~flot~d~th~deve!opment would not have any fire protection. Mr. Jim Hill, representing the applicant, was present. has proven that there is enough water. He felt the drilling of the wells Mr. Agnor said a memorandum from the County Engineer dated May 9, 1978, states that the development is too far from the public water supply to make it economically feasible to attach and it is outside of the jurisdictional boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Secondly, the aspect of having a central well system is more costly to install and operate than drilling individual wells. Mr. Agnor reviewed the recent enactment of laws by the state for central well systems. The laws require more stringent regulatory requirements than in the past, more frequent testing, and a licensed operator to be in charge of the system. Mr. John K. Bowen, III, a resident across the ridge from the subject development, was present. He was concerned that if individual~:wells are drilled it would also affect him. Mr. Bowan said it has always been known that there was not adequate water on the site of the development. Mr. John K. Bowen, resident in the area, was present. He was also concerned about the water serving his house as well as those all the way to Ivy Creek. Mr. Robert Cantrell, resident across from subject development, was present. On his property, there are sixteen streams which form two small creeks that run together and later join the Bowmn stream and run into the Ivy Creek. Even though the streams have never dried up, he was'concerned that with the individual wells, such would occur. Mr. Cantrell said the drinking water for his house comes from a stream which is less than two hundred yards from the development and he urged the Board to consider this in their deliberation. Mr. Stuart Carwile, attorney for Virginia Land Company, was present. He said the subdivision is exempted from Section 18-23(b)(2) of the Albemarle County SubdiVision Ordinance 245 May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) imposed on him by the Subdivision Ordinance. He also felt the individual wells which have ibeen drilled demonstrate there is adequate water. Mr. St. John said Mr. Carwile is correct about the exemption of the subdivision from Section !8-23(b)(2). The state law does not give the governing body power to restrict a landowner from digging as many wells as he wants on his property and using as much water as he can obtain. The only thing that can be done is for the State Water Control Board to declare an area a critical groundwater area under the Groundwater Act of 1973, ~ut the local government does not have any power to take such action. If the Board desires to request the State Water Control Board to study the area and declare it a critical grmu~dwat~r~area, no, one could drill a well using over fifty thousand gallons per day without permission to do so. However, certain findings would have to be made before the State Water Control Board would conduct such a study. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board should request some studies of groundwater from the State Water Control Board. After discussion, Mr. Fisher said there was no basis at this time for the Board to take any action on this subdivision. However, he requested the Board to adopt a resolution of intent to amend the subdivision ordinance to require central well systems in subdivisions_~whict are now exempt from such requirements. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: By resolution of intent, this Board proposes to amend the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance to require central well systems in those subd±visions which are exempted under present ordinance requirements, and does hereby request the Planning Commission to hold public hearings and make recommendations to this Board on said proposed amendment. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. No~e. The Board recessed at 2:58 P.M. and reconvened at 3:07 P.M. Agenda Item No. 12. Request from the School Board for an evaluation of energy use. Mr. Agnor said a proposal has been submitted to the Albemarle County School Board entitled "An Evaluation of Energy Use in Albemarle County Schools and Public Buildings" by Dr. Leroy S. Fletcher of the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering of the University of Virginia. He, in turn, would like to present it to the Board for their consideration. The purpose of the proposed project is to define the nature and extent of past and current energy usage in the schools and public buildings of Albemarle County, to evaluate this energy use in order to identify specific energy intensive buildings, and to offer some recommendations for energy conservation. The estimated cost for Albemarle County is $11,393 and he felt that was a bargain. Mr. Agnor said the evaluation could result in some very minor changes for the pkblic buildings ~as well as the schools. Dr. Leroy Fletcher was present and summarized the proposal. The net result may be in a cost savings to the County in energy expenditures and it could help predict energy costs for the future. Mr. Lindstrom-then offered motion to support the School Board's request to conduct the study. 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. 13. Public Hearing: Application for funds from the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for use in upgrading and extending water and/or sewer service in the Charlottesville, Scottsville, and White Hall Districts; improvements are primarily for use in Westmoreland Subdivision, an area north of Scottsville, and Crozet. In addition, part of these funds would be used to assist the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program in rehabilitat existing homes belonging to low and moderate income families. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 26 and May 3, 1978.) After the advertisement for this public hearing, Mr. Agnor said it was found that there is no possibility of obtaining water and sewer funding. Therefore, the public hearing today will only be on the housing part of the request. Mr. Tom Hill was present on behalf of the Albemarle HOusing Improvement Program. He said the two purposes of the application are as follows: 1) To expand the current rehabilitat program of AHIP. These monies will be spent to assist families with capital needed to install wells, and septic and plumbing systems. Also, to hire additional rehabilitation ~crews to assist families in improvements to their houses necessary to install bathrooms. The total requested for this purpose if $150,210. 2) Begin a new housing program for Iow to moderate income families on a scattered site basis. Monies from HUD will be used to assist families with land acquisition and site development. Thereby, the Costs for new housing would be reduced. Hopefully, HUD monies could be combined with FHA monies and technical assistance from AHIP so families could build their own homes on lots provided by the HUD money. Three small subdivisions are proposed in the County which has a large number of families needing housing. The subdivisions Will be small tracts of land determined by FHA requirements. There must be at least six families to work together to build their own homes. The total amount for the acquisition of the three parcels would be $120,000 or $40,000 per parcel. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 2, 1978, and unanimously recommended to th~ Board of Supervisors that no public monies be expended for site option or acquisition for any specific project until public hearings have been held for receiving comments from area residents. .rig .on May t0, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 246 Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to approve the application for funding as outlined above. 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. 14. Discussion: Solid Waste System. Since the public hearing was held to c~nvert the Ke~ne Landfill to a collection system, Mr. Fisher said he has received several phone calls in opposition. Therefore, he felt the Board needed to discuss the matter.again. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, presented the following memorandum: "The County Engineer's office has completed the preparation of plans and specifications for the conversion of the Keene Sanitary Landfill to a modified landfill which will receive inert materials only and a collection station which will receive materials which require burial and daily cover, for transhipment to the Ivy Landfill. Through the process of preparing these specifications, the Department has had the opportunity to study the possible effects the proposed change in operation may have on the Scottsville community and review the economics of the~new operation. We have been approached by parties who may offer proposals and who point out certain items of cost effecting the economy of the new'operation. These considerations are being brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors before the County advertises for bids. A review of the record of use of the Keene Landfill from October 1, 1977 through March 31, 1978 shows the following distribution: (cu. yds.) Large Trucks Medium Trucks Pick-ups Inert Material Total Vol. 26,246 5510 4610 9606 6520 Avg./Mon. 4,375 918 770 1600 1087 Large trucks represent the commercial haulers who use vehicles which are. designed for garbage collecting. These trucks cannot unload in the facilities the County proposes to use at the Keene Collection Station. A transfer station would be required for such service. These vehicles would be diverted to the Ivy Landfill, no doubt with additional cost to the user of the large truck. Medium and pick-up trucks, which are generally unloaded by hand, can use the proposed compactor. These account for 790 c.y./mon, of compacted waste, which will require twenty hauls. Earlier estimates were for 14.76 hauls/mon., based on population served and average production per capita. A volume computed from vehicular count may be slightly more reliable. At present, the County keeps containers outside of the entrance to the landfill for the~ convenience of the public when the landfill is closed. These three 8-yard containers are emptied thrice-weekly at a cost of $195. per month. If these are to stay in use, the truck which serves them must go to Ivy to discharge its load. The present cost per cu.yd, for this service is $2,340. The hauler estimates this price will increase to $2,700 if the haul is changed t~o Ivy. Part-time equipment rented was based on the proposition that the use of a D-7 dozer or 755-loader one day per week will be sufficient to care for the landfill's needs. This would free the equipment for use elsewhere. However, the present operator points out that the cost of bringing the tractor in and out from wherever it is based must be added. Also, hourly rates would be charged for such piece-meal operation. Therefore the cost would be approximately $250 p~r week or $1,000 per month. Nor would the equipment be available for minor or occasional~ tasks as it now is. Other equipment would have to be brought in to dress roads and dump areas, as needed. Some cost must be added for this. An update of Estimate Costs is as follows: Full-time attendant for landfill & compactor operation After-hours service Equipment rental-landfill Equipment rental-collection station Haul (14.76/mon.) Processing ~ Ivy Landfill Misc. (Telephone, road m~intenance, disposal of tires, vector control, etc.) TOTAL ESTIMATED COST: $9,000 2,700 12,000 4,200 10,627 6,875 2,250 $47,652' Estimated Cost of Keene Sanitary Landfill (Present Operation): Maintenance & Operation (Tapscott Contract) Utilities Materials (stone for road & dump areas, pipes, signs, etc.) ~ After-hours service Vector control BUDGETED, 1978-79 $41,500 325 2,000 2,340 120 $46,285 Site preparation costs are estimated at $4,600 for the collection station. The estimated cost of the Keene site as a sanitary landfill is fairly certain, for the maintenance and operation cost is already under contract. The projected cost of the proposed revised operation~is rather uncertain. Perhaps the market'will provide a bid under these estimates. There is little prospect of showing a real savings this fiscal year by switching the operation. 247 May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) Budget Estimate Item · current Estimate $ 9,000 Full-time attendant $ 9,000 3,600 Part-time equipment rental 12,000 4,200 Equipment rental-collection station 4,200 13,500 Haul 10,625 1,800 Miscellaneous costs 2,250 -0- After hours service 2,700 -0- Processing at Ivy 8,875 $32,100 TOTALS $47,652" Mr. Dorrier said he originally supported the conversion because he felt it would be cheaper for the County and the fact that private haulers could continue to use the Keene Landfill. However, he is convinced both assumptions are erroneous. He then offered motion to maintain the present operation at the Keene Landfill oni~a contractural basis for another year and start the pilot program for the collection of solid waste with only one transfer station in Cismont. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Review: Zoning Revision Contract. Mr. Roudabush presented to the Board the following revision to the Zoning Ordinance contract from Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates. (See contract set out in Minute Book 15, pages 477-483.) The following wording is to be attached to the original contract. ATTACHMENT G CONSULTANT SCOPE OF SERVICES: Phases 2 - 7 of Revision of Zoning Ordinance Regulation This Scope of Services is an amendment to the Contract between the County of Albemarle and Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates, Inc. dated 7 December 1977. This Scope replaces the preliminary Scope for Phases 2-6 contained in Attachment D (Subsection C) of the aforementioned Contract. The Consultants' Compensation section of Attachment G is in addition to compensation specified in Subsection E of the basic Contract. It is understood that the Consultant will perform revisions to the County Zoning Regulations under two categories of work responsibility: a). Revisions prepared on the basis of Consultant's initiative which are substantially new regulations in accord with the conceptual approach presented in the KDA Memorandum of 27 January 1978. ~b). Review and refinement of existing Zoning Regulations based upon known needs or revisions and coordination of existing regulations with regulations proposed under (a) above. Phase 2: Implementation of Concept Approaches: Phase 2 will involve a series of tasks designed to provide the basis for a working draft of zoning regulations encompassing the basic concepts developed during Phase I. It is essentially a research and development phase which is to be structured by the objectives associated with creating a flexible set of regulations for implementing the Comprehensive Plan. It is anticipated that Phase 2 will represent about 48% of the effort covered in the 'amended scope of services. Work performed during this phase will involve, in addition to tasks/products listed below, the development and testing of a regulatory system geared to the flexible density concepts presented in Phase 1. For purposes of this Agreement, it is understood that such development and testing is both an integral part of the tasks described below and a creative process which transcends these tasks. Task 1 - The Consultants will prepare an outline of the proposed revised Ordinance which will include proposed revisions as well as existing sections of the Ordinance. Task 2 - The Consultants will identify and present specific portions of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan to be incorporated and/or referenced in the revised zoning regulations. Task 3 - The Consultant will prepare a list 'of proposed zoning districts together with their density ranges. Task 4 - The Consultant will'prepare locational criteria, environmental standards, and those aspects of development standards appropriate to zoning regulations for application to the proposed districts identified in Task 3. Task 5 - The Consultant will define sources acceptable for use in application of criteria and standards recommended in Task 4. Task 6 - The Consultant will prepare detailed proposed district regulations for districts identified in Task 3; included in such regulations (in addition to criteria and standards) will be such things as intent, permitted uses, special uses, threshold densities and lot sizes, density ranges, maximum densities, incremental permitted densities together with yard, frontage, access, and coverage regulations where applicable. Task 7 - The Consultant will develop procedures for establishment of densities. Such procedures will include specifications for concept development plans and: a) Review/Approval of effective threshold densities b) Review/Approval of higher-than-threshold densities c) Review/Approval of zoning amendments under conditions of no density determination as well as determinations of density under (a) and (b) above. Procedural recommendations will include function and responsibilities of staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. Sketch diagrams will be prepared to assist in explaining the proposed procedures. Task 8 - The Consultant will prepare a recommended series of regulations for planned development districts. The objective will be to combine several sections of the existing ordinance into one flexible district which will be geared to permitting combinations of other districts within the planned development zone. The Consultant will-develop, in conjunction with this effort, special criteria and standards as well as procedures similar to those presently employed by the County. Phase 3: Rough Draft and Review/Testing: Phase 3 will consist of the preparation of a rough draft of proposed regulations and procedures developed during Phase 2. During Phase 3 the consultant will review the Rough Draft with County staff, the Steering Committee, and the Citizen's Advisory Panel. It is anticipated that Phase 3 will represent about 18% of the effort covered in the amended scope of services. Phase 4: Refinement, Coordination, and Traditional Components: During Phase 4 the Consultant will make refinements to the Phase 3 rough draft based on County directives, prepare refinements/additions to other sections of the ordinance, and coordinate new regulations within the overall ordinance framework (including provisions of existing ordinance to be retained). The following tasks address the refinements/additions to other sections of the ordinance which are anticipated. It is anticipated that Phase 4 will represent about 9% of the effort covered in the amended scope of services. Task 9 - The Consultant will prepare new or revised regulations with respect to the following: - Historict District Regulations - Scenic Roadway Regulations Task 10 - The Consultant will prepare suggested charts/schedules to simplify the application, understanding and use of height, sign and parking regulations. Task 11 - The Consultant will review current flood regulations and recommended provisions will reflect both coordination with previously developed environmental standards as well as applicable requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Task 12 - The Consultant will prepare a suggested list of guidelines/ considerations for use by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in arriving at determinations on rezoning applications. The Consultant will also recommend amendment procedures for these bodies which are designed to both minimize work loads and reduce total times for decisions on rezoning applications. Task 13 - The Consultant will review and suggest revisions to the General Provisions section of the zoning ordinance based on needed changes arising from other revisions. Phase 5: Preliminary Draft: Following review of Phase 4 work, the consultant will prepare a complete preliminary draft of the proposed revised zoning ordinance for review by the County. It is anticipated that Phase 5 will represent about 9% of the effort covered in the amended scope of services. Phase 6: Preliminary Draft Revisions: Following County review and discussion, the consultant will respond to requested revisions by preparing page corrections and typed inserts. The product at the conclusion of Phase 6 will be a revised preliminary draft suitable for use by the County in preparing typed text for public review and hearings. It is anticipated that Phase 6 will represent about 4% of the effort covered in the amended scope of services. Phase 7: Public Hearings: The Consultant will attend up to four public hearings on the proposed ordinance revision for purposes of presenting and explaining the revised regulations. It is anticipated that Phase 7 will represent about 4% of the effort covered in the amended scope of services. May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) General Scope Provisions The Consultant will avail himself of the existing County regulations and previously proposed revisions to the Ordinance in the conduct of his work. Where existing zoning propositions or previously proposed provisions are adequate in the judgment of the Consultant, said provisions will be recommended by the Consultant. The Consultant, in connection with performance of work described under Phases 2-5 above will coordinate zoning ordinance revisions efforts with neighborhood, community, and village planning efforts being undertaken jointly by the Consultant and the County. The following areas of the existing zoning ordinance are cited as those sections where the Consultant will not have any substantive input with respect to revisions: Board of Zoning Appeal, Violation and Penalty, Administration and Interpretation, Special Use Permits, Condominiums, Industrial Performance Standards, Separability, Mobile Homes, Zoning MaP, and Definitions. The Consultant, during the course of performing services, will coordinate his efforts with those of the County Staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. Meetings: In addition to Public Hearing meetings identified as Phase 7, the consultant will participate in up to ~three (3) meetings with the Citizens Advisory Panel, four (4) meetings with the Steering Committee, and five (5) meetings with County staff. Compensation provisions: Typing - Inasmuch as the level of effort required for typing of the drafts cannot be estimated with any reasonable-degree of accuracy, costs for said typing shall be billed on a direct basis in accordance with rates specified in Attachment F of the basic Contract. Basic Estimated Fee Due to the highly uncertain nature of the research and development portions of this scope, it is understood that the consultant cannot provide an absolute time or pricing determination. However, it is anticipated that the basic estimated fee for this contract will not exceed $23,000.00 based on provision of 65 man days and the scope of services outlined in Attachment G. As part of the compensation provisions, the consultant will meet with the authorized representative at the conclusion of each phase for purposes of reviewing'both compensation and scope of services provisions and/or adjustments to same. Mr. Roudabush said the Steering Committee has met with KDA on this matter and recommend approval. He then offered motion to accept the above attachment from KDA and the scope of services of the Zoning Ordinance Contract be amended to include this wording. Dr. lachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Items No. 16, 17, 18~are t~ be discussed later. Agenda Item No. 19. Criminal Justice Plan for FY-79. Mr. Richard Kania, Criminal Justice Planner for the Thomas gefferson~Planning District Commission, presented to the Board the Criminal JustiCe Plan for Fiscal Year 1979. He noted the grant program set out in the plan is new and should be of particular interest to the County since it includes projects proposed to benefit law enforcement in Albemarle County. Mr. Kania noted the Criminal Justice Advisory Committee and the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission has approved the plan. (Copy of the plan is on file~in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.) Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the Criminal Justice Plan for Fiscal Year 1979 as presented. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 20. from May 3, 1978.) ZMA-7803. North Rivanna Ist and 2nd and 3rd Land Trusts. (Deferred This was deferred frOm May 3, 1978 to consider rezoning of a portion of property and request the applicant to bring a legal description of Parcel~A. The staff was instructed to conduct an impact study and submit a staff report concerning Parcel A. At this time, Mr. Fisher reopened the public hearing. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, was present and noted that the portion outlined on the sketch (COPY ON FILE IN THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPER¥ISORS OFFICE) which consists of 42 acres would be the location of Bede General and Mllodon Corporation. He noted the industries have signed the contracts to purchase the property and are only waiting for the rezoning. Mr~ Dorrier asked if the outlined acreage would fit in with the industrial park at a later date. Mr Wood said it could be tied in. May I0, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 250 Mr. Tucker said the State Highway Department has indicated a range from 880 to 1114 vehicles trips per day if an industry was located on the forty-two acres. Mr. Tucker that Route 606 needs improvement since it is over capacity at the present time. Mr. Alfred McClatchy, resident of the immediate area, expressed his concern that the existing problems with increased traffic and small and jet planes would increase. Mr. Paul Wood, speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, requested favorable consideration of this request. The Chamber is concerned about industrial and economic growth as well as employment needs of the County and they endorse this request since it will provide these things. He felt the request meets the criteria for industrial rezoning in th~ requested area. The following concurred in the above statement: Messrs. George Bako, Alfred McCauley, Joe Wright, Forrest Marshall, Munir Eways, Bill Gentry, John Frazee, Doug Zirk!e, Gleason Toms, Bud Taylor, Roger Hawkins, Frank Kessler, Randy Wade, Sandy Lambert and Ms. Ellen Kirtley. Mr. Preston Stallings was present and said with the number of business representatives present today, it should give the Board some idea of their concern for the way votes have been cast in the past. He noted that the records show three for and three against. He felt the Board should get together and represent the County as taxpayers. Lately, it seems their minds have been made up before the public hearing without listening to any public comments. Mr. Dennis Gorman was present and expressed his concern about urban sprawl as a result of uncontrolled growth. He hoped the Board would control the area in order to maintain its character. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to rezone the 42 acre parcel described as follows by metes and bounds: Beginning at N47°34'E for 34.70' northward; at N61°341E for 315.00' northward; at N72°14'E for 391.90' northward; at N52°26'E for 252.90I northward; at N27°OO'E for 200.00' northward; at N18°42'E for 358.30' thence eastward; at S16°13'E for 498.00' plus 420.00'+ thence southward; at S20°45'W for 1794.96'+ thence westward; at N69°15'W for 644.00'+ thence northward; at N27°45'E for 374.50' thence westward; at N53°O2'W for 952.00~ thence to the point of the beginning. Mr. Roudabush said he supported the entire plan which was presented on May 3, 1978. He felt the only way to measure the proposal was with the standards presently on the books. He said this request had more support than any other request he had ever seen~a~d ~et the criteri~ of the comprehensive plan. Mr. Roudabush said even though he supported the entire plan as presented on May 3, 1978, he would second this motion so Mr. Wood could proceed with the project. Messrs. Iachetta, Lindstrom and Fisher said they had not supported the original plan but would support this lesser request. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carr~ by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Set public hearing date on an ordinance granting tax relief for solar energy improvements. Dr. Iachetta said he has a personal interest in solar energy since he is the owner of suc~ a system and works in the business; therefore, he disqualified himself from participation on the matter. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to advertise for public hearing on June 14, an or~in~e granting tax relief for solar energy improvements. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 17. Resolution of intent: to require recordation of subdivision plats. To amend Section !8-3(a) of the County Code This item was deferred from April 12, 1978 in order for the County Attomney to work out some alternatives to alleviate problems which have occurred in the past. (See Minute Book 16, page 195.) Mr. St. John said in discussing this with the staff and surveyors and engineer~ the consensus is that the new private roads ordinance and the recent discussion on pipe stem lots will take care of the problems. Therefore, he recommended withdrawl of the request. With that recommendation, no action was taken. Agenda Item No. 18. Discussion: Ordinance on open burning. Mr. Agnor said the ordinance has been drafted to incorporate the suggestions made at the March 8, 1978 meeting. (See Minute Book 16, page 122~) Therefore, he felt a public hearing could be held on the ordinance. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to advertise for public hearing on gune 14, 1978 an ordinance on open burning. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. A.,. ~ . -.~ NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Pay/Classification Plan. Mr. Fisher did not feel there was enough time to discuss this matter today and suggested it be deferred to May 17, 1978 at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room. The Board concurred. 25 . May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 22a. for nomination. Appointments: Advisory CoUncil on Aging. No names were presented Agenda Item No. 22b. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority. No names were presented for nomination and Mr. Fisher r~quested this be?placed back on the agenda for next week. Agenda Item No. 22c. Appointment: Economic Development Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to appoint Mr. Henry Maclin, Jr., to the Economic Development Commission with said term to expire on December 31, 1981. Mr. Dorrier seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 22d. Appointment: Industrial Development Authority. No names were presented for nomination and Mr. Fisher requested this be placed back on the agenda for next week. Agenda Item No. 22e. Appointment: Scenic Rivers Committee. Mr.~ Lindstrom offered motion to appoint Mr. Ron Keeler from the Planning Staff as the ex-officio member on the Scenic Rivers Committee. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried bY the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 22f. Appointment: To serve on committee to select an Offender Aid & Restoration Director. No names were presented for nomination. Agenda Item No. 23. Statement of Expenses: Director of Finance, Sheriff's Office, Comonwealth's Attorney for month of April, 1978. Mr. Agnor presented these reports, and motion for approval was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 24. Statement of Expenses: Regional Jail for month of April, 1978. Mr. Agnor presented the report and motion for approval was offered by Dr. !achetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 25 Regional Jail Report for month of April, 1978. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Jail, along with summary statement of prisoner days, jail physician statement, salaries of the paramedics and classification officer were presented. Motion to approve these statements as read was offered by Dr. Iachetta, secondDd by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 26. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of March, 1978 was presented pursuant to Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 27. Report of the County Executive for the month of April, 1978, was presented as information. Agenda Item No. 29. Other Matters not listed on the agenda. Mr. Fisher said he attended a meeting with City Council and the City Planning Commission to consider adoption of a policy for mutual County and City revlew of significant projects. This was derived from the Mutual Boundary Committee. He suggested the Board review the letter dated May 9, 1978 from Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, which outlines the significant projects. (COPY OF LETTER ON FILE IN THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OFFICE.) Mr. Fisher noted letter dated April 27, 1978, from Mr. Kenneth Youel regarding the hardship he is experiencing due to the Runoff Control Ordinance. The project known as Loftland Wood Residential Planned Community is in the reservoir watershed and the. two hundred foot setback from streams for septic fields will delete twelve of the twenty-eight lots. Mr. Youel states all plans and plats were prepared and approved with 'permits granted as well as construction the roads and lakes prior to the adoption of the ordinance. Mr. St. John requeste May 10, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 252 the matter be referred to his office. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to refer the letter to the County Attorney and staff for further review. Dr, Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher requested letter dated April 25, 1978 from the Zoning Administrator to Mr. David Breeden regarding rental of private property for private parties with 3,000 or more people, be forwarded to Mr. Avery Catlin at the University. He felt the University should be aware of the impact that Easters weekend has on the County. Mr. Fisher said notice has been received for a schedule of public workshops for the Shenandoah National Park General Management Plan. Mr. Fisher noted letters dated May 10, 1978 from the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad and the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department concurring in the joint use of the property on Berkmar Drive. Mr. Agnor said an official notification has been received from the Economic Development Administration that Charlottesville, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene, Louisa and Nelson have been designated as a redevelopment area under the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. This designation was effective April 4, 1978. Mr. Agnor said a status report on the mapping of the soil survey has been received from the Department of Agriculture. The original completion date was for July 1979 but the project is only half way completed; therefore, the report will not be ready at that time. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Gordon Yager of the Soil Conservation Service present a progress report on this matter at the June 14, 1978 meeting. Agenda Item No. 30. At 5:46 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn this meeting to May 17, 1978 at 4:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None.