Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-04-07N124 April 7, 1976 (Adjourned from April 6, 1976) April 7,~ 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 7, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 6, 1976. PRESENT: Mrs. Opal 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: the County Executive. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive, and Robert Sampson, Assistant to The meeting was called to order at 2:15 P.M. by the Chairman, at which time the Board conducted a work session on the 1976-77 County budget. The following items were listed on thc agenda: I) 2) 3) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) 12) 13) 15) 16) 17) Code 5B - General District Court. Judge Herbert Pickford. Code 18B.12 - Housing Committee. Jason Eckford, John Taylor, Ken Martin. Code 5C - Commonwealth's Attorney. John Dezio. Code 5A - Circuit Court. Harry Young. Code 4A - Clerk of the Circuit Court and Commissioner of Accounts. Shelby Marshall. Code 18C.5 - Contributions to Regional Jail. Code 190 - Regional Jail.Budget. Marian Rabinowitz and Albert Shank. Code 18C.7 - Magistrate's Office. D. D. Hudson. Code 5D - Juvenile Court. Judge Ralph Zehler. Code 18C.6 - Juvenile Detention Home. Robert Sampson. Code 18C.t - Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad. Code 18C~-8 - Scottsville Rescue Squad. Code 18C.2 - Highway Safety Commission. Code 18C.3 - Emergency Services Office. Code 20 - Regular Debt Service. Code 19 - Capital Outlay Fund. Miscellaneous Codes - Revenue Sharing Proposals. At 5:55 P.M., at the end of the work session, Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 7, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Opal 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 Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Frederic~ W. payne; Deputy County Attorney, James V. Bowling, IV; and Assistant Director of Planning, Ronald Keeler. (Note: Notice of change in meeting dates for the calendar year 1976 was advertised in the Daily Progress on March 24 and March 30, 1976.) Mr. Fisher called the meeting to order and introduced Mr. Agnor who began his duties as County Executive on April 1, 1976. Agenda Item No. 1. SP-17-76. Albemarle County Service Authority. To bring into conformance the existing, nonconforming water treatment plant located on four acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property on the south side of Route 240 near intersection of Route 68'0. County Tax Map 57, ParCel 29B, White Hall District. (Notice of this public hearing published in the Daily Progress on March 17 and March 24, 1976.)- Mr. Payne noted that the County Attorney's Office also represents the Albemarle County Service Authority and would not participate in the discussion of this petition. Mr. Tucker said this area is rural in character, however, the site is clearly visible from three houses on the opposite side of Route 240. There are 14 homes within 1000 feet of the site. The property surrounding the site is wooded. The site presently contains con- struction and maintenance vehicles as well as pipe and construction materials. The applicant wants to make the existing water treatment plant conforming with the Zoning Ordinance so that a vehicle shed may be constructed to house the mobile equipment which is currenly parked outside. This area is surrounded by a chain link fence. The Planning Commission recommends approval with the following conditions attached to the permit: l) 2) 3) Screening from dwellings and from Route 240 with evergreen trees with a minimum height of five feet; to be planted on ten-foot centers. Relocation of pipe and construction materials. Site plan approved by the planning staff. Mr. E. E. Thompson, Director of the Service Authority, was present in support of the petition. No one from the public spoke for or against the request. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve SP-17-76 with conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Zachetta and Roudabush. None. April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Industrial Development Authority Ordinance. (This matter was deferred from March 3, 1976.) Mr. Fisher said this matter has been on the Board's agenda since it was first introduced on December 30, 1975. A committee was appointed to study setting up a joint authority with the City of Charlottesville. The committee has recommended against such action. Dr. Iachetta then summarized the committee's report which was given to the Board at their meeting on March 18, 1976. He then read a revised, proposed ordinance into the record: AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA, PURSUANT TO THE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REVENUE BOND ACT, CONSTITUTING CHAPTER 33 OF TITLE 15.1 OF THE CODE OF VIRGINIA OF 1950. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: 1. There is hereby created a political subdivision of the Con, on- wealth of Virginia, pursuant to Chapter 33 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, in the manner hereinafter set out. 2. The name of the political subdivision created shall be the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia. 3. The public and corporate powers of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, are solely and exclusively limited to the power to finance industrial pollution control facilities for industries presently located in Albemarle County, Virginia; the power to finance industrial plant expansion for industries presently located in Albemarle County, Virginia, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of Albemarle County, Virginia; and the power to finance new industrial facilities in Albemarle County, Virginia, which new industrial facilities shall be exclusively limited to light manufacturing and research oriented industries, requiring minimum local public utilities and providing new jobs, the substantial majority of which ,shall be filled by prior residents and domiciles of Albemarle County, Virginia. 4. No financing of any industrial pollution control facility or industrial plant expansion or new industrial facility by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall take place without the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. 5. ~ny industrial pollution control facility or industrial plant expansion or new industrial facility financed by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, must occur within the legal boundaries of Albemarle County, Virginia; and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors must approve the proposed location of any industrial pollution control facility or industrial plant expansion or new industrial facility prior to any financing by the Industrial Development of Albemarle County, Virginia. 6. There shall be nor more than bond issuances of the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia. 7. Ail by-laws, standards and priorities of the Industrial Develop- ment Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, prior to their adoption by the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Virginia; and any revisions or changes of said by-laws, standards and priorities shall require the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia. 8. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the day of , 1976. Mr. Fisher said the question now is not that of adopting the ordinance, but one of readvertising this revised ordinance for another public hearing. He said since there were interested people present, he would allow comments' from the public. Mr. Alton Garrett, United ~irginia Bank, asked for a rapid decision and suggested that the blank it paragraph six be filled in so all details are clear. Mr. Fred Ferguson was present to represent the Economic Development Commission. they feel this ordinance satisfies their original request. He said Mr. Roudabush said the committee had discussed several items of concern with Mr. Bowling. It was thought that a lot of these concerns could be covered in the by-laws which would al~so need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said the ordinance should be advertised for a public hearing. If it is adopted, the board would appoint an Authority and then adopt by-laws. This would be a long process. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to advertise the ordinance for a public hearing on May 12, 1976, at 2:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building; inserting "three" in paragraph six. The motion/carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. 126 April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3. March 10, 1976. (Note: SP-468. James R. Armstrong. Mr. Dorrier abstaining.) This public hearing deferred from Mr. Keeler noted that a letter had been sent by the Planning Office on March 11, 1976, asking Mr. Armstrong for a sketch or site plan as requested by the Board on March 10. This was sent by certified mail, "return receipt requested", but no site plan has-been received,' therefore, no recommendation is available from the staff. Mr. Roudabush said Mrs. Armstrong had called him two weeks ago and asked if she and Mr. Armstrong could come and talk to him regarding the site plan. He had indicated he did not think it was good idea to speak with only one member of the Board. She had noted receipt of the letter from the Planning Office. Mr. Roudabush said he had consulted with the Chairman and other members of the Board who had indicated it was not wise to have a non-public hearing Mr. Fisher asked if the County Attorney's Office had received any communication from Mr. Armstrong since March 10. Mr. Payne said no. Mr. Fisher said the Board is back where they were eight weeks ago. He then asked Mr. Armstrong what difficulties he was having telling the Board what he wanted to do with the-property. Mr. Armstrong said he was having no difficulties. He was, and still is,~satisfied with the decision handed down by the Court. A site plan was submitted to his attorney and apparently there had been a mix-up because his attorney was not present. No screening has been ~ncluded on the site plan for reasons stated many times, however, the property has been considerably landscaped since he purchased same. Mr. Armstrong said since he had taken this matter to court once, he did not think he would at this time accept a long list of additional conditions. Mr. Fisher said there were people present who had an interest in this petition and he would allow time for statements. Mr. Dave Wood, representing several property owners in Esmont, said he understands that since the last Board meeting, Mr. Armstrong has planted some very short pines (18" in height) in front of Mrs. Tapscott's property and four dogwood trees (36" in height) on the railroad right of way running beside his property. On behalf of his clients, Mr. Wood urged the Board to either revoke the permit, or place restrict~on~ on the permit that will prot~ect his clients' property. Mr. Payne said there was a court order entered last October which stated that one of the conditions on the permit was invalid, but the rest were valid. In November the applicant filed a motion in circuit court. In January, the County Attorney's Office filed a responsive pleading, but no hearing has been held. Mr. St. John has advised the Board that the permit can be revoked on the basis that the condition struck down was e~sential to passage of the original permit. The Board can, if they feel there is enough factual information from the public, revoke the permit on the basis that the use is a public nuisance. There was a condit on the original permit which stated: "If in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors, the use of this property creates a public nuisance from the standpoint of noise or appearance, the permit will be revoked." Dr. Iachetta said since last. year there have three hearings on this petition, each directed toward finding a reasonable set on conditions to ~hich the applicant would agree. The applicant has not agreed to anything proposed and made no counter proposal even though he was given an opportunity to do so. Dr. Iachetta asked if this is grounds for revoking the permit. Mr. Payne said no. If the Board chooses to impose a condition on the applicant which is reasonable and can be sustained by court, there is no need for the applicant to agree. It then becomes a question of whether the Board's action is in accord with the court' decision. If the applicant does not think so, he can go back to court for another hearing. Mr. Fisher asked which condition was struck down by the court. Mr. Payne read: "No more than six Vehicles which are in Mr. Armstrong's care for repair and maintenance or restoration shall be left outside of the structure at night at any one time." Mrs. David asked if the Board~cou!d revoke the permit on the g~u~ds that it was mistakel granted in the first place in opposition to the recommendations of the Planning Staff and Commission. Mr. Payne said no, but there is some evidence in the record which sustains the position that the condition w~ich was struck down was essential to the original passage of the permit. ~ Mr. Fisher said the whole history of this case makes him think that the Board was too lenient in granting the permit in the first place and then liberalizing t~e number of vehicle that could be kept on the property. Special permits are a meahs by which people can use their property for ways not included b~ right in the zoning ordinance. If conditions cannot be set which can be enforced, then the whole special permit procedure i~ in jeopardy. Dr. Iachetta noted that screening was a condition on the original permit granted in 1972 and that condition still ha~ not been met. Mr. Payne said the applicant appeared before the Board in 1975 and requestedi~reliefLfrom two conditions on that ~iginai appiicatio~ Relief was given by changing ~he condition to rea~: "Existing landscaping be maintained." Dr. Iachetta said the permit was granted with conditions prior to the time the property was purchased. Thereafter, objections were~?aised. He did mot know how the Board can resolve this problem if the applicant is unWilling to do anything~sUggested. ~M~. Roudabush said at the previous meetings on this question, he had tried to formulate a scheme wherey Mr. Armstrong could continue to use his property for the use granted in the original permit, but with conditions that would alleviate problems stated by his neighbors. Mr. Armstrong was even~asked to help the Board arrive at a set of conditions to which he was agreeable, but to no avail. Mr. Roudabush said he did not know how~to resolve this question. ~ Mr. Jack Camblos asked to be heard. Mr. Fisher asked that the record show that Mr. Camblos had arrived just ~efore 8-:~30 P.M., after discussion with the applicant. He asked if the Board members wanted to hear further from the applicant. It was agreed that Mr. Camblos should be heard. .on ly April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Camblos apologized for being late. He said his office had "goofed" Mr. Armstrong had submitted a sketch to his office several days ago, but inadvertently this was not taken t the Planning Office. He then submitted the site plan/sketch to the Board. Mr. Fisher said the patience of the Board and the citizens of the County have been tried almost beyond endurance on this issue. He woul. d recommend that the Board not accept the site plan, but did no~ want the citizens to have to come back to another meeting. At 8:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a 15 recess so that Mr. Keeler could study the site plan and make a recommendation to the Board. The Board reconvened at 8:55 P.M. Mr. Fisher said this matter has put Mr. Keeler on the spot, but requested an opinion on the site plan. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission has spent a good deal of time develop a site plan ordinance. This ordinance is very explicit in setting out what is required on a site plan. This plan lacks much of the technical data required. Existing facilities and proposed facilities cannot be differentiated. He also felt that accepting a site plan 15 minutes before acting on same was unfair to other citizens and might set a precedent. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he had looked at the plan. Mr. Agnor said he had diffi- culties trying to orient the written document submitted with the drawing submitted. He also felt approval of this site plan might set a precedent. Mr. Roudabush said there was no site plan ordinance in effect on the date the permit was originally approved. The Board had requested Mr. Armstrong to bring back a drawing, not specifically a site plan drawn by requirements of the site plan ordinance, sufficient to show landscaping, parking and screening. He did not believe the Board intended that this be a site plan under terms of the site plan ordinance. Mr. Fisher said that was correct. He asked Mr. Roudabush if the plan, other than being delivered to the Board late, was in sub- stantial compliance with the Board's request. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Armstrong seems to have done what was requested of him. Whether or not it is acceptable as a condition on the permit is another question. He then read the following undated letter, received at this meeting, into the record: "Our intentions are and always have been to have a small family run garage to service the needs of our community. We~intend in the very near future to plant evergreens at the northern- most corner of the property and several ornamental bushes from there down towards the parking area to break up the visability of other neighbors cars that are in our care for repair. On the northern and southern borders of our property there is existing privet hedge which will grow 10 - 15 feet in height. We have been cutting it back, but will let it grow. With the existing hedge, enbankments (very steep), proposed plantings and a three board fence along the front of the property, we feel this should be sufficient. We are perfectly content with the Judge's decision and are willing to go along with it, ie: that conditions 2, 3, 4 and 5 remain in effect. We hope to have our building completed within six months. more anxious than anyone else in this regard. We are much The proposed plantings are, spirea, forsythia, mock orange, coralberry, deutzia, weigelia, hydrangea, rose of sharon, tulip tree, silver maple, redbud, dogwood, azalias and roses, plus a few evergreens." Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Armstrong if he was the author of the letter just read. Mr. Armstrong replied yes. Mrs. David asked the existing conditions on this permit. Mr. Payne handed to Mr. Roudabush a certified copy of Judge Berry's order and Mr. Roudabush read the following: 3) 5) Existing landscaping to remain in effect. This special permit is not transferrable. This special permit shall become void if the use of the property becomes a public nuisance in the opinion of the Board of Supervisors from the standpoint of appearance or excessive noise created. Bond in the amount of $300 be posted to clear the site if this special permit becomes voided or the property vacated. Mr. Fisher said the sketch shows a total of 10 delineated parking spaces. Numbers 4, 5 and 6 are shown against or at the eastern end of the rock wall of the building with a three- board fence on line. Mr. Fisher asked the height of a three-board fence. Mr. Camblos said it would be a normal 36 to 42 inches high. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Dave Wood for comments on the sketch. Mr. Wood said he had not seen the sketch but suggested that a three-board fence does not protect the community from this garage. He urged that the Board requ~ire an opaque fence of sufficient height to hide the automobiles and the garage from sight. Mr. Wood said he feels the applicant has been given every opportunity to cooperate and has not-dOne so. He felt the Board had grounds to revoke the permit because the appearance of the property has not been corrected. Mr. Fisher said this permit has consumed more hours ~of the Board's time than any other matter he could remember. He then asked if the Board was ready to make a decision. Mr. Roudabush offered motion that the special permit granted to Mr. Armstrong (SP-468) be amended that conditions #2, #3, #4 and #5, presently in effect, and set out above, be retained; that the following additional conditions be imposed on the permit: Operation and vehicle storage be confined to the property owned by Mr. Armstrong; that the landscaping and planting plan shown on the drawing submit'ted by Mr. Armstrong and outlined in his letter, be~accepted; that the parking shown on his sketch plan be accepted; that the three-board fence from the apex of the triangle on the north of the property running in a sou~h~r~y~ dire'c~n~-~fo~.a~di~an~e~f 167.63 feet be accepted; that ~ommencing at that point on the front bo~ndary~ an opaque fence of Sufficient height and construction be ~rected to insure that no vehicles are visible from outside of the orooertv l~ne for theft d~t~n~ ~f ]~.TP ~t~ ~t f~ tw~ ~n~~ ~ 128 April 7, 1976 (Regular - Nigh~iMeeting) Mr. Fisher noted that the sketch referred to in the motion was marked "James R. and Mary Go Armstrong, and he had marked same received at 8:30 P.M. on April 7, 1976, and had initiale~ same "GEF" He also had put the s~ae markings on the letter. Mr. Fisher asked if the motion were clearly understood. Dr. Iachetta asked if any time limit was to be established for completion of these conditions. Mr. Roudabush amended his motion to add a condition reading: "Completion on all plantings and fencing within 90 days from April 7, 1976." Mr. Henley accepted this amendment to the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he would oppose the motion on the grounds that he feels Mr. Armstrong is already in violation of the special permit and the appropriate action would be to revoke the permit. At this time, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Henley and Roudabush. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. ABSTAINING: Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 4. Request from Region X Mental Health & Retardation Services Board to purchase building. Mr. Jim Peterson was present. Letter making this request is set out in the minutes of March 18, 1976.) Mr. Peterson said since the last meeting with the Board, he had researched the question of how the County of Albemarle had accu~mla~d~ a surplus balance. He has determined that as of June 30, 1975, the County's surplus funds amount to $18,425.00, broken down as follows: duly 1, 1971 - June 30, 1972: $890.00 resulting from underexpenditures. 2~%? July 1, 1972 - June 30~>1973: $5,254.00 resulting from unfilled personnel positions and unused budgeted overhead. J~lya.1; 1973 - June 30, 1974: $10,109.00 resulting from underspending in wages and receipB of fees in excess of budgeted amount. July 1, 1974 - June 30, 1975: $2,172.00 resulting mainly from program expansion, particularly in the children oriented (Part F) program. Mr. Peterson said he also sought an opinion from William P.-Webb, Administrative Service Supervisor, Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, on the question of dispositio~ of unexpended local funds. In a letter dated March 29, 1976, Mr. Webb had noted the followin options: a) the program is permitted to retain the balance for program use; b) the program retains the balance for local match in the subsequent year, serving as a supplement to or as a reduction of normal local funding; or c) the participating localities may request return of their pro rata share of the local balance. Mr. Peterson said the original request still stands. The Region X Board would like to apply a portion of Albemarle County's surplus funds toward acquisition of a building. Mr. Fisher said the question is not just whether the Region X Board can use the accumula funds for a down payment on the building, but whether the participating localities are going to commit themselves to additional debt service payments in future years. Mr. Roudabush asked what funds would be used to repay a mortgage. Mr. Peterson said these would be funds normally used for ren5. In the fiscal year 1976-77 budget, additional funds have been included for either rental of space or acquisition of this building. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said there is a comparable situation with the Regional Health ~Department where each year after their records are audited all surplus funds are returned to the County. This agency is no different from other County departments in that any unexpended balance reverts back to the County's General Fund at the end of each fiscal year. This is a separate question from that of purchasing a building. Mr. Dorrier said the State has forced upon the communities the need to create decent mental health care facilities. This community has a good mental health program which is funded mostly by Federal monies. He asked that the Board help with purchase of the building. Dr. Iachetta said the County has many space requirements and he felt this request should be considered with other such requests. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wanted the $18,425 surplus accumulated from 1971 to 1975 as estimated by Mr. John Derr in a letter to Mr. Jim Peterson, dated March 31, 1976, returned to the Albemarle County General Fund, with a separate request being filed for an appropriatio~ of $12,338 under capital outlays. Mrs. David offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher noted that since the Board has now voted to have the surplus funds returned, this will be the policy for all future years. After a short conversation about the type of building being purchased and use of same~ motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the Board request the Region X Mental Health and Retardation Services Board to submit a request for purchase of this building; such request to be considered with other requests for capital outlay funds. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. ed April 7, 1976 (Regular.- Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc. (JAUNT). Present were Mr. Jim Peterson from the Region X Mental Health and Retardation Services Board and Mrs. Jane Saunier from the Region X Planning District Commission. The following infor- mation was given: "The proposed project will provide for the continued operation and expansion into rural areas of a transportation system which currently utilizes pooled agency vehicles to service client groups in the urban and suburban areas of Planning District 10. The expanded system would provide daily work and service related trips for the rural residents of the Planning District. Initially, one van would serve each of the outlying counties of Greene, Fluvanna, Louisa, and Nelson, with daily trips within the County to shopping, medical, business, recreation and other services. A trip to Charlottesville would be provided once a week. Charlottesville and Albemarle County would be provided daily service as well. The planned expansion of the system would involve a rural transportation advisory group composed of persons from all parts of the~ planning district to monitor and evaluate the system to insure local participation and satisfaction with the regional system. The goal of the proposal is to' develop, operate, and monitor a flexible, self-sustaining, transportation system serving rural residents built on the consolidation of human service agency transportation resources. Uniform access by all rural residents to safe, efficient, inexpensive travel within five counties and between these counties and the regional urban center will be provided, with special emphasis on service to the poor, the elderly, and the handicapped." Mr. Peterson said this plan has been endorsed by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and two rural localities. The budget attached to the staff report from the Planni~ District clarifies earlier questions about administrative costs. Motion was then offered by Mr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, public transportation for persons who live in rural areas is virtually nonexistent, and mobility depends on ability to own and drive an automobile; and WHEREAS, for those persons who are unable, because of age, physical disability, or lack of resources, to use an automobile, this lack of transportation seriously reduces their choice of activities of daily living, and is a barrier to active participation in jobs, medical and social services and other aspects of community life; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson Area United Transportation, Inc. (JAUNT, Inc.) is engaged in providing transportation services to these transportation disadvantaged persons in a manner designed to utilize existing community resources and reduce duplication; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County endorses the request made by JAUNT, INC. to the Federal Highway Administration for funds under Section 147, Federal-Aid Highway Act (1973 as amended) to expand and enlarge its capacity to include service to the citizens of the locality. 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. Mrs. Saunier noted that a public hearing on this request will be required later. Agenda Item No. 6. Lottery Permit. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to approve a lottery permit for The Museum of Commerce, in accordance with adopted rules of the Board for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Special Appropriation: It was noted that the advertisement required by State Code before adoption of the new business and professional license tax code has been billed in the amount of $3,117.42. An appropration of $3,000.00 is needed before this bill can be approved for payment. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the General Operating Fund and coded to l-A-200, Advertising, Board of Supervisors. 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. 130 April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a letter from David E. Morine, Director of Land Acquisition, The Nature Conservancy, containing the following proposal: ' "in October, 1975, the availability of a unique parcel of land on the Ivy Creek portion of the Rivanna Reservoir was brought to the attention of The Nature Conservancy, a national, non-profit conservation organization. The Conservancy investigated the property and found that, given its loca- tion, the land was of unusual ecological significance. Its importance was heightened not only by the fact that it borders the areas' major water supply but also that it lies in a section of Albemarle County that is undergoing tremendous developmental pressure. Consequently, the acquisi- tion of this particular tract appeared to be one of the last opportunities to puchase a significant amount of open space around the Reservoir. The Conservancy's concern for this property was shared by anonymous donors who pledged an initial $10,000.00 seed-grant to the project. Since there is considerable public interest in the preservation of the Reservoir, the Conservancy's Board of Governors decided to advance the projec~ an addi- tional $180,000.00 from its own Project Revolving Fund. This fund is used to finance the Conservancy's conservation efforts across the country, and it is the hope of the Board of Governors that the advance will be fully repaid within three years. As indicated on the attached map, the 80.62 acres of land, with over .7 mile~frontage~ that makes up the Conservancy's Rann Preserve, completely encompasses a 38 acre peninsula presently owned by the City of Charlottes- ville. This peninsula has an additional three-fourths mile of frontage on ivy Creek. The City also owns another 25+ acre parcel across from the peninsula and all of the land below the 400' contour line. In addition, there is also a very good possibility that the project will be further enhanced by the donation of conservation easements from major landowners along the Reservoir. Thus, the Conservancy feels quite confident that the total project could result in the preservation of the entire Ivy Creek section of the Reservoir. Given the above, the Conservancy thinks that this area wouid make an excellent city, county or regional park. Consequently, the Conservancy strongly recommends that the City, County or special regional park auth- ority consider acquiring the total project from the Conservancy and designate it as a local park. From the Conservancy's initial studies, it would seem that the most suitable use of the land would be as a nature preserve to be used for scientific, educational and passive recreational purposes by the local school system, area colleges, scout organizations and individuals. The Nature Conservancy has done initial studies of the property, and there is no question that it is populated with a rich vari- eity of local flora and fauna. The Conservancy would expect to transfer the entire project to the City and/or County or a regional park authority without requiring the use of any City or County funds. Given the fact that the total fair market value of the project, excluding lands already owned by the City or County, could be approximately $300,000.00, we would hope that the City or County, with the full endorsement of both agencies, would make an application for Bureau of Outdoor Recreation matching funds. The application would be for 50% of the property's fair market value of $300,000.00, plus 50% of any developmental funds that the County thinks necessary. It is the Conser- vancy's opinion that little developmental funding will be needed, given the intended use of the property. The Conservancy has already accumulated considerable data that might assist in the preparation of a BOR matching fund grant proposal and would be willing to assist in any way possible. As of this date, the Conservancy's total cost in the project is approxi- mately $200,000.00. This figure includes purchase of land, title search and legal fees, interest, taxes, renovations and improvements on the house and other direct expenses. The Conservancy would hope to recoup its in- vestment by selling all of its interest in the project to the City and/or County for one half of the fair market value, or approximately $150,000.00. Furthermore, the Conservancy intends to raise an additional $50,000.00 locally, $i0,000.00 of which has already been committed. Considering its recommendations for the property, the Conservancy does not see management to be a major problem. Furthermore, any management of the property could be enhanced by the fact that the existing house on the Rann Preserve could be used as a warden's residence. Such a use is usually beneficial to both the warden and the managing agency. Since the Conservancy will not place use restrictions in its deed to the City and/or County or regional authority, it expects the future management of the property will, in fact, be regulated by the intended use as out- lined in the BOR proposal. In light of the above, the Nature Conservancy hereby requests that the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle: (1) Agree to acquire all of the Conservancy's present and future holdings along the Ivy Creek portion of the Rivanna Reservoir; April 7, 1976 (Regular - Night Meeting) 131 (2) that the City of Charlottesville, to the extent that it is ~legally possible, incorporate the land that it owns along Ivy Creek into the total project; (3) the City or County, with the endorsement Of both parties, submit an application to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation requesting acqui- sition and possibly development funds in an amount equal to half of the project's total fair market value, and; (4) if the City and County-feel that it is necessary, they will create a regional park authority to manage the area. Again, it is the Conservancy's hope that if the County and City agree to act favorably on this proposal, the land will be managed as a natural area for scientific, educational and passive recreational purposes." Mr. Fisher said he had discussed this proposal with Mr. Francis Fife, a member of City Council, who will also discuss the proposal with City Council. They feel a joint committee should be formed to look into ~h~apo~sibility of joint acquisition of the property, financial arrangements, and management ~r~sumh an arrangement. Mr. Fisher then appointed Mrs. David and Dr. Iachetta to this committee and said this proposal needs to be explored since use of the land for this purpose will reduce demands for high density residential use~on lands adjacent to the Reservoir and will provide recreational space for people already living in the hig~ density areas of the County. Dr. Iachetta said the T. J. Planning District Commission has a request from Dr. Charles Hurt for a $2,147,700 insured loan from F.H.A. for construction of 100 rental units in Hollymead Square. He had asked that the Planning District delay any action since the Board of Supervisors had not seen the request. The principal question involved is the intent 'of this project to provide low and moderate income housing. He then offered motion requesting the Planning Staff to review the plan for Hollymead to see that this proposal is consistent with the approved PUD plan and to request Mr. Jason Eckford to respond for the County's Housing Committee~ and that this matter be included on the Board's agenda of April 14. 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. At 10:39 P.M., the meeting was adjourned. Chairman