Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-09-28September 21, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) September 28, 1977 [Adjourned from September 21, 1977) It was suggested by Mr. Fisher. that the Albemarle County Service Authority be informed about the concerns the Board has on the extension of water lines and jurisdictional boundaries for this property, and that they be invited to meet with the Board on that date to discuss same. Mr. Fisher noted that it would be a public meeting, not a public hearing. Roll was called, and motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher then requested the staff to contact the Service Authority, and review with them the possibilities of extending their coverage into this area. Recommendations would be solicited at the October $th meeting. Not Docketed: Mr~ Fisher noted receipt of a letter from the Chairman of the Economic Development Commission indicating a public meeting will be held on October 6, 1977, at 7:80 P.M. at the Gordon Avenue Public Library. The meeting, requested by the County and City governments, is being held to explain the purpose of the Commission, and to allow the public the opportunity to voice their wishes. He requested copies of the letter be sent to members of the Industrial Development Authority, Mr. Fisher noted receipt of an application by the Potomac Edison Power Company for an increase in rates; hearing to be held in Winchester on Thursday October 3, 1977. Mr. Fisher said he had received notice from the Division of Legislative Services that the State is considering eliminating some railroad crossings which are "little used and of danger to the traveling public!'. At 11:35 P.M., motion was requested by Mr. Fisher to adjourn the meeting to 1'30 P.M. on September 28, 1977. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ~2hairman An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 28, 1977, beginning at 1:30 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from September 21, 1977. Present: Mrs. Opal D. David and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta and w. s. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Mr. George R. St.John, County Attorney (arriving at 1:55 P. M.). Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P. M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. la. Request for additional deputy. Sheriff George Bailey was present. He said that three additional deputies had been requested for funding by the State Compensa- tion Board for fiscal year 1977-78. Originally, the Compensation Board authorized the employment of one deputy beginning July 1, 1977. A month or so later they had authorized the employment of a second deputy. At an appeal before the Compensation Board last Friday, they had compromised by agreeing to allow a process server presently on the payroll to serve as a road deputy, and at the same time authorizing the hiring of another process server beginning January 1, 1978. The Sheriff said that because his law officers are tied up during civil work, he requests that the Board of Supervisors allow him to fill this position as of October 1, 1977, since he does not feel this will require any new money from the County. Mr. Agnor said the Board had funded three additional persons in the sheriff's budget for the fiscal year, but because of delays in hiring, adequate funds are available in the sheriff's budget to coyer this salary for three months. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to allow the Sheriff to hire one additional deputy beginning October 1, 1977; said deputy to be paid entirely from local funds for the three remaining months in 1977. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977) Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board begin the discussion today with the Crozet co~unity. Mr. Henley said in the area where Route 240 crosses Route 250, quite a large commercial area is shown on the map on page 33. This area is across the road from where the Crozet housing project will be built. He met with the CrOzet Citizen's Group last night and although they feel some commercial zoning will be needed in that area, they did not believe it should be left on the map at this time. Mr. Tucker said that the area proposed for the Crozet Housing Project had been recommended for high-density zoning by the consultants. However, after the Board's review and approval of the petition this past summer, the property would fit into a low-density category. The commercial in this area was proposed to serve the high .and medium-density areas that form the southern part of Crozet on Route 240. Mr. Henley said he did not feel this commercial area should be shown on the map since it may be twenty years before it is needed. He then offered motion that the commercial ~oning at the intersection of Routes 240 and 250 be changed as follows: Upper portion to be deleted and changed to medium-densit residential. Lower portion to be cut in half; with part fartherest from Route 250 being designated as low-density residential. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, !achetta and Roudabush. No~?, Mr. Tucker said there were several changes which the Planning Commission recommended which have not been discussed. !) Recognize Claudius Crozet Park as a park on the Crozet community plan. 2) The Crozet and Hollymead communities to be reviewed with citizens living in those communities having input, but plans to remain in a generalized format. 3) Change the proposed high-density area shown on the west side of Route 240 to low-density in order to reflect the Board's action on the recent proposal for a housing complex for the elderly. Motion to accept these three changes was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mrs. David,~and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher then suggested that the Board discuss Scottsville. Mr. Dorrier said the people in Scottsville are very concerned about not being designated as a community. In the 1971 Comprehensive Plan, Scottsvil~e waz designated as one of the six growth areas in the County, and although that growth has not occurred during the past five years, growth has not occurred in other parts of the County as was projected. Mr. Dorrier said he recently met with the Town Council of Scottsville and the Scottsville Chamber of Commerce, and both have endorsed the concept of Scottsville being designated as a community. Sndividuals in and around the Town also feel that Scottsville should remain a community; ~'if for no other reason, because it functions that way. Scottsville has doctors, schools~ an arterial highway, a major industry, a railroad, a rescue squad,-a volnnteer fire depart- ment and banks. Its charter was obtained in 1818 and .it is the oldest community in Albemarle County. Many people in Fluvanna, Buckingham and Nelson Counties come into Scottsville for socializing and business. Scottsville has an adequate water supply in its reservoir. In fact, it has capacity to treat one million gallons per day, and presently only one quarter of a million gallons per day are being used. If Scottsville is designated as a village, it will make it harder for the Chamber of Commerce and the Town Council to go out ~mother businesses and sell the Town. If it is designated as a community, it will help ir/$~lic relations program. The reasons for maintaining it as a community far outweigh the reasons for downgrading it to a village. Mr. Roudabush said he agreed with what Mr. Dorrier had said. However, he asked if Scottsville's designation is changed to a community, if it is the intent of the Town to have their Comprehensive Plan made a part of the County's play, with land use controls that would be developed and adopted~by ~h$ Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors and thus made a binding part of th~~r~hensive Plan. Mayor Raymon Thacker was present, and' said he did not know the answer. Balzer and Associates are the planners for the Town of Scottsville, and are presently working on Federal Programs. It is possible there may be some money unexpended after completion of the Mink Creek Dam project. If this is true, HUD may let the Town use this money to develop a Comprehensive Plan, a Zoning Ordinance and establish a Planning Commission. He said Scottsville is a full service community. If it is downgraded to a village in the County's plan, he is concerned this may jeopardize their dealings with Federal Agencies. Mrs. David said Scottsville is the only incorporated town in the County. An incorpo- rated town is different from a village. The State Constitution designates towns, although Scottsvitle could not qualify ~oday because of the constitutional requirement that there be a population of 1,000. Mrs. David s.aid it is possible to recognize Scottsville as a unique entity in the County. It is a town and it is a regional center. The Planning District Commission said a regional center means that it has importance to surrounding counties, but it does not necessarily mean it will be a growth area of the County. Mr. Dorrier said he would support Mrs. David's suggestion to designate Scottsville as a town, with the provision ~hat the County Planning Office and the Mutua~Boundary Committee work with the Town to coordinate a plan for the area. Motion to change Scottsville's designation from that of a village to that of a town was offered 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. Saptember 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977) 378 Mr. D0rrier said he had discussed with.Mr. Bernard Chamberlain and Miss Virginia Moore the fact that no historic landmarks (not State historic landmarks or Federal Histori~ landmarks) deserving a recognition are designated in the Plan. Mr. Chamberlain has contacted the Albemarle Historical Society and he recommends that the Board meet with representatives of the Society to designate these places so they can be protected. Miss Moore is' in the process of drawing up a list of landmarks in the Scottsville district. Mr. Roudabush said he could see nothing wrong with the Historical Society publish±ng a list giving qualifications, but he was afraid if they were all included on a map, nothing else would show because there would be so many places in the County considered worthy of consideration for preservation. Mr. Fisher said this idea has been discussed for years. This Plan states that effort should be made to attain protection and recognition by the Virginia and National Registers of historic places, as well as by local historic regulations and support. However, the details of those steps will have to be worked out at a later time. Mr. Roudabush suggested that on map number 1, Historic Landmarks and Areas, "Charlottes- ville Courthouse" be changed to "Albemarle County Courthouse". Mr. Fisher said that in his district, quite a few comments have been received regarding the designation of the Crossroads Village. Citizens feel the area should be designated as the NOrth Garden Village. Since so many citizens have objected to the name, he wo~ld recommend that it be changed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the village of Crossroads be renamed the village of North @arden. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta said not many comments have been received from the Hollymead area principally because it is at this time mostly undeveloPed. However, there was an objection raised to designation of an industrial site next to the railroad in that area. Secondary roads in the area are not able to handle traffic for such an activity. Route 643 is a gravel road and the prospect for improvement is questionable. Proffit road (Route 647) is already carrying a sizeable quantity of traffic and there is nothing in the six-year highway plan for upgrading that road. Although this seems to be a legitimate use for the area shown, the designation is premature. He then offered motion to delete from the Plan the industrial zoning on the railroad south of Proffit; said ~oning to be replaced by agricultural. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vo~: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. Mrs, David and Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Fisher said the time a~lotted for this subject had lapsed. He suggested that the conversation be continued on October 3, 1977, at 2:30 P. M. in the Board Room. Agenda Item No. 3. Review of Subdivision Plat. (Plat showing proposed subdivision of a~ 8.00 acre tract owned by Magruder Dent, located on State Route 676 about two miles northeast of Owensville in Albemarle County, Virginia; said plat being drawn by Thomas D. Blue, Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor; plat dated July 1, 1977.) Mr. Tucker said the plat came before the Planning Commission on September 20th and it was called up for review by Mr. Roudabush. This plat entails...the division of an eight-acre parcel on Route 676 into four, two-acre parcels with a 30-foot,wide private access easement off of Route 676, serving the four lots. The staff initially had a problem with the plat in that it showed lot No. 4 as having only 1.7 acres. The staff told Mr. Dent that he could not have less than a' two-acre lot without a rezoning. Mr. Dent then requested the Planning Commission to waive the: requirement for dedication of 25 feet for future road purposes. The Planning Commissi~on has given conditional approval of the plat with four conditions: 1. Highway Department approval of entrance and location of easement. 2. Health Department approval. 3. Maintenance agreement for the easement to be recorded. Note on final plat. "If widening of Route 676 is undertaken by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, then a 25-foot strip from the! centerline of Route 676, will be dedicated at that time Without cost to the County or State." Mr. Tucker said Mri. Dent wants to subdivide the land into four lots, but without this waiver he cannot do thils without buying additional land. The first time this ~as heard by the Planning Commissioni it was deferred so that Mr. Dent could contact Mr. Easter who Own~ land behind this property. Mr. Easter could not sell the additional 3/10ths of an acre because of a deed restriction on his property. Mr. Dent came back to the Planning Commission and they did waive the requirement for the 25-feet on the basis that there was a lack of development activity in! the area, and the need for the additional 25 feet for f~ture road improvement could not ble seen at this time. Mr. Roudabush saidi he had called up this subdivision plat for several reasons: 1) The waiver of dedication i2! not consistent with the practices of the Planning Commission. 2) Three of the lots have no legal frontage on a dedicated highway. 3) The only access to the three lots remote from the road is across an easement that splits the three lots. The lots would have ownership on both sides of that easement and that would be an unusual situation. 4) The area of the easement itself is included in the twosacre parcel. Mr. Roudabush said many tim~s the Planning Commission has been concerned about these things, and ~ was surorised that they~ were not concerned in this situation. 379 September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977) Dr. Iachetta said he also would take strong exception to this waiver. The right-of-way ma~ be necessary to improve the road at some time in the future and the easement itself splits the three lots almost in half. Mr. Dent was present. He said he had done research since this matter was before the Planning Commission and he is convinced that the Board of Supervisors does not have the right to ask for the 25-foot strip for dedication for road purposes. Therefore, he did not feel he is asking for a waiver, because he does not acknowledge that the Board has the right to ask for same. Mr. Fisher noted that the County At$orney was not present at this Board meeting and requested a motion to adjourn any further discussion until October 12th. Motion to this effect was offered 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. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Housing. Mr. Agnor gave the Board a brief review of the Crozet Housing project. The HUD grant was approved, conditioned on approval of a firm financial commitment from FHA for construction of the housing itself. The necessary advertisement for release of the funds for the first phase of the HUD project was initiated in September. An environmental assessment file was made. available for review by citizens, however, the environmental impact statement which was required by FHA has been contested by the Jordan Development Corporation. The date for purchase of the property has been extended for the third time and the option now expires on October 31st. Ms. Jane Saunier said the Jordan DevelDpment Corporation had written a letter question- ing the requirement for an environmental impact statement. The Corporation received a letter from the assistant administrator of FHA in Washington on September 19th indicating that all necessary procedures had not been followed, and requesting the applicant to fill out an environmental impact evaluation. As a result of this, the Richmond office will determine whether or not an environmental impact statement is required. It may be a month or so before a final answer is received on this question. HUD has acted on the FHA rental assistance Section 8 application and obligated those funds. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any timetable tied to the HUD funds. Ms. Karen Lilleleht said the timetable depends on action which may be required by the CountY to solve the pollution problems in Crozet. Mr. Agnor said the State Water Control Board was to have issued national pollutant discharge elimination system permits throughout the United States by July 1, 1977. There is a point source discharge in Crozet that does not have this NPDES permit. The regional office of the State Water Control Board is waiting to receive a poJitive answer from Richmond on the availability of ~n~ding from the Environmental Protection Agency to construct a portion of the interceptor line to take raw sewage from Crozet and pump it to the Brownsville plant. The CounSy has tried twice to fund this project and been unsuccessful. Now, with the necessity of issuing the NPDES permit, Mr. Agnor said he feels more attention will be given this situation. The regional director of the-State Water Control Board has said he has no concern about the housing project, but the opponents to the project have ~ocused all of their attention on the raw sewage problem in Crozet, so it is conceivable that a solution to this pro~e~ must be found. Mr. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority has made calculations and said that even if the raw sewage in Crozet were pumped to the Brownsvi!le plant, there Would still be adequate capacity to handle this housing project. Mr. Fisher asked if the Charlottesville Housing Foundation had looked at the property on Route 250 which was recommended for this project by the opponents. Ms. Lilleleht said the front of the property, which is 500 feet deep, is zone~ B-i; the remainder is R-3. The topography is sloping and partially wooded, although public sewer and .water are available. The residential section was considered unfeasible unless a fee simple right-of,way could be purchased through the commercial portion. The residential portion is divided by the flood plain and two streams, and only eight to ten acres of the 16.7 total residential acreage is available for construction. Jordan's architect reviewed the site and rejected same in a letter to Richard A. Moyer, dated July 13, 1977, for the following reasons: 1) A large part of the parcel is unbuildable because of topography. 2) The entire frontage is zoned B-1. At the present time there are no plans for development for the com~.ercial portion. The Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance lists 47 uses by right and 12 by special permit; many of which would be unsuitable in close proximity to elderly residents.. 3) The traffic noise at the 250 site is considerably greater than any other alternative site due .to speed and volume of traffic on 1-64 as well as 250. 4) Although use of sewer availability reserved for this site would leave more capacity in the Brownsville Treatment Plant than the proposed Route 240 site for treatment of existing raw sewage discharges in Crozet, there are current- ly no resources available to utilize~the Brownsville plant in any way to resolve ~the Crozet raw sewage problem. Ms. Lilleleht said the Charlottesville Housing Foundation had requested the Crozet Citizen's group to help pay some of the costs which would be incurred in shifting sites, since only a part of these costs would be recoverable. The group was somewhat insulted that this was even suggested. There was oneother problem and there was no resolution that was found possible. Since there has been so much opposition to the site on Route 240, there is no guarantee that there would not be the same opposition to the site on Route 250, there- fore, the option was rejected. The option that was signed for the site on 240 will expire on October 31st, and that may not be enough time. Further action on the part of this Board may be required to keep this project alive. At 4:16 P. M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:23 P. M. september 28~ 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977) 380 Agenda Item No. 7. Discussion of tax exemption for disabled persons. Mr. Ray ~ones, Director of Finance, was present and said the 1977 session of the General Assembly had amended the State Code so as to provide tax relief for people who are permanently and totally disabled in the same manner as tax relief is now provided for the elderly. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush authorizing the staff to draft an amendment .to the tax relief for the elderly ordinance to include people who are permanently and totally disabled. The motion was 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. Jones said that the legislature also raised the limit on income to $10,000, and if the Board wished to, that could be considered in this same amendment. Mr. Jones noted that in March of 1975, the Board had amended the ordinance to raise the net financial worth of a person applying for this exemption from $20,000 to $35,000. He felt that $7,500 income was realistic for Albemarle County. There being no consensus on whether there should be a change~ the subject was dropped. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Jones to research the question of whether the tax on utilities could be changed so that the rate being paid would be the same as that on the State sales tax, with the implication that this would be deductible under the Federal Income Tax laws. Agenda Item No. 8. Appropriation for Airport Board. "Memo to: Board of Supervisors From: Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Re: Airport Budget Date: September 23, 1977 In April, during budget preparations, you ~ere advised that the County and the City were being requested to provide $20,000 each in FY-77 for the Airport budget. $10~000 of this amount was for operations, and $10;000 for capital expenditures anticipated to be needed for payment to the Fixed Base Operator~ Eagle Aviation, at the expiration of their lease in AuguSt for the remaining balance of unamortized capital improvements made by Eagle, as provided in their lease. I recommended the operations budget be funded, and the capital appropriation be delayed until a new lease, which was being prepared for bid at that time, could be executed. My reasons were several: Eagle Aviation was planning to bid on a new twenty-~ lease, and if they were successful bidders, the repayment to them by the Air- p~rt Board of the unamortized improvements would not be necessary. Other firms were also interested in the new lease, and it was my recommendation that they be required to invest in the improvements and complete the amortization, thereby repaying Eagle Aviation. The Airport Board was considering operating the fixed base operation without a contract operator, and if that were accomplished, a larger amount than $10,000 for capital investment would be required from the County and City. ~ The bids were let, and were not accepted. The Airport Board considered the alternative of assuming the operation, and rejected that approach. Negotiations with one of the bidders, Piedmont Aero, for a five-year lease ~ere attempted and brought to a successful conclusion in late August. The length of the new lease and the terms do not provide for ~apital investments or improvements in airport facilities. Rental rates for hangar and office space have been established at a square footage cost that reflects the use of the improvements. The Airport Board is therefore in th~ position of having to honor the terms of the expiring lease which provides for the cash settlement for capital expenses less appropriate depreciation, calculated to be $19,817.72, or $9,908.86 each from the County and City. It is requested an appropriation for that amount be made to Code 19J, Joint Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Improvements, ,with the funds being derived from the General OPerating Capital Outlay Fund Balance, which had a balance of $769,534.97 on September 1." ~ Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, to adopt the follow- ing resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Super¥isors of Albemarle County, Virginia,. that $9,908.86 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Operating Capital Outlay Fund and Coded to 19J-Joint Charlottesville/Albemarle ~irport Improvements. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs..David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977) Agenda Item No. Sa. Appropriation: NIMLO Suit. (Unemployment Insurance). Mr. Agnor said that on September 8~ 1977, the Board agreed to enter the National Institute of Municipal Law Officer's suit on Federal Unemployment Compensation Tax Insurance. The agreement signed said that $2,500 would be paid into a trust fund, and such appropr±ation is now needed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle CountY, Virginia, that $2,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to lA-!03~ Professional andi~e:~l Services. AYES: NAYS: The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Mrs. David and Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr. Dorrier. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he had received several letters. A request from parents for the County to sponsor a soccer program. David sugge'sted this request be referred to the Parks Committee. Mrs. A letter from the General Services Administration concerning the move of the Federal Court out of the Post Office building. ' 3. ~ letter from the Highway Department on Route 860. "September 23, 1977 Route 860 Project: 0860-054-159, C-501, FS-709 This is to advise that the Industrial Access Fund request~made by LOuisa and Albemarle Counties for access to the Klockner Pentaplast facility has been approved. $150,000 from the 1977-78 Industrial Access Fund has been allocated to this project. Ail of this money will be charged against the eligibility of Louisa County. The use of the fund has been made contingent upon Klockner Pentapl~st entering into a firm contract for the construction of its facility, and the necessary right of way and adjustment of utilities being provided at no cost to the Commonwealth~" Mr. Fisher also noted receipt of a letter from the High~ay Department dated September 23 1977, giving a summary of the expenditures on ~.he secondary system during the 1976-77 fiscal year. Mr. Roudabush noted that ~he Highway Department is starting work on the southbound lane over the bridge on the North Fork of the. Rivanna River. Mr. Fisher said he had several matters that needed to be discussed in executive session concerning acquisition of property and legal matters. Dr. Iachetta said he had a personnel matter he would also like to discuss, and at 5:30 P. M. offered motion to a~journ into executive session to discuss acquisition of property, legal matters, and personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher' Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 7:40 P. M. in the Albemarle County CourthouSe. Agenda Item No..6. Public Hearing: Solid Waste Collection System. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on September 14 and September 21, 1977.) Mr. Fisher noted that this matter has been discussed for many months. After the last public hearing in 1976, this matter'was referred to a committee composed of three'members of the Board of Supervisors, and several citizens. The Committee made a report to the Board on July 1, 1977, and he then asked Mr. Dorrier for a report. Mr. Dorrier said that Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Roudabush and himself had worked closely with the County Engineer, and Dennis White, an intern in the Planning Department, on this subject. There were several meetings over a period of ten months, during which they discussed various alternatives. The Plan presented tonight basically calls for transfer stations to be located throughout the County. He then turned the meeting over to Mr. White, who summarized the report for those citizens present'. Mr. Fisher asked for other comments from Committee members. Mr. Roudabush said that the system proposed is flexible. The equipment would be rented and hauling contracted. Also, private haulers would be allowed to use these transport stations so placement of these would not infringe on their businesses. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said that 100% of the County would be effectively covered by these transport stations. The Committee had set as a goal that 80% of the population would be within five miles of a receiving station, and this is a big improvement for individuals who must haul trash to one of the landfills. September 28, 1977 (Adjourned from September 21, 1977) 382: Mr. Fisher noted that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on SePtember 27, 1977, by unanimous ¥ote, said the solid waste collection system report substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for providing convenience and efficiency to the populous of the County in terms of solid waste disposal facilities. However: 1) While the Planning Commission agrees with[~ithe generalized service areas as presented in the report, no endorsement of specific collection sites is made, and 2) the Planning Commission has not reviewed the report in terms of proposed cost, equipment, staff- ing or institutional arrangements, and makes no comments in respect to these considerations. Mr. Fisher then opened the public hearing. Ms. Darlene Samsell said she lives in the ~eswick area and is in favor of the system. HoweYer, there should be enough money budgeted to be sure the sites are kept clean~. Ms. Ruth Wadlington, League of Women Voters, said they feel the County should have a solid waste collection system to correct inequities. The Keene Landfill should be eased out becaUse of the earlier leaching problem. Although they did not consider financing, they exPect public education will be a problem, and if the County is not able to fund the program properly, the League of Women Voters suggests that a demonstration project be considered in only one or two areas of the County. Mr. Robert Barber from Howardsville said they live in a remote area of the County and they have no way to dispose of trash since there are no private haulers in the area. The landfill at Keene opens at 7:30 and closes~at 5:30, so the working people do not h~ve any way to transport their trash to the landfill. He then presented to the Board a petition signed by 87 persons, requesting a portable dumster for the Ho~ardsville area. The petition stated that Howardsville is experiencing a steady growth in population and is showing definite signs of becoming a recreational retreat. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:10 P. M. Dr. Iachetta said there is presently no information available on which to base esti- mates of the amount of trash that will be collected at'these stations, so he is hesitant to recommend that this solid waste collection system be started with all six sites recommended in the Committee Report. He felt the program should be begun with a modigication of the Keene Landfill and one pickup station in the most remote corner of the County, or the Cismont area, designated as No. 3 in the report. Experience gained while using th. is one transfer station would give information on whether to expand or drop the program. Mr. Fisher asked if the committee had considered charging private haulers who would be using these transport stations. Mr. White said ~here was no suggestion made for a fee because the County would need accurate figures on the cost per ton to haul the trash from the outlying areas Go the landfill. Several months of operation would give accurate figures. haul to the Ivy Landfill the Resource Recovery St was optimistic on how m one person living in th and he cannot support i Mr. Fisher said he ing tonight supports th many people spoke in fa asking why the Board di felt that if the County couple of pilot program Study Commission report of the year. There hay Mr. Henley said it has been mentioned ~hat the Ivy Landfill is remote from some areas of the County. However, when he served on the Landfill Committee several years ago, every- body wanted the landfill to go somewhere else, so he was not bothered that they must now .. He felt it would be better to wait and start this program after ;udy Commission has made a recommendation. Also, he felt the report ~ch money would be saved on the Keene operation. Mr. Henley said not White Hall District has spoken to h:~m in support of this project, at. this time. has had only a few people ask for this service and the public h~ar- ~t feeling. Mr. Roudabush said at last year's public hearing, not ~or of the project, but afterwards he had quite a few telephone calls 1 not do something about a solid waste collection system~ Mrs. David is to undertake this project, it should be started with only a · She asked a target date for completion of the Resour'ce Recovery Dr. Iachetta said the consultant is to file a report by the end .already been two i~t~rim reports and one of the reports says that solid waste cannot be p: ocessed economically in Albemarle County. The only aspect that is viable is recovery for ~nergy. Mr. Fisher said if the Board decides to enter into a pilot program for two sites, if the planning, drafting of contracts, and the budgeting, could be accomplished so the program can begin on or about July 1, 1978. Mr. Agnor said he felt this would allow enough time. Dr. Iach~tta then offered motion authorizing the Engineering Staff to prepare a detailed plan for implementing recommendation Number 4 in the Solid Waste Committee's Report of July 1, 1977; also authorizing a pilot operation for the Cismont area, designated as Area Number 3 on figure IA in the Committee's Report; implementation date for this pilot program to be July 1, 1978, if plans and financing of same are completed by that date. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the foIlowing recorded vo~e: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. Mr. Henley. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said Mr. Wendell Wood had requested that the Board witness a noise test for helicopters relative to his petition which will be before the Board on October 5th. It was the. general consensus of the Board that they would prefer to wait until after the public hearing. Agenda Item No. 9. At 9:2~ P. M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until September 29, 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 R~udabush. None. C~airman