Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-08-17AAugust 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 10, 1977) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 17, 1977, beginning at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 10, 1977. Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Attorney. Guy B. Agnor, Jr'., County Executive and Frederick W. Payne, Deputy Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that the Board had been served with copies of Central Telephone Company of Virginia's order application from the State Corporation Commission on new rates. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion of Reservoir Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said this was a continuation of a work session on the runoff control ordinance. The Board is not to discuss the text of the ordinance, but to pursue alternatives available, either through County, Rivanna or Albemarle County Service Authority staff, on ways to implement the procedures in the new ordinance. Mr. Agnor said after receiving the ordinance last week, the staff held several meet- ings on implementation procedures. Once the ordinance is adopted, it is important to have the runoff control official mn place so he can immediately begin his responsibilities under the ordinance. Staff memtings have included persons from the County Engineer's Office, the Planning Office, the Inspections Office, the County Attorney's Office, the City of Charlottesville and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. It was the opinion of this group that the runoff control official must be a certified licensed engineer, principally because he will be reviewing plans that most likely will be the product of a professional engineer in design work. This group also discussed whether the engineer would be employed by the Rivanna Authority or the County. It is recommended that this person be employed by the County for several reasons: 1) The County has an engineering staff comprised of four engineering graduates, two with professional licenses and a third in the process of obtain- ing a license. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, the County Engineer, believes that the present staff has the capability of examinmng the runoff control measures designed by someone in the field of engineering. 2) Review procedures for soil erosion are interrelated and tied to runoff control. Soil erosion is currently reviewed by the engineering staff and, because of the similarity, it would be advantageous to keep this review in the same operation. 3) The County staff presently reviews all planning activities (site plans, subdivisions and developments), and it is important to make review procedures as responsive and effective as possible. This group believes that this relationship would be better maintain- ed if it remains a County function. It is also recommended that the costs associated with this review be tracked and billed to the Rivanna Authority so these costs will ultimately be paid by the water consumers. Mr. Agnor said if these recommendations are acceptable to the Board, the County will be ready to undertake these responsibilities when the ordinance is adopted without hiring additional staff. Another a~peet of the ordinance is enforcement. BY law, enforcement is the County's responsibility. Once a plan has been reviewed and the ~rmit issued, it is important that an inspection procedure be followed to see that the facilities are constructed as planned. Currently, the County has three soil erosion in- spectors. There are also inspectors in the inspections department, and the staff believes the inspection procedure required to follow through on these plans can be borne by the inspections department using existing personnel. However, the inspections procedure for the proposed facilities will go beyond the construction period. It will not only require inspection procedures to see that the facilities continue to function, but will require maintenance responsibilities. The staff discussed whether these maintenance responsibilities should lay in the private sector or be borne by the public sectom. As an example, when developments with utilities are installed, the cost is borne through the County to the developer. However, once completed, and after one year of operation, the facilities then become the responsibility of the utility. The staff believes these runoff control facilities should have the same relationship. The facilities would be built and paid for as the development occurs, be bonded during the necessary period of time for construction, further bonded in terms of their continuing operation for a period of one year, and at the end of that year the staff does not believe the individual owners can be relied on to maintain these facilities with any success. Therefore, the staff is recommending that the maintenance be borne by the County through existing personnel but the cost be tracked and charged back through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority so the water consumers pay for ~he continuing maintenance and operation of these facilities. The only other alternative would be for the private homeowners associations, commercial lot owners, and their successors, be continually responsible for these filtering ~functions. A bond would be required so in the event these people did not meet their responsibilities there would be funds available for the County to use to maintain the facilities with the cost then being recovered through litigation. This whole process would be difficult, awkward, and unreliable. For this reason, the staff recommends that maintenance and operation, after one year, be the responsibility of the County. Mr. Agnor said the County Attorney has recommended that ~this ordinance and the~ soil ero~ion ordinance no~ be tied together ~egally. For one reason, the soil erosion ordinance has its foundation and basis in Virginia law which is very sound. It has been tried in Court and is universally applied in the State of Virginia. The runoff control ordinance does not have that foundation, and has not had its trial either. There is one other item which needs to be discussed. The staff feels that an appeal procedure is needed, but in most cases this would be very technical. The staff felt it would be awkward for the Board. to rule on the validity of a determination made by the runoff control officer, so they are recommending the Board consider an appeal procedure before a citizen appointed board of technical people who would be versed in all aspects of engineering. August 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 10, 1977) Mr. Fisher said he would like to recognize that Mayor Nancy O'Brien and Mr. Francis Fife were present. He asked if she would like to speak to the Board. Mayor 0'Brien said the suggestion from City Council that the cost of this program be borne jointly by the City and the County was made so there would be a joint look at regulations and joint responsi- bility. Mayor O'Brien said she believes responsibility for protection of the reservoir is a City/County matter, but she has problems philosophically with what Mr. Agnor has proposed~ specifically, having the maintenance cost borne by the water users. She feels that the polluters must also bear some cost, and she felt that should be addressed in some part of the ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked if the staff had taken a detailed look at setting up the ihspections procedure through the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor said no; principally because of the resistance to this concept that was expressed by the Rivanna Board. County representatives on that board had asked if the Rivanna would consider taking on the responsibility for review of plans and, monitoring of the facilities. The Rivanna Board felt review of the design for runoff control measures was an enforcement aspect in the County ordinance, and the County itself should bear that responsibility. After facilities are in p!aee and operating, the Rivanna Authority, through its own monitoring and laboratory capabilities could serve a continuing responsibility to see that the facilities are functioning as they were designed. Mrs. David said she would like to see the soil erosion and runoff control ordinance kept as close as possible because she still feels that they are the same in a lot of ways. Mr. Fisher asked how adequate communication Would be maintained between the engineering and the inspections department if the staff's recommendation is put into place. Mr. Agnor said it would be very simiil~ar to the way it is presently done on soil erosion permits and reviews. Mr. Agnor said the staff has discussed the oddity of tying soil erosmon to zoning. In time, he may recommend to the Board that the organizational structure be changed to put the soil erosmon responsibilities in the engineering department. Mrs. David referred to a point brought up by Mayor 0'Brien about polluters being re- quired to bear some of the burden. She asked if the location at which monitoring takes place will give the staff information on how to handle that. Mr. Agnor said the staff does not feel that a specific site or specific facilities will be monitored, but that the stream through which the pollution is discharged would be monitored upstream and downstream from the facilities. This would certainly pinpoint a polluter, but the polluter may not be aware that pollution is going on and, in fact, it might come from facilities which are not functioning. Mayor 0'Brien feels it is the responsibility Of the person owning the facilities to see that they are functioning. The staff sees this as a difficult problem since the County might be dealing with 150 different owners in a subdivision. Mrs. David asked what could be done about individual residents that may turn out to be a source of pollution. Mr. Agnor said there are provisions in theproposed ordinance which require correction to be made of known pollution sources, but the ordinance is written so the corrections will be made by the County and then the cost incurred will be recovered. How- ever, Mr. Agnor said he was not sure that the actual polluters will be paying this cost. He feels the cost will come from the public treasury. Mr. Roudabush said unless a person takes some act that brings him into the scope of the ordinance, he is not bound by it, so there would not be a lot the County could do even if they knew where the pollution was taking place. Mr. Fisher said what has been proposed for continuing maintenance is that people on the staff actually perform those things that are necessary to reduce pollution and erosion on certain sites. He asked about other existing sources of erosion that require work, such as sediment pmnds that wash out. Mr. Agnor said that may come as an overall part of the watershed management plan, but initially, will not be addressed in this ordinance. This ordinance speaks only of those facilities that will be constructed as a result of issuance of permits. Something that is already existing and may be polluting will be a part of the watershed management plan and correction of those matters will be addressed in that plan. Mr. Fisher said that was the Mayor's question. Where does the property owner stop being responsible for the problems that he is creating for the public, and the public then become responsible for the problems. That is the key question. Mr. Agnor said he feels the. responsibility will start and stop at the point where.-the facilities have been licensed, or permits issued by the County. Correction of anything that existed prior to that permit, or exists without any licensing procedure on the part of the County, would be borne by the present owners. Mr. Agnor said after plans are approved and the runoff control facilities are in place, the County will askcfor a recorded ingress and egress to the property so that any subsequent owner will be aware of the fact that something built some years ago is to function in a certain way and the County has a right to come on the property and inspect the facilities, and if ~necessary to repair them. Mr. Fisher said he can understand this if the facility is a sediment pond or a treatment facility, however, it is somewhat harder to understand if Mr. Agnor is talking about a grassy swale. Mr. Agnor drew several parallels, such as the way the Highway Department maintains its ditches on highway right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said the Betz report stated that the Highway Department should take steps to correct erosion on their rights-of-way and requested that a copy of the report be sent to the Highway Department for their comments. Mr. Do,tier asked 'if Mr. Agnor was suggesting that this easement be recorded with the deed and be noted in the survey. Mr. Agnor said yes. In approval of the plans and issuance of the permit, this would be specified in much the same way as drainage easements are re- corded for the Highway Department. Mr. Roudabush said if these facilities are to be considered as public structures, should there be any penalty for negligent damage. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Payne has discussed preparing such an amendment to the ordinance. Dr. Iachetta said he has a pDoblem in trying to identify the polluter after eonstructio~ is completed. He does not agree in principal with the idea of taxing polluters as a way of abating pollution. He said it becomes a gray area when the individual responsibility of the developer is completed and the facility becomes the responsibility of the public. August 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned frOm August 10, 1977) Dr. Iaehetta asked if he were interpreting Mr. Agnor's comments correctly to mean that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is not willing to do any reviews or not willing to be advisers to the County. Mr. Agnor said no, they would like to be involved inCthe review process of the application, but they see enforcement of~the ordinance as the County's responsibilities. Also, they would have to hire additional staff. In the beginning of the program, this work can be absorbed by the County with its present staff and would be a savings in cost. Dr. Iaehetta said the problem is that the County is entering an area where technology is ill-defined. Initially the County will be dealing with a situation where they are essentially doing research. The Board will be asking Mr. Bailey and his staff to do that which no one has ever done before and the people who are responsible for the water may have as much or more expertise than the County. Mrs'. David said the Board is only talking now about one very small part of the problem; that of controlling storm water runoff. 'This ordinance does not address _- ~ pollution from agriculture, impervious surfaces, etc. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Once this ordinance is adopted, there will be time to work on a total watershed management plan. Mrs. David said she realizes the City Council would like to work on this problem with the Board, and wondered if it was not desirable to appoint an advisory body to o~erview this procedure. Mr. Fisher said he invited the Mayor today because he knew of the City's interest and he is trying to keep communication open during this work on the ordinance. However, the Board has not decided what such a committee would do. Mr. Fisher said it is important that the Board come to some conclusion as to the personnel which will be used in implementation of this ordinance. He feels that for purposes of drafting an ordinance, the Board should proceed with Mr. Agnor's recommendation. It does not solve all of the problems, but probably is a good starting point. Mr. Agnor said the staff will continue with the drafting of the ordinance, drafting a description of runoff control administrative procedures, and drafting a job description for the runoff control official. Mr. rayne has also recommended the drafting of a contract with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for the financial aspects of the program. Mrs. David said the draft ordinance does not seem to require many changes. Mr. Agnor said it will require changes if the Board wants to provide for public responsibility for continued maintenance of the facilities. Maintenance provisions may be worded on an optional basis because the developer may choose to continue the responsibility of these facilities rather than dedicating them to public use. Mr. Fisher asked if it were the feeling of the Board that the staff should be instructed to deal with the recommendations that have been heard today from Mr. Agnor. Motion to this effect was made'by Mrs. David, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta asked the scheduled completion date of the Board's work on this ordinance. Mr. Fisher said the Board is to receive from Betz, on or before Wednesday September 7, the appendices. That is about the last date that the Board can order an advertisement and meet the September deadline. Since the Board had already scheduled 4:00 P.M. on September 7 for a meeting about highways, this subject could be scheduled earlier that date. Mr. Agnor said Mr. D. B. Hope, District Engineer, will not be available that date. Mr. Fisher said this will give the Board more flexibility on time. Mr. Eugene Potter of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was present. He said he feels that their working relationship with the County Engineer's Office is such that ~ere will be a good cooperation if the Rivanna Authority monitors specific features and determines that they do or do not work. It is through this type of combined operation that the offices will be able to achieve what the Board is looking for on the long-term. He said he believes Mr. Agnor has adequately reflected the discussion that went on at the Rivanna Board meeting, and that the Board members felt the Cbunty was adequately staffed to do the task. Mr. Francis Fife said he appreciated the Board trying to work out this problem on a joint City/County basis. He said if the City had required more from developers in the past, they would not be faced with as many storm water problems as they presently have. In spite of what Mr. Agnor has said, he feels everything should be done to see that developers put in these controls so the cost does not fall on the public. Mr. Fisher said the Board had received today a report on alternative water supply source~ and he asked Mr. Agnor to outline this report. Mr. Agnor said he had already planned to have this on the September 14th agenda. Mr. Fisher said he felt this report was important because one of the alternatives that was discussed was whether or not the Rivanna Reservoir should be eliminated. The recommendations in this report do not include that as a high priority, there- fore, it becomes more important that the County and City continue efforts to preserve the Reservoir as long as possible. At 2:48 P.M. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 3:03 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session: Comprehensive Plan. Mr.~ Fisher said the Board would continue receiving comments and recommendations from the Planning Commission. August 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 10, 1977) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Director of Planning, was present and again took up the memoran- dums dated July 21 and July 19, 1977. 10. Emphasize the importance of food and ~ibre production for local consumption. Mr. Tucker said observations with respect to this suggestion were as follows: a) Implementation by education and incentive are appropriate; b) A viable local market must be developed or its existence demonstrated to stimulate such activity; c) Local consumption of local food and fibre is important to energy conservation in terms of reduced energy consumption and transportation and storage; d) While this should be stated in the Comprehensive Plan, responsibility for implementation should rest with the various local, state and Federal agriculturally- related agencies. Goals and objectives of the County should be supportive and supplement, where appropriate, plans and programs of these agencies. Mr. Tucker said the staff had recommended the following objective to be added to the proposed agricultural objectives: "encourage local consumption of County food and fibre to stimulate local agriculture, promote County self-reliance and reduce energy consumption in- volved in importation and storage of non-local products!'. Mr. Tucker said the consultants had suggested changing the word consumption in the proposed objective to read production. After reviewing this, the Planning Commission thought it might be i~ractical, but they did feel it was important and so stated for the record. They, however, did not feel strong enough to make it an amendment to the agricultural objectives, and therefore took no action. 11. Industrial site in the southern part of the County. Identification of such site is appropriate work for the various task forces proposed by KDA as a part of the on-going monitoring/evaluation and future study ele- ment of the plan. Industrial sites are generally controversial and staff opinion is that selection of site areas is most appropriate by residents of the area. The staff proposed two sites in the event thiS~task force concept is not pursued. Both sites are in the area of existing industrial development and are proposed as logical expansion reclamation. 1) Uni-Royal Area. Because of the extensive flood plain of the James River, the staff does not endorse recognition of the entire existing Uni-Royal site. Expansion of industrial development in this area is proposed northward to Route 726. 2) Red Hill Area. Recognize the existing quarry and related industrial development. Upon termination of quarry use, and provided extensive below grade excavation has not ~ccurred, this property could be reclaimed for other intensive industrial uses as it is zoned M-2 Industrial General. Dr. Iaehetta asked how utilities would be provided to the Red Hill area. Mr. Tucker said it might have to be some type of industrial use that would not necessarily need a sub- stantial amount of utilities. Mr. Fisher said he could see no reason to do this if there is nothing in the Plan for providing water and sewerage to that area. The one in Seottsville does make sense because there are at least utilities there. Mr. Tucker said the staff's main intent was to recognize the existing facility, basically because of the railroad siding. They agree that probably nothing will change during this planning period. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission took no action on the staff's request. 12. Consider a lower density for the site of the proposed elderly housing in the Crozet area. Mr. Tucker said this property is recommended for high- density residential use. Commercial use and medium-density residential uses are proposed to the east across Route 240. Low-density residential use to the north and the school complex to the south is recognized. Slabtown Branch Valley is recommended for conservation and recreation use. At the recent public hearing, concern was expressed over any~further develop- ment along Route 240 until improvement is made to that roadway. Since the Comprehensive Plan is long-range, the staff had no objection to proposals for more intensive land uses along Route 240 than presently exist. Roadway safety conditions should, however, be considered with rezoning requests. With the exception of areas adjacent to the central commercial area of Crozet, this is the only area proposed for high-density residential use. Historically, resistance to commercial development has been great from low-density residential areas. Since commercial development is proposed across Route 240, the staff recnmmends the medium-density residential use to replace the high-density use currently shown on the map. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had voted to change the proposed high-density area as shown on the west side of Route 240 to low-density, in order to reflect the Board of Supervisors action on the recent proposal for housing for the elderly. 13. A program of action should be developed and adopted as an amendment to the plan following adoption of the plan by the Board of Supervisors. The monitoring evaluation program and task force elements proposed by KDA could be incorporated in such a program. Mr. Tucker said throughout the public hear- ing process, thought should be given to the effectuation of the goals and objectives of the plan in terms of the County's capability. Capabilities in this context include physical, social and manpower considerations. Physical and social consideration should govern the scope and staging of the program. August 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 10, 1977) Implementation will, in part, be based on therCounty's willingness and capability to pay, both in terms of money and socially· A plan generally proceeds only at a pace which is socially acceptable, re- quiring public education and ~ooperation. In terms of manpower, the program should be paced to exmsting~~iVn. Thms is simply the and effort capabilities of the Board of Supervisors. Plannin~ Commission County Staff and other agencies measured against such inet·ales required' by the program of action. The program of action in the Plan should be generalized. Such elements as the proposed monitoring evaluation program and task force concept should not be included in the Plan in order to permit continuous reevaluation and modification of the program of action without the necessity of amending the Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did concur with what he had said, but they did not recommend that a program of action be adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan. Basic- ally they felt this should be a separate document. Mrs. David said this suggestion had come persistently from one or two members of the citizen's panel. They related this back to the old Comprehensive Plan, which had a similar proposal. The fact that there will be continuous monitoring in the implementation program ms going to assure that some milestones are established to measure how far the County ha~ proceeded. In that suggestion, she supports the staff's and the Planning Commissinn's view. Mr. Tucker said that was the end of the comments and suggestions that the public had made, however, several other things were brought up at Planning Commission meetings which the Planning Commission did take action on. Remove the commercial land use proposed on the southeast quadrant of Route 240 and Tabor Street and replace that with low-density residential in order to retain the existing residential character of the area. .Remove the medium-density residential shown northwest of Montvue and re- place with low-density residential. Mr. Tucker said he believes the consultants made a mistake. He has discussed this with them and they have no answer as to why it was included on the map. Shift the high-density residential shown on the north side of Barracks Road in an easterly direction in order to be nearer Georgetown Road. Mr. Tucker said this high-density is on the map to reflect 01d Salem Apartments. The location was a little out of place on the map and should be moved down further toward Georgetown Road where the actual location is. The Planning Commission has agreed. Delete the proposed village of Lower Afton from the Plan. Mr. Tucker said this is what is actually referred to as Newtown, and there is a feeling on the part of the Commission that this area will not expand and they did not feel it should be recognized as a Type 2 village. Mr. Tucker said that is the end of the recommendations from the Planning Commission, but there were a couple of other things that the Planning Commission discussed. Montague-Miller, Incorporated has written a letter requesting the Commission and the Board of Supervisors to consider the area of the Montague-Miller~tract, which is in the southeast quadrant of Rio Road and Route 29, as commercial. The existing Comprehensive Plan recognizes this parcel as commercial. The proposed Comprehensive Plan shows it as high-density residential. At the time the consultants were working on the Plan, the Fashion Mall Shopping Center was to be built in the City and the consultants~did not feel this area could support two major commer- cial areas in such close proximity. That is the main reason why it was not recognized. The other three quadrants at this corner are recognized as commercial. Mr. Fisher said he had difficulty in showing this parcel on the map at a different zon- ing than its actual zoning. Mr Tucker said the Planning Commission also had concerns ~bout this but took no action to change it from what is shown on the map. Mr. Fisher said the Board cannot make any changes before the public hearing and asked if Mr. Tucker had any further recommendations. Mr.' Tucker said he had received a letter from the residents in the North Garden area asking that the Crossroads Village name be changed to North Garden. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Dorrier had asked why Scottsville was designated as a village rather than a community. He would like to also recognize that Mayor Thacker was present. Mr. Dottier said he would recommend to the Board of Supervisors that Scottsville retain its designation as a community rather than a ~illage. He gave several reasons for this re- commendation. Most critical of all is the fact that the 6itizens Want it this way. Since the plan is to reflect the wishes of the citizens, he feels this is a compelling reason. The Town and the outlying areas are served by water and sewer. Presently there are some 480 persons served by utilities. August 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned frmm August 10, 1977) There is a significant amount of business in the area. Gross sales receipts in the Town of Scottsville for 1975-76 amounted to $3,146,865.70. In the immediate area outside of the Town, for 1976 there was an additional $2,820,765. There are two elementary schools, a regional library, a fire department, a rescue squad, a poSt office, two banks and other organizations in the town and surrounding area. Mr. Dottier said he had presented this to the Town Council on Monday night and they had unanimously adopted a resolution requesting that the area be designated as a community. Mr. Fisher said what Mr. Dorrier had said is valid and the Board will have to consider this re- quest after the public hearing. Mrs. David said she would like for the Board to consider the possibility of simply changing the category which is now called "Villages" to "Towns and Villages". The criteria used for determining villages and communities is the scale of the area, so putting Seotts- ville on a par with a community would be just as out of character as calling it a village. Mr. Tucker said the consultants were looking at utilities and potential growth factors in making these designations. They did not feel Scottsville has the opportunity for any substantial' growth during this planning period. Past trends in Scottsville have shown that the population is declining. Mr. Dorrier said Scottsville now has a flood management plan and he feels the area will grow. Mr. Fisher said this question cannot be resolved today· Mr. Fisher said he has heard that there is no interest on the part of the County in locating and identifying historic areas. Mr. Tucker said during work on the proposed zoning ordinance, persons owning historic properties were sent a copy of the ordinance. There was major dissatisfaction expressed, particularly the fact that anything done within the district is subject to review by an architectural review board. Persons adjacent to these districts were also dissatisfied because the regulations took in one-quarter mile around the perimeter of the district. Mr. Fisher said maybe this concept should be reactivated without the architectumal review board or without infringing as heavily on surrounding properties. Mr. Fisher said when Mrs. Schatz of the City Planning Commission was present two weeks ago, she mentioned that City Council was going to make comments on the County's Plan. Mr. Fife said City Council will discuss the City Planning Commission's recommendations next Monday night, but in the meantime he would present a copy of their memo to City Council dated August ~th. Mrs. David said some members of the Planning Commission were concerned that the Plan contains two levels of densities; one for the urban area and another for the rural area. Mr. Fisher said he had a problem because different definitions are used for the same words in the same document. He felt the language could be improved so it is more easily understood by the layman. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to advertise for a public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan on September 8, 1977, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said Mayor Thacker had asked him a question about the County's Soil Erosion Ordinance applying within the Town limits of Scottsville. He had replied by letter. Mayor Thacker said the Town has adopted a soil erosion ordinance like the one re- commended by the State. Mr. Agnor said the Board has been concerned about water supplies during present drought conditions. There are no problems at Beaver Creek or Totier Creek water impoundments. The North Rivanna Plant whi~.h has been operating only four hours a week has a capability of treating 2 M.G.D., so there is a supply which ms not being utilized. It was recently noted by the news media that the South Rivanna ReservOir has only a 112 day supply. Mr. Agnor said even when the South Rivanna is full, it contains only a 189 day supply so there is considerable time before conservation measures must be taken. The Rivanna Board directed its staff to continue monitoring the South Rivanna and making calculations as to the supply remaining. Mr. Agnor said the news media spoke mostly of the storage area at the dam, but with a 250 square mile watershed area, some rainfall is being received from the mountains and higher elevations. Mr. Agnor noted that Dr. Richard Prindle is the new Director of the Thomas Jefferson Reginnal Health Department. August 17, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from August 10, 1977) Mr. Agnor noted receipt of the annual report of the Piedmont Virginia Community College. Mr. Agnor said the County has received notification, and a check for anti-reeesslon funds, from the Federal government for the quarter beginning[July 1 in the amount of $16,407. Strict guidelines are attached to the expenditure of these funds which are to be used for employment purposes. At the same t~me, the County has been requested to apply for additional CETA positions for the period 0etober 1, 1977 to September 30, 1978. Mr. Agnor said an additional well was recently connected to the Meriwether Hills water system. However, the agreement does not terminate with this connection. The agreement terminates when adequate service is provided the 102 units covered by same. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Peter Daly had submitted his resignation as Housing Coordinator effective yesterday. Mr. Daly will be attending Law School in Washington, D. C. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept Mr. Daly's resignation and authorizing the Chairman to send a letter of appreciation from the Board. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iaehetta and Roudabus~. None. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Kelly Reynolds, Fire Marshal;.,had submitted his resignation effective September 19. Mr. Reynolds has accepted employment in Chicago with the BOCA Board. Motion to accept Mr. Reynold's resignation and to send a letter of appreciation was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said he may bring a recommendation for a change in job responsibilities of the Fire Marshal when his replacement is made. Mr. Agnor said that Mr. Tom Eaton has asked to be relieved of his duties as Director of Parks and Recreation and to return to his old position in the Parks. His resignation is to be effective upon the date of his replacement. Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that Mr. Eaton be appointed as Acting Parks Director until such time. Motion to accept Mr. Eaton's resignation effective August 17, 1977, and appointing him as Acting Director of Parks and Recreation, was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta 'and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Agnor said the County had recently solicited bids' for the operation of the Keene Landfill. The low ~dder was Stuart Tapscott with a monthly cost of $2,949. Mr. Agnor said he had already accepted the bid and asked forI the Boerd's concurrence. Motion to authorize the County Executive to accept this bid on behalf of the County was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David,, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mrs. David mentioned an article which was recently in the Civil Digest on the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Fisher asked that this Act, and the Privacy Protection Act, be included on the agenda of September 14 for-discuss~n.~ ~ ~ At 5:00 P.M., the meeting which began at 1:~0 P.~. was adjourned.