Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-09-13September 6, 1978 (Regular-Night Meeting) September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meetly]_ Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel. At 11:00 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters relating to appointments. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 11:30 P.M., the Board reconvened from executive session and immediately adjourned. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 13, 1978, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs..~Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Officers present: County Attorney'. Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:05 A.M. Mr. Fisher first reported that a discussion on House Bill #63 was to be held on September 29, 1978, at 9:00 A.M., in the Rockbridge Circuit Court Chamber in Lexington. The bill is regarding the way local governments operate. Also House Bill 1935 will be opened for discussion on Monday, September 25, 1978 in Abingdon. This bill is in regard to Mental Health. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: February 8~ 1978: Mr. Fisher noted on page 63 in the resolution regarding conveyance of the Ivy Landfill property, the plat book and page numbers are missing. (Clerk's Note: Correction made to note~ Plat Book IX, pages 209-210.) On page 78 the Clerk noted the following sentence was left out of tSe typing of these minutes: "Mr. Agnor said that only fourteen of twenty-three lottery permit holders have filed their receipts and disbursements in accordance with Section 18~2-335. He felt some action needed to be taken to follow up on those which have not file~." February 24~ 1978: Mr. Henley reported no errors. March 8~ 1978: Mr. Roudabush reported no errors. March 9, 1978: Mr. Henley reported no errors. March 10~ 1978: Mr. Henley reported no errors. March 15, 1978~(afternoon): Mr. Roudabush reported no errors. March 15~ 1978 (night): Mr. Dorrier reported no errors. March 17~ 1978: March 21, 1978: March 29, 1978: March 30, 1978: April 5~ 1978: April 10~ 1978: April 12~ 1978: Mr. Fisher requested the minutes of March 29, 1978 be placed on next week's agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve all the minutes above, except March 29, 1978, as corrected. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Dorrier reported no errors. Mr. Henley reported no errors. Dr. Iachetta reported he had not read the minutes and could not report. Mr. Henley reported no errors. Mr. Henley reported no errors. Mr. Henley reported no errors. Mr. Lindstrom noted several typographical errors. Agenda Item No. 3a. Discussion of Route 647: Mr. Roudabush said the condition of this road was brought to his attention by Mrs. Gatewood. Mrs. Gatewood was present at the meeting and requested the road be improved because of dust and drainage problems. Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation described the condition of the road. He said because the right-of-way is narrow and the adjacent private property is above the road level, he cannot see any way of redirecting the water away from the road without full scale reconstruction. He said there September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) are presently 57 vehicle trips per day on the road. He concluded that if the property owners were willing to dedicate the necessary right-of-way, this could be placed in the six year plan, and the problem corrected at some later time. Mr. Earnly Chapman said the road is so narrow that it is a hazard if some emergency should arise. Mr. Bates said the Rescue Squad refuse~ to come down that road because it might damage their equipment; also there is a 4~o turn which the school bus must make, which is extremely dangerous. Mr. Roosevelt said the water problem could be helped with the placement of ditches in certain locations along the road. As far as the dust problem, the Highway Department could coat the road with a layer of calcium. Mr. Roudabush said he would get the appropriate right-of-way forms and meet with Mrs. Gatewood and Mr. Roosevelt to further discuss the problems. Agenda Item NO. 3b. Report from Road Viewers: The following re~ort was received: "August 22, 1978 Board of County Supervisors Comnty Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Gentlemen: The viewers have again viewed the requested addition off Route 616 in the Rivanna District. We recommend that if this road is brought'_up to rural addition specifications by the landowners or others that the road should be added to the Stats Secondary System for maintenance. We do not recommend spending state funds to improve this road because the primary purpose of the road is to serve subdivided land and land which could very easily be subdivided. Respectfully submitted, 1978 Road Viewers (signed) (signed) (signed) (signed) William A. Gray John O. Higginsmn Alonzo Jones William Rennolds" Mr. Roudabush said he would like to see this addition funded by the state, which allocates $20,000 a year to bring old roads into the secnndary system. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush that this road off of Route 616 be added to the Secondary System, with gravel surface, conditioned upon the necessary right-of-way being donated by the land owners. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Roosevelt noted that recently a request to subdivide on that road had been received by the Planning Department, and withdrawn when it was realized that the road might be eligible for gravel surfacing by the State. Mr. Fisher said if a request to subdivide comes in following completion of the gravel surfacing, he will be most upset, and would expect that the road would have to wait for hard-surfacing just like any other road in the county. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorri~.r Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3 Abandonment: Road off Route 602 in Howardsville: Mr. George McCallum, representing Mr. Gerald Wilson, said there are three major, contendors; Continental Can, Gerald Wilson, and Mr. Paul Stacy. Mr. McCallum said an agreement is in the works and is anticipated to be signed by Continental Can in the near future. He also said that a right-of-way has been offered by owners of a small pieDe of land on Route 628 which would give entrance to Mr. Wilson and Continental Can and once again requested deferral. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to defer this item until the November day meeting. Motion was 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. 3c. Request to abandon a ~ortion of Route 782: was noted as being received: The following letter "August 22, 1978 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Gerry: The development of the city of Charlottesville and the University in the area bounded by ~tadium Road, Maury Avenue and Fontaine Avenue has changed the needs for old State roads. The specific case involves a portion of Virginia Highway 782 from the western termination of Stadium RoSd to Fontaine Avenue. This section of road is crooked; single-laned and unimproved and is bounded on both sides by University property. We have used the adjoining area for young faculty houses and apartments and many of these couples have young children playing in the area and crossing the road to join their playmates. 43.3 September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) We have recently received complaints about "hot rodders" using this road as an access between Fontaine Avenue and Stadium Road, presenting a hazard to the young children. In addition it also serves as a rendezvous area since it is wooded and concealed from view for a portion of the length in question. There is no requirement for this section of road. The few residents living on Stadium Road can easily reach Fontaine Avenue by usa of three· city streets, namely, Apple ~ree Road, Piedmont Awenue and Maury Avenue, and our Mimosa Drive. We have approached the Virginia Highway Resident Engineer regarding the situation and requested that the road be abandoned. He has agreed in principal, but stated that such action was the prerogative of the Board of Supervisors. Once abandoned we would block access to the road and provide the State Forestry Division and the City Fire Department with keys which would permit their access to the Observatory Mountain hillside in the event of fire. Accordingly, we hereby petition the Board of Supervisors to abandon Virginia Highway 782 between Fontaine Avenue and Stadium Road. Sincerely, Avery Catlin Executive Vice President" Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to advertise this road abandonment for a public hearing at the October day meeting, with notification going to the City. of Charlottesville, 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. 3d. Request to add certain portions of old Route 29 to system: Agnor read the following resolution for the Board's consideration: Mr. WHEREAS, certain sections of old Route 29 have been maintained since the completion of Project #0029-002-103,C501 in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, through oversight, these sections were not added to the Secondary Road System; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to add the following sections of old Route 29, as shown on sketch prepared by that Department, to the State Secondary System: Section Action Length I Transfer 0.10 II Transfer 0.36 III Transfer 0.06 IV Transfer 0.07 VI New Addition 0.03 VII Transfer 0.03 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the above mentioned sketch be filed in the permanent files of this Board and a copy forwarded with this resolution to the Department of Highways and Transportation. Motion to adopt the resolution as presented was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3f. Other Highway Matters: Mr. Roosevelt requested time on September 20th, to discuss the McIntire/Rio Road extension with Board members. Mr. Roosevelt reported on Route 637. He Said the project had been awarded to Haley, Chisholm and Morris; bid price was $1,000,091; and he expects construction to begin around October 1st. Mr. Agnor read the following letter for the Board's information: "August 14, 1978 As requested in resolution by your Board on July 12, 1978, the following abandon- ment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective August 14, 1978. ABANDONMENT 'LENGTH Route 9655 from 0.07 mile S.W. of Rte. 9885 to its intersection with Rte. 9885. 0.07 Mi. Mr. Dorrier said he had received some complaints about the condition of Routes 728 and 618. Mr. Roosevelt said he inspected the roads, and noted that they were mostly dusty, but in relatively good condition. Mr. Dorrier next asked if right-of-way had been obtained on Route 727. Mr. Roosevelt said a letter was sent to a Mrs. Mackel, but that no word has been received in reply. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 414 Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Lindstrom said they were pleased with the traffic lights installed at the corners of Barracks/Georgetown Roads and Hydraulic/Georgetown Ro~ds. Dr. Iachetta requested a progress report on work at the intersection of Route 743 and Bedford Hills Subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said he expected Work to begin around the 1st of October, and completed before the onset of winter. Mr. Henley asked about the drainage problem at Greenwood. Mr. Roosevelt said the Garvers' are trying to obtain an easement from Mr. Carpenter to reroute the drainage onto Mr. Carpenter's property. To date, no agreement has been reached. Mr. Henley asked if there were plans to widen the portion of road from Route 250 to the blinker light at Brownsville. Mr. Roosevelt said there were no plans for the immediate future. Mr. Henley finally noted a problem with the deceleration lane at Henley Middle school. He said traffic backs up there all the time, but extremely so during football games. Sheriff George-Bailey reported a traffic hazard in Glenaire off of Route 676 from 250. He said it is difficult to determine who has the right-of-way since there is no stop or yield sign. Mr. Roosevelt said he would see about getting a sign installed as soon. as possible. Agenda Item No. 4. Request from Sheriff to hire additional deputy. Sheriff George Bailey said the State Compensation Board, after hearing appeal by this Board, has approved one additional field deputy effective January 1, 1979. Mr. Bailey requested placing this deputy on full time beginning November 1, 1978 with this deputy being paid entirely from local funds for two months. He noted that sufficient money is in his budget to cover this salary. Sheriff Bailey said he will hire Mr. Dayton Haugh to fill this position if same is approved by the Board. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the sheriff's request, and authorize the expenditure of County funds to pay the deputy's salary for the months of November and December, 1978. 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. Dr. Iachetta noted to Sheriff Bailey that he had received complaints from residents in the Hollymead community about cars speeding in that area. The Sheriff said he would do some spot checking to evaluate the problem. At 10:58 A.M., Mr. Fisher declared a short recess. Meeting reconvened at 11:05 A.M. Agenda Item No. 5. Public Hearing: Community Development. Block'Grant. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 12, 1978.) Mr. Agnor reported that a p ~r~application for th'es~funds was filed in May~ These funds will be used to expand the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (rehabilitation of existing structures, $150~000'.00) and to purchase and develop land for two or three mini-subdivisions for low to moderate income housing ($120,000.00). The p~application was approved in May and all that is required at this time is a resolution by the Board of Supervisors approving the final application to be forwarded to H.U.D. The $150,000 for A.H.I.?. will expand their program by more than 20 jobs with the employment of one additional person with a knowledge of septic and indoor plumbing systems. The $120,000 will be used to buy two or three tracts of land and develop into subdivisions, which will be made available to low or moderate income persons for single-famil privately-owned homes. Mr. Agnor then presented the following resolution for the Board's consideration: WHEREAS, public hearings were held by the Albemarle County Planning Commission on May 2, 1978 and by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on May 10, 1978 on pre-application for funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), for use by the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP), in rehabilitating existing homes belonging to low and moderate income families in Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, said pre-application was approved by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on May 10, 19~8, at the conclusion of said Board's public hearing~ and WHEREAS, public hearing was held on this date on final application for HUD funds in connection with the aforementioned project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that approval be and is hereby given to final application for Community Development Block Grant for FY-79 HUD funds in the amount of $150,000 for rehabilitation of existing structures and in the amount of $120,000 for the purchase and development of land for two to three mini-subdivisions to be used by families interested in building their own h~o~es with technical assistance from AHIP. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Fisher questioned who would be directly responsible for distributio of the money. Mr. Agnor said the grant is made to the County of Albemarle, and not the Housing Improvement Program. Board members also expressed concern that the amount of the grant did not seem to be sufficient to cover costs anticipated. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Mrs. Rosa Hudson said she lives in the Esmont area, ~nd said she and her neighbors were very much against this type of housing. She said it was her feeling that it will only cause another ghetto. Mr. Edgar Paige said most people placed in low-cost housing are not ready for the responsibility of owning a home, or cannot manage the costs involved. He felt it was not a good move to offer even more of these homes to people who cannot handle them. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the resolution as presented by Mr. Agnor. 'Motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Use of Federal Money for Regional Library. memorandum dated September 8, 1978: Mr. Agnor read his The State Library has advised this office of the amounts of Federal and State Aid allocated to the Regional Library for FY-79. Use of these funds requires written approval of the governing bodies of the participating juris- dictions in the library system. The allocations and their relationship to the Library budget estimates are as follows: State Aid Federal Aid Allocation Budget Estimate Ui'fference 113,495 84',961 + 28,534 21,590 21,590 -0- In budget work sessions on the FY-79 budget, library officials agreed with the County's request to allocate $12,666 of the Federal funds to the revenues o£ the operational budget in order to balance that budget without severely impacting local funds. It was agreed tha~ any Federal funds over and above that amount would be used for supplemental or enrichment projects, as approved by the participating jurisdictions. It is recommended that the State and Federal funds be approved for use as follows: The State fund excess of $28,534 be used in the operating budget to replace the $12,666 tapped from the Federal funds. The remaining excess State fund revenues ~$28,534 - $12,666 = $15,868) be included in the end of the year balance returned to the localities at the completion of the fiscal year audit. The Federal funds be applied to four sup,plemental programs re- q. uested by the Library Board as follows: 1. Purchase of 700 books to extend to bookmobiles and branches, a special collection of books for non-reading _. youth and adults. $'4,765 2. Purchase 1200 volumes on topics of special interest to senior citizens and low-socio-economic citizens. $1'0,000 3. Maintain the provision of library services at the Joint Security Complex ten hours per week. $ 3,825 4. Purchase of 750 books to augment a present col- lection of high-interest, low reading level titles for youth and adults. $'3','000 TOTAL $21,590 The end result of this action will not change the total appropriation of the library operating budget, and will maintain the FY-?9 level of local funds in preparation for operating increases expected with the opening of the Post Office building in the FY-80 budget period. Green, Louisa, and Nelson County Board's of Supervisors, and the Charlottesville City Council have approved this procedure. Motion was offered by Dr.' Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the recommenda- tions of the County Executive. 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. 7. Discussion: September 8, 1978: CETA Program. Mr. Agnor ~ead his memorandum dated The Comprehensive Employment Training Act (CETA) program is approaching its annual Federal fiscal year renewal period on October 1st. Each year this program is changed in some manner by Congressional legislation, and each year these changes occur within hours of the expiration date, leaving the employees in the program in a state of uncertainty as to their continuance in their September 13, 1998 (Regular-Day Meeting) 416 positions. The employees are alerted to this situation when employed, and are hired on the basis that their positions terminate when the program terminates. The County currently h~s five CETA funded positions. The FY-79 budget .provided funds for a permanent position in the~Planning Department for a CETA funded employee shouted the p~ogram terminate. The Parks and Recreation budget had a request for such funds for a Recreation Program Coordinator, but it was not recommended by this office due to the lack of information or experience in the recreation program at that time. It was noted that the need would be assessed at a later date. The Parks and Recreation Department currently has two CETA positions, both being utilized in the recreation activities. The activities to date are: Tennis Classes - at both high schools, 163 participants, cost of program $1729.00, fees generated $1896.50. 2. Soccer Clinic - ages 7-17, Hollymead School, 175 participants, cost of program $2085.00, fees generated $2559.5O. 3. Soccer League Summer Program: Day Program - extension of Soccer Clinic, five teams formed, 74 participants, cost of program $670.00, fees generated $740.00. - ages 5-13, at five elementary schools, super- vised playgrounds, coordinated with MACAA lunch program, special events included Pepsi Mobile Tennis, historical tour on County bus, swiping at County l~kes via County bus, nature hiking, dog show, arts and craft exhibits. Evening Program - ages 14-adult, supervised open gym at four middle and high schools, basketball N.B.A. program ages 9-18, adult softball league. Cost of program $14,000, fees generated none. The programs to date, to my knowledge, have been well received, have had overflowing participation, have not had any difficulties, and have not exceeded cost estimates. Winter activities include an extension of the soccer league into the fall, continuation of the open gym program sup~r- vised in previous winters by the School Division and commencement of other fee based classes at various school locations, dependent upon enrollment, in classes such as square dancing, art,. guitar lessons, slimnastics, etc. Having completed several months of recreation programs and observed the coordination activities, it is recommended that the two CETA funded positions be continued, if the CETA program is renewed, but that the two positions be merged into a single permanent position, funded by the County should the CETA program terminate. The permanent position would~be a Recreation Coordinator as requested in the' FY-79 budget', and should be assigned to Range 13 in the Pay and Classification Plan, with 'a salary range $10,442 - $13,333. The position will provide more time for the Director of Parks and Recreation to plan next year's activities, meet with community groups to assess their requests, complete the five year Parks Master Plan, oversee the development of the Rann Preserve, and generally supervise his department. The County has attempted to avoid becoming dependent on the CETA program, and has expanded employment positions cautiously, based upon need. The CETA program is designed to channel employees into p~rmanent positions. Approving a second permanent ~osition from the remaining five CETA positions will meet both objectives of independence and cautious expansion, in my opinion. Your approval is requested. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and R~udabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Fire Service Contract Report. Mr. Agnor said that in 1977 the fact that there is no written contract for fire services operate'd. With 'the City, was discussed. A proposed contract was drawn up and sent to the City for their approval. The City returned a counter proposal, which was again amended and returned to the City. In February, 1978, a revised proposal was received from the City with a map attached which outlined the localitie the Ridge Street Fire Station would be responsible for serving. Since the City and County cannot seem to reach an agreement on the service district for the Ridge Street Fire~ Company, a new system has been proposed as follows: 4 .7 September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) II. Be III. IV. CARD RESPONSE SYSTEM CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE FIRE DEPARTMENT ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA~ The Card Response System is designed to dispatch fire units in any particular area of Albemarle County as quickly and as efficiently as possible with a structured procedure for additional alarms as well as rotation procedures for covering vacant stations that have apparatus on fires. The system consist of: 1. Card District Map 2. Street Index 3. Card File CARD DISTRICT MAP: The aard District Map aids the dispatcher in pin-pointing route numbers and sub-divisions quickly as well as indicating the card that is to be used for the fire department. The county is covered by seven (7) county departments and one (1) paid company located at Headquarters Station in Charlottesville. Each county department is approximately located in the center of their respective areas. These depart- ments are designated by a number for aid in radio transmissions. The departments and numerical designation are: Paid Company East Rivanna North Garden Earlysville Crozet Stony Point Scottsville Seminole Trail E-ii Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 8 NON-URBAN AREAS: The non-.urban area district numbers begin with eleven (11) and the thi'rd digit represents the station which responds for that particular area. The fourth digit indicates the district of that station. Example: (1142) 11 4 2 ~on-urban station area 4 #2 district of station 4 A few districts located in the non-urban areas do not begin with eleven (11) because of the fact that two stations respond simultaneously. This is due either to a specific hazard that exist in that district, or that the distance that has to be travelled to reach some districts in such that two stations are dispatched. (Examples: 1216, 1212, 1225, 1234, 1171, 1154.) URBAN AREAS: The urban area district numbers generally, kegin ~ith the number twel've (I2-). The third digit in these district numbers will not correspond with the station respond- ing. The district card must be pulled to learn the station that is responding. STREET INDEX Those sub-divisions, sub-division streets, and other street and roads located in the urban areas of the county which have names are listed in a street index with the appropriate district number located in a column beside the street'or sub-division. (Example: Carrsbrook Drive - District 1213 - Card 1213) CARD FILE The response card is kept in a file in numSrical order. Once the location of the fire has been determined on the map the appropriate card is pulled according to the district number where the fire is located. (Example: Four Seasons - District 1214 - Card 1214) The upper, left hand corner of the card indicates the appropriate district number. The dispatcher or officer in charge determines whether he will respond one engine or station (silent alarm) or respond a full response (box alarm). After the initial alarm the dispatcher can dispatch additional apparatus as needed by follow- ing the direction on the card. The bottom of the response card contains information on chang.e of quarters of engine companies from one station to another. The response card allows the dispatcher to respond fire apparatus and manpower immediately without hesitation. Prior thought given to the response areas and apparatus to respond has made this system a very effective tool in the fire suppression field. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor concluded by saying that he and the Firefighters Association want to get a .contract signed as soon as possible, and hoped that the City of Charlottesville would do its best to cooperate in working out the final difficulties. At 12:13 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested ~ecess for lunch. 1:50 P.M. The meeting reconvened at Agenda Item No. 10. Kenneth Pleasants: Application for central well permit. Mr. Agnor reported receipt of the following letter from Mr~ Kenneth L. Pleasants asking for a central well permit pursuant to County Code Section 10-7 on property known as "Misfit" in Greenwood. Mr. Agnor noted that the well must still be tested for flow by the County Engineering Department. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the concept of operating the well system, conditioned upon the flow test showing adequate water supply. 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. 9. Appropriations: Agenda Item No. 9a. Contract-Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, was present and noted that the County has been awarded a 701 grant to assist in the cost of revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Cost of the consultants will be $23,000 and $15,000 of this will be reimbursed by the grant. Grant proceeds will be reimbursed quarterly upon submission of a financial summary of expenditures incurred during that period. Also, one of the conditions of the grant is that there be a financial report prepared by a CPA during each 'fiscal year in which the grant is used. He then requested an appropriation of $23,000. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $23,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 10E-252, Contractual Services, Revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9b. Energy Use Study. Mr. Jones requested an appropriation in the amount of $11,393.00 from the General Fund to Code 3-299 for the Energy Use Study approved by the Board. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $11,393 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 3-299, Energy Use Study. 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. 9c. Clean Community Commission. Mr. Jones said the Charlottesville- Albemarle Clean Community Commission recently received an additional $1000 grant for trash containers. This grant was in addition to the original $9793 received in early spring. Since the County is acting as fiscal agent for this commission, he requested an appropriation in the amount of $1,000 from the General Fund to Code 18A.1-20e. Mr. Fisher requested in writing exactly what these containers would be used for and where they would be placed. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 18A.1-20e, Miscellaneous, Clean Community Commission. Following considerable additional discussion regarding the long term implications of trash container placement throughout the County, Mr. Lindstrom amended his motion to adopt the above resolution, but to have the County Executive inform the Clean Community Commission that the Board of Supervisors wants an explanation of this program, particularly the location of the trash containers, and plans for maintenance of the cans and the areas around them. Amendment was accepted by Dr. Iachetta~ Following continued discussion of possible implications of this program, Dr. Iachetta said he wished to withdraw his second to Mr. Lindstrom's motion because the matter was getting too complicated and he did not know if it should be approved. Motion was then seconded by Mr. Dorrier. Mr. Fisher said he was not going to vote in favor of this motion because he felt the Committee should present their planned program to the Board of Supervisors and the City of Charlottesville before any money is appropriated. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 9d. 1978. Jail Budget. Mr. Jones read his memorandum dated September 7, There are three areas consisting of salaries, workman's compensation, and capital outlay in the Joint Security Complex Budget that need~ to be amended in order to prevent over-expenditures from occu~g in the current fiscal budget. The amendments can be funded by official actions of the City and County using the unallocated carry-over balance of the prior fiscal year 1977-78. The un- audited cash balance of the Joint Security Fund for the FY 1977-78 operations was $42,892.04 which will be changed slightly by the audit when they convert the cash balance to a modified accrual basis. The conversion from the Bash basis to the modified accrual basis involves the accountability of receivables and payables on June 30th. In salaries, the budgeted amount was based upon the consultants' report which was less than the State mandated salaries for some correctional officers. The Joint Security Board approved rates on six positions that exceed allowance by the State Compensation Board. Ail employees are being paid at the Joint Security Board approved rates. To do so, it requires $5,895 in local contributions to fund the salaries and fringe benefit costs on these six positions. The premium on workman's compensation insurance exceeds the budgeted allo- cation of $2500 by $10,485. As you know, the premium ~n~reased about 50% to 3.12 per $100 annual salary this year for police and correctional officers. The increased payroll, plus the rate increase, projects an annual premium of $12,985. Therefore, an additional amount of $10,485 is needed to continue the coverage. Last November, the Jail Board voted unanimously to request $9400 in capital improvement funds from the City and County to provide a fire escape on the First Floor West Housing Area and a Fire Detection System. Mr. Sam Pruett' requested the funds by letter dated January 4, 1978, in the operating budget. It was in- tended to be included in the County Capital Program; however, it was overlooked. Recently, the County Fire Marshall advised the Jail Board of the necessary improvements again and warned them that remedial action must be taken immediately. Otherwise, he is required by the State Fire Code to cite the discrepancies. Based on the above information, an appropriation of $25,780 is requested for the Joint Security Fund subject to affirmative action by City Council. This action is being requested subject to City approval because the existing City/County contract requires reimbursement of operating surplus back to the localities upon completion of audits. Funding in the above manner will not require any additional City or County monies. Mr. Fisher asked if this request has been approved by the City and the Jail Board. Mr. Jones said the Jail Board has approved it, and City Council is due to see the request shortly. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, and secmnded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ~Virginia, that $25,780 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Joint Security Complex Fund contingent on subsequent approval by City Council, and coded as follows: 190-109 Compensation - Assistants 190-213 Workman's Compensation 190-402 Fire Prevention Equipment $ 5,895 $10,.485 The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and]~iRoudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Discussion: Airport. Mr. Agnor reported that the decision by the Albemarle-Charlottesville Airport to close the Airport while the runway is resurfaced is based on a number of reasons. The main reason is that Piedmont Airlines is rapidly changing their service to CharlottesvilleRby upgrading the model of airplane used. This new plane has been the cause of the rapid deterioration of the present runway because of'it's size and weight. He said the Airport Board decided it would be in the best interest of the community in the long run to upgrade the runway to meet the standards required to land this new, larger plane; or possibly lose the Piedmont contract subject for renewal in May. Mr. Agnor noted that the decision to close the Airport entirely during the repaving, was done at the joint recommendation of the F.A.A., and the consultant engineer. The firm who won the bid for the repaving said it would be impossible to meet the very exacting standards required if the runway is used before completion. Mr. Agnor said the F.A.A. has approved the construction of a 2,000 foot runway, from the materials removed fr'~m the present runway, for use by light aircraft. This temporary runway will be constructed onto a present taxiway, and will be built prior to complete removal of the current runway. Mr. Agnor next stated that the bids were in excess of the amount approved by the F.A.A. or the County government. It is beyond the capabilities of the F.A.A. to fund until 1980. He recommended that the County advance the funds for this project as a loan, repayable after October 1, 1979. He said the Airport Board is meeting tomorrow, and final requests and decisions will be made at that time. Agenda Item No. 12. Lottery Permits. a) Request by Mr. Dan Maupin, President of the White Hall Ruritan Club requesting a permit ~or raffles, with proceeds going to community projects of the club. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 42O b) Mrs. Dean A. Strong, President of the Woman's Club of Crozet, has requested a permit for the raffle of a handmade quilt; proceeds to go to charity, health, education and juvenile aid. c) Mr. Clarence S. McClure of the Albemarle County School Board has requested a raffle and bingo games in the schools, proceeds going to the P.T.O's for their programs. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to approve the above three lottery permits for the calendar year 19~8 in accordance with the Board's adopted conditions ~f~r issuance of such permits. Roll was called and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said Messrs. Robert A. Leiby, Jr. and Donald A. Nelson of Crafters' Gallery Restaurant wished to apply for a Dance Hall Permit. He said the fire marshal,s office has approved their inspection of the premises, but no written report has yet been received from the Building Official. Mr. Nelson was present, and said he planned dancing two nights a week from about 9:00 P. M. to no later than 1:00 A.M. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, to approve the dance hall request, with the condition that the dance hall be limited to 20% of the existing space in the building as mf September 13, 1978; that subsequent expansion of the building would not allow expansion of the dance hall without further approval from the Board of Supervisors; and the closing time of the dance hall shall be consistent with Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board closing laws. Motion was 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. 13. Appointments: after aYn~ executive session. Mr. Fisher suggested this item be ~eferred until Agenda Item No. 14. Statements of Expenses of the ~irector of Finance, Sheriff's Office and Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of August, 1978 were presented. On motion by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, 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. 15. Statement of Expenses of the Regional. Jail for the month of August, 1978 was presented. On motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, this statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the' following recordedvvote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Statementscof expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of August., 1978 along with summary statement of prisoner days and s~lary of the jail physician and paramedics, were pres'ented. On' motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Do~rier, Fisher, Henley, Iahhetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Report of the Social Services'Department for July, 1978 was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.'1-52. Agenda Item No. 18. Receipt of Audits: Mr. Agnor reported ~eceipt. of Financial Statement for the Piedmont Virginia Community College (local funds) for 1977~78. It is file in the office of the County Executive if there are any questions. on Mr. Agnor also reported receipt of the audit of the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Detention Home Commission, Staunton, Virginia, for the year ended 6-30-78. It is on file in his office Agenda Item No. 19. Report of the County Executive for August, 1978. presented for the Board's information. Report was Agenda Item No. 20. Other Matters not on the agenda. Mr. Agnor presented a renewal request for Cooperative Agreement No. 58-33A7-9-11 for soil surveys in Albemarle County, by the U.S.D.A. So~l Conservation Service.~.The ~ri~inal O e agreement was made in 1972, and the only change is that the completion date ~ ~~r~ from July 1, 1978 to December 31, 1981. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, authorizing the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to sign this agreement. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Eachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Mr. Agnor advised that bids on the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant were opened last week. The engineers estimate was $17,445,000; the bid was $17,146,000; the second bid was within $45,000. Mr. Fisher noted receipt, of a letter informing of a public hear- ing at Virginia Beach on September 26, 1978, for the purpose of considering a proposed 1979-83 Grant Priority List, and revisions to the 1978 grant priority list. This could possibly divert portions of the grant already allocated in the bid for the Rivanna Authority's advanced wastewater treatment plant, and t~ansfer them to other projects in the Commonwealth. Dr. Iachetta said he met with the 7th District Congressman who in turn wrote a letter supporting the views of the County of Albemarle and the Rivanna Authority in the funding of the project. Dr. Iachetta noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Bob Vandeveer who lives on Rmute 643 near the Reservoir. He complained about a problem of litter and use of the "overlook" as a "lovers lane". Dr. Iachetta said he believed the overlook was owned by the City of Charlottesville, and suggested they be asked to have the area regularly policed for litter. Mr. Agnor said he thought the City has already taken action to close the overlook to the public because of the problem. He said he would check and confirm the status to the Board. Mr. Dorrier said Mr. William Heat~.~as resigned from the Board of Zoning Appeals after 10 years of service and recommendY~hat the Board adopt a resolution of appreciation. Mr. Fisher questioned this action, as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals are appointed by a Judge. Mr. St. John recommended sending Judge Berry a copy of a resolution of thanks for his information. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt such a resolution of appreciation. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. (Clerk's note: The clerk was subsequently informed that Mr. Heath had not resigned, therefore, no resolution was drafted.) Agenda Item No. 21. Executive Session: Personnel, Land Acquisition, and Legal Matters. Motion was offered at 3:20 P.M. by Dr. Iachetta to enter into executive session to d~scuss the above matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, ~achetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Agenda Item No. 22. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend Chapter 19.1, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, in Section 19.1-5 and 19.1-6. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on August 30 and September 6, 1978.) Mr. Fisher began by giving a brief history of how these revisions to the Runoff Control Ordinance came about. He then asked for comments from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, who summarized his memorandums~which are ~set out~ in the minutes of July 12, 1978 and August 2, 1978, and then the pub. lic h~ring wa'$ op~.ned. Mr. Fisher noted rec'eipt ~of a letter dated SePt'e~ber 12,. 1~78 from Preaton O.' Stallings, President of Blue Ridge Home Builders Association: "September 12, 1978 On behalf of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, please accept this letter as our wholehearted support for the proposed change to the Runoff Control Ordinance relative to the required set-back from the Reservoir and its tributaries. Although, we wer~ initially opppsed to the adoption of the Runoff Control Ordinance, we understood the Board's concern about the potential damage to the Reservoir and recognized the Board's desire to enact an ordinance which 'would provide adequate protection in the watershed area. We do feel that a 50 ft. setback from the tributaries,.as accepted by the ~State Health Department, would be entirely satisfactory; however, the proposed change which reduces the required setback to. lQ0 ft.. from its.~cu~rent '200 ft. appears to be a fair compromise. We commend the Board for its initiative in reconsider%~g~i~ this matter' in view of current facts available and we are hopeful the proposed change will be adopted. Sincerely, (signed) Preston O. Stallings President First to speak was Mr. Jim Murray, representing Mr. Kenneth Youel, the developer of Loftlands. Mr. Murray said he agrees that the Runoff Control Ordinance is good, but it is ~oing harm to the public. The topography of land in this part of the country is such that along banks of most streams, there is steep ground. For that reason, the general property owner in the reservoir loses~ an acre of %and for every 200-feet of frontage he has on the reservoir because of the 200-foot setback. Mr. Murray sa~d he does not feel the 200,foot setback is required and he feels the ordinance needs amending. He felt to delay any longer is almost as confiscatory as the language of the existing ordinance. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Next to speak was Mr. Paul Wood, President of the Charlottesville/Albemarle County Chamber ~£1~Commerce: "We have studied and discussed in detail several reports relating to the footage setback in regard to the Runoff Control Ordinance Amendment. We have listened to both opponents and proponents on this issue. We are certainly in support ~ proper legislation that would prohibit polluting our water sources, and are sympathetic with those who concede that this is the primary issue involved. We are, however, comfortable w~th the research provided by experts in this field and further feel that the revised limitation of 100 feet would be a reasonable distance to protect the reservoir from pollution. Therefore, our Board of Directors, at a called meeting on Tuesday, September 12, 1978 drafted and approved the following resolution: RESOLVED that the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce go on record as approving the proposed Amendment to the Runoff Control Ordinance which changes the setback requirements from 200 to 100 feet for on-site disposal systems in relation to impoundments and streams." Mr.~B~ll Howard was present to represent Mr. Frank A. Kessler and read the following prepared statement. "Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors: I thank you for investigating the feasibility of changing the 200 foot distance line from septic fields and streams in our subdivisions. As you probably remember during the planning of Windsor S/D we found the 200 feet to be over restrictive and forced poor planning, that is to say forcing the septic to be on high land and well to be on low land for distance require- ments only. I was told at that time, that you would be reconsidering the 200 foot distance line in the future. I commend you for doing so tonight. I hope that this board will consider that the 100 foot distance to be adequate for Albemarle County rather than the excessive 200 foot distance. Thank you for your consideration." Mr. Preston Stallings was present. He said amending the ordinance will free up a lot of land that cannot be built on. Since the 200-foot setback is not necessary, he asked that it be reduced to 100-feet. Mrs. Treva Cromwell said she was present representing the League of Women Voters. asked if any input had been sought from the City's staff and elected officials, because this change will have an impact on the City's water supply. She said the League is in opposition to the change and read the following prepared statement: She "The League of Women Voters has expressed to you its fears that reducing the requirement of distances from stream beds to septic drainfields from 200 feet to 100 feet may pose a threat to ~urface waters that feed the reservoir. If the many septic, syst~ems in the county were all constructed and maintained properly, and if all the' soils and subsurface areas were suitable for good-drain- age, we would not be so~'c0n~cerned. But septic systems have obvioUsly failed in ~ the past, as residents of ~essi'an. Hills ~and. some areas of Carrsbrook~ for instance, can testify, despita'the~is0~-call'ed expertise in locatingthe drainfields. 'The James Riv'er 'Basin~Rep~rt ~cit~d s~e.epage~from overloaded septic drainfi~Ids as one of the sources of pollution' in th~ Rivanna wa'tershed. How long and how well a septic system works depends, in part, upon the absorption capacity of the soil. The effluent must be absorbed and filtered by the soil, otherwise unfiltered sewage may reach the surface or contaminate the groundwater. There are many reasons why absorption fields fail besides slow absorption. The soil cover may be too thin; the l~nd may be too steep; there is a high water table; there is only a shallow layer of soil over bedrock. There is hardpan just below the trench area. It seems the "experts" do not agree what is a safe distance between drain- fields and surface waters. According to EP~ data, several states have a 100 foot sebback, but the range, is all. the way from 25 feet to 300 feet. And we note that standards are 'often hedged with recommendations to consider other factors that we have mentioned. We have seen and heard of the opinions of people as to what they thi~nk a safe distance to be. But we have not seen the technical evidence that proves that 100 feet is a ~afe distance. For that matter, we don't have proof that 200 feet is a safe distance but it seems to us that it stands to reason that the extra 100 feet will permit a greater opportunity for the effluent to be filtered by the soil either as it leaches through the ground or flows over the surface. We wanted to see just how. far 100 feet would be, so we measured the Court House the other day and di'scovered that it is 100 feet from the back of this room to the bottom of the 'front steps of thi's building. Or, to put it another way, if you stand on the 33 yard line of a football field, it is only 100 feet (99~ to the goal. September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) "THat short a distance is not acceptable to those of us who place a high priority on protecting the waters that feed the reser¥oir. There is simply too much risk involved. Implementation of the more stringent water supply provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act will make it even more imperative to assure that developments in the Rivanna watershed be consistent with protecting the Reservoir. A~ much as we recognize the desires of landowners to obtain the maximum profit from developing as many lots as possible, we also recognize that some private uses of land are incompatible with the natural processes for maintain- ing an adequate supply of water. Placing septic drainfields only 100 feet away from the sources of the drinking water of the thouSands of citizens in Charlottesville and Albemarle County is one of those uses. We need designs for environmentally sound--probably less intensive--develop- ments that do not ~hreaten the water quality of our streams. Therefore, we urge you to main'tain the 200 foot setback." Treva Cromwell, Chair, Water Quality Susie Sherwood, President" Mr. Robert Humphris said the track record of the County on sewage problems in not good. Several years ago he called several cities that have lakes and most allow no building in those watersheds. He would be in favor of increasing the setback instead of lowering same. Mr. Morris Chisholm said he lives west of the Airport on a farm. The restriction on the setback reduces the number of farm ponds being built in the County. He felt this is bad because the ponds help stop sedimentation, therefore he felt the setback should be reduced. With no one else rising to speak for. or against the proposed amendments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher said he was reluctant to see any change made which may endanger the public in any way now or in the future. He is concerned about this change because no one knows what happens to the effluent fr~o'm drainfields as it travels through the ground. The State has set arbitrary numbers on separations of distances, basically, that a well, septic tank and drainfield should be separated by 100 feet. That has been the standard for a mumber of years. On that basis, the Board has before it an amendment to the ordinance to make it conform to the standards set by the State. Mr. Lindstrom said no concrete justification for the 200-foot separation has come forth from anyone during the past months. The purpose of the ordinance is to protect the reservoi~ and if it does more than the Board can scientifically justify, they are treading on thin ice. It is of benefit to all that the ordinance be as strong as it can be, as defensible as it can be, and as scientifically supportable as it can be. Mr. Lindstrom said he is re- luctant to change the ordinance, but can see no alternative because the Board has been given no real basis to support the 200-foot separation which originally came from State require- ments and has now been changed. Mr. Lindstrom.said he is concerned with the language of the ordinance, particularly the definition of tributary stream, and Section 19.1-6(2). He said the Board needs to define the water's edge in some way. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that there is no scientific~e¥idence to justify the 200-foot setback. He said until he sees such evidence, he feels tbat~in a sense the Board is being confiscatory, so he does plan to support the amendment. Dr. Iachetta said in his district there are two major subdivisions which have a long history of sewage disposal problems. Also in addressing the 200 or 100 lineal foot setback from the edge of the stream or impoundment for a leach field, there is no mention of the slope of the ground in which that leach field will be placed. Dr. Iachetta said he had asked himself hoW the state r~gulations were drafted to begin with. In most ca~e~ they were designed for a society which was rural, where the land ~as~agricultural, and~there was one dwelling on a farm and not one dwelling for' each acre, or each One-half acre. For that reason he is inclined to leave the ordinance as it is, preferring to err on the side of caution at this point. Mr. Do~rier asked if the problem in the subdivision mentioned by Dr. Iachetta is the fact that the ground itself is unsuitable for septic fields, and not the 100-foot setback. Dr. Iachetta said one of the techniques proposed to control runoff is to use certain kinds of grasses or absorbent materials on top of the ground, and he feels it is much better to have 200 feet to run over. Mr. Henley said one of the biggest problems in the reservoir is phosphates. Howe~er phosphates do not move in the soil, therefore unless some bubbles to the top of the ground there should be no problem, and he will support the 100-foot setback since he feels it is sufficient. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board was not addressing the problem of failing septic systems. He did not think any ordinance will protect the water unless all residential uses ar~ banned in the watershed itself. Mr. Roudabush agreed that the Board was not addressing the problem of failing septic systems. He said the Board has taken its time and gotten the best advice available as to whether this change should be made. He is concerned about the pro? vision under 19.1-~(2) and has a suggestion on how that can be handled, but will basically support the amendment. Mr. Linds~rom said he had drafted some rough language to deal with 19.1-6(2)/~but was not sure if engineering wise it is functional. He then read: "Within 100 horizontal feet of the edge of any definable streambed, or 150-feet from the centerline of any intermittent or other stream with no definable streambed." Mr. Fisher said the wor~ "tributary stream" is used to de~ine not only directly flowing bodies, but also lakes and ponds, and other bodies of water. If the definition is narrowed to only flowing streams, that is a change from what has been proposed. Mr. Dorrier suggested that the language be amended to just read: "Within 100 horizontal feet of the edge of. any t~butary stream", and strike the remainder of that paragraph. Mr. St. John said that change would delete Mr. Bailey's idea × September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) of encouraging people to build ponds on existing stre~ms. Mr. Henley suggested 100 feet from streams and 50 feet from any lake or pond. Mr. Bailey said that was the language originally proposed. Mr. Fisher said he did not believe the Board could distinguish between one body of water and another body of water in the watershed. If a standard is to be made for a setback, it should be uniform. Mr. Lindstrom said his only ~roblem is that the edge of a stream is not as easily ascertainable as is the edge of a pond since a stream may fluctuate. Dr. Iachetta noted that he has been serving on a State committee for S~il Conservation Service, writing a new handbook for runoff control procedures. He has found that a sediment pond may Work against you if left for an indefinite period of time. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel comfortable with the language because it sets two sets of standards. Mr. Dorrier said it also encourages the building of ponds. At 8:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested a recess. The Board reconvened at 8:55 P.M. and Mr. Fisher said about fifteen different proposals were drafted during the recess. Mr. Roudabush said it was difficult to draft any reasonable language on short notice, therefore, he would offer motion to amend and reenact Section 19.1-5 and 19.1-6 of the Albemarle County Code as presented, changing Section 19.1~6(2) to read: "Within 100 horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream", striking the remainder of the language in that paragraph. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out below:) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 19.1, ARTICLE II, PROTECTION OF PUBLIC DRINKING WATER, IN SECTIONS 19.1-5 and 19.1-6 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Code, Chapter 19.1, Article II, Protection of Public Drinking Water, be, and it hereby is, amended in sections [9.1-5 and 19.1-6 as follows: Section 19.1-5. Definitions. Tributary stream. Any perennial or intermittent stream, including any lake, pond or other body of water formed therefrom or thereon, flowing, whether directly or indirectly, into any impoundment. Section 19.1-6. Runoff control peE~its - Required for devel'opment. (a) Except as otherwise herein expressly provided, it shall be'Unlawful for any person to engage in any development which is otherwise permitted by law in the watershed of any impoundment until a runoff control permit for such development shall have been issued by the runoff control official pursuant to this article. It shall thereafter be unlawful for any person willfully to fail to conform to the provisions of such permit in carrying out such development. (al) Except as herein otherwise expressly provided, it shall also be unlaw- ful for any person to construct any sewage disposal system any part of which lies within the limits prescribed in this section, as follows: (1) Within one hundred horizontal feet of the edge of any impoundment at normal pool; or (2) Within one hUndred horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream. The foregoing notwithstanding, in the event that the runoff control official shall determine that it would be impracticable to construct a lawful sewage disposal system on any parcel of land of record at the time of the adoption of this ordinance except within the limits hereinabove prescribed, the runoff control official may authorize the construction of such a system upon such terms as he may determine to be necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare and upon the approval of the Virginia Department of Health. For purposes of this section, the construction of a sewage disposal system shall be deemed impracticable in any case in which to construct such a system without the limits prescribed hereinabove would (1) be physi2ally impossible within the geometric limits of such lot or parcel, (2) require the pumping of effluent, or (3) require the construction of such system on soils found to be unacceptable by the Virginia Department of Health for such construction. (e)(2) The insaallation, repair, replacement, enlargement oF modification of any water supply or sewage disposal system serving not more than two dwelling units; provided that no such sewage disposal system, or part thereof, shall be located within the limits prescribed in subsection (al) hereof.' Mr. Roudabush said a number of plats have gone to record with the 200 foot septic setback line. He asked if there were any way this could be changed. Mr. St. John said the ordinance cannot be made retroactive to the plats which have been processed under this ordinance. However, those same plats could be refiled for approval. Mr. Roudabush said he was concerned that a~ll of these lots are not now held by the original applicant. Some have been sold and it would not be possible for all of the~e people to come back and ask 425 September 13, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) for re,approval. He then offered motion that the Board of Supervisors adopt a motion of intent that all lots previously approved under the 200-foot setback requirement are subject to the terms for~this ordinance and upon application to the Planning Commission, those setback lines will be revi~ed. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel a motion was needed; the staff could investigate and make a report to the Board on this matter at another meeting. At this time, Mr. Roudabush withdrew his motion. Not Docketed: Mr. Dorrier offered motion to appoint Mr. Englar Feggans, a resident of Esmont, to replace Mr. Edgar ?aige as a member of the Albemarle County Welfare Board, for a term which will expire on June 30, 1982. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAY'S: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter from the Membership Committee for Planning District X of the Area Manpower Planning Council, which stated that the Board of Supervisors could have two delegates serve on this council. He recommended that Mrs. Martha Hammett be changed from an alternate, to a delegate. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by, the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 23. At 9:04 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn this meeting until September 20, 1978, at 2:00 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, Lindstro.m and Roudabush. None.