Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-10-27AOctober 27,1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from October 20, 1976) 431 An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 27, 1976, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 20, 1976. 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: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Pilot Program on Solid Waste. Mr. Fisher said this is a continuation of a discussion begun several months ago on a pilot program for solid waste disposal for the northwestern part of the County. The last time this was discussed, even though no vote was taken, it was the consensus of the Board that some type of pilot program should be tried. At that time, Dr. Iachetta felt that in order to make this program effect there would have to be some criteria established on which to judge the program. Mr. Henley was concerned about the large number of proposed sites. He then called on the Board members for comments. Dr. Iachetta said he and Mr. Dennis White have spent time putting together some items with an eye toward monitoring; such as, weighing of materials collected, keeping careful records on what is collected, container abuse, site maintenance, etc. These records will be needed later if a decision is made to extend the pilot program into other parts of the County.. Mr. White said information collected would be broken down into the following: containers sites, tonnage requirements, and citizen input. Information will be gathered on maintenance of the boxes; how often they have to be repaired, what type of vandalism is occurring, is vandalism a problem, are there certain areas where this presents a chronic problem, site cleanliness, where aesthetic screening is needed. There is flexibility in a pilot program. If there are chronically messy sites they can be moved. It would also answer questions as to container collection adequacy. How often is pick up necessary. The program will start with a bi-weekly pick up. Scales will be installed at the Ivy Landfill in January and this will give information on the tonnage generated. Is there a problem with non-household trash types. Administration of the prog~ram is important. If the system is to be broadened, some- one needs to know how much time is spent administering the program. Citizen input is import Mr. Fisher said one of the major items of concern is the effect such a program will have on private haulers. He said this should also be monitored in any pilot program. Mr. Agnor said one of the most difficult aspects of this study,has been to obtain information from the private haulers on the number of customers they service. Without the cooperation of the private haulers, the only way to monitor their service would be to take a survey of the residential property owner-s in the pilot area after the program has begun and leveled out. Mr. Henley said he felt if such a program has an effect on the private haulers, the County will hear from them. Mr. Fisher said the whole basis for selecting this area is the fact the Board has heard that there is no collection in the area. If that is the case, there would not be very much impact. Mr. Henley said there are nine boxes proposed in White Hall and about four private haulers go through there twice a week. Mr. White said the criteria for establishing the pilot area was not necessarily to select the area with the least amount of collection service, but the area that would provide the best feedback. Mr. Henley said he would not vote for the pilot program if even one box is put in White Hall. He has talked to about 50 people since the last meeting and not one is in favor of this program. They are all satisfied with their present collection service. Mr. White said the private haulers will say they provide adequate service ~11 over the County, but that is not the information he has received. People contacted for location of sites were only those people who were in favor of the~site being used if a pilot program were implemented and they were offered free trash service in exchange for the site. Mr. Agnor said not everybody contacted was agreeable to having a site on their property. The sites chosen for this program were sites to which people were agreeable. Mr. Henley said eventually the County will have to do something with resource recovery and he felt the Board should wait and see what is recommended before starting this program. Mr. White said resource recovery will require a comprehensive col~ect~ program so this system is needed. Mr. Agnor said the staff was asked to prepare this study. Whether or not the system~is needed, is a matter for the Board to decide. Mr. Fisher said it seems some of the problems discussed at the last meeting concerning monitoring, etc. have been at least partically resolved. Mr. Henley does not seem to be - finding very much public support, but that can be resolved at the public hearing. Dr. Iachett said he is satisfied the program can be monitored, but he has not seen any costs for this. He said you cannot confuse management of solid waste with resource recovery. The question to be resolved is whether the collection of waste by the "green box" method is really a desirable service for the areas in which the boxes are to be placed. When this was first discussed, he did not think this program would ever be implemented on a county-wide basis. Mr. Fisher said the Board has been led to believe that if the pilot program is successful it will be difficult to just drop the program. Also, the rest of the County's citizens will probably want similar services. This is probably true.in both cases. If a decision is made to start such a pilot program, the Board needs to consider not just this one small area of the county. Mr. Roudabush asked which County Department would be responsible for implementation of the program. Mr. Agnor recommended the Engineering Department. Mrs. David said she thought the Board was going to focus mainly on areas nov serviced~y private haulers. The intent now seems to have changed. Mr. Fisher said it would be difficult to have a general program out of general county funds without making the program available to the whole County. He said if there were no further comments, the Board would go to public hearing with the information to date. 43 . October 27, 1976 [Afternoon - Adjourned from October 20,1976) Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher said he had received the following communications: 1) A memorandum from Ray Jones on Land Use Taxation. He asked that this be placed on the agenda for November 10. 2) A memorandum on development which could occur on Broomley Road. He asked that this be discussed on November 10. 3) A letter from Representative J. Kenneth Robinson concerning his attendance at the Totier Creek dedication. 4) A letter from James W. Swinehart, Jr., Department of State, about the visit from tha~!talian$. 5) A letter from C. S. Hughes, III, about the Minute of Silence put into effect in the County Schools. 6) A newsletter from The Albemarle County Taxpayers concerning State-mandated legislation. 7) A letter from Royce E. Burke, Jr., Culpeper County Board of Supervisors, about State- mandated legislation. This subject will be discussed at the Virginia Association of Counties Annual Meeting. Mr. Fisher said a copy of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority audit for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1976, ha~ been received and will be on file in the Clerk's Office. Mr. Fisher noted that a Highway Department Conference will be held at V.M.I. in Lexingto on November 4.and November 5, 1976. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Representative J. Kenneth Robinson giving the projections on Revenue Sharing funds for the next four fiscal years. For the first three quarters of this year, the County will receive $533,149. During the next three fiscal years, receipts are estimated at $732,245 per year. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said a single document covering the policy on issuance of Central Well Permits as approved by the Board last week had been received now for the Board's final review. Motion was then offered to adopt the Statement of Policy, Central Well Permits as presented to the Board on October 27, 1976, a copy of which was initialed by Dr. Iachetta for the record. 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. (A copy of the adopted policy is set out in full below) This policy, covering the determination and allotment of well capacity, is set for the granting of Central Well Permits by the Board of Supervisors, Albemarle County, Virginia. The applicant shall conduct, at his own expense, a pump test for the purpose of setting a value on the capacity of any well for which a central well permit is desired. Such pump test shall be conducted under the following conditions: The County Engineer shall review and approve the equipment and methods which the applicant proposes to be used in the test. The County Engineer shall monitor the test and shall have full access to all data obtained therefrom. He shall be fully satis- fied in his own judgment regarding the sufficiency of the testing and the interpretation of the data derived therefrom. Whenever the full utilization of a well is contemplated, well pumping shall be conducted at such a rate as to draw down the water to a point below the elevation of the lowest stream that was detected in the well drilling. Pumping shall continue for a minimum of 48 hours where the apparent flow is 25 gallons per minute or less. Whenever the flow is above 25 gallons per minute, 72 hours of pumping are required. The capacity of a well so tested shall be rated as the constant pumping rate that is maintained over the final six hours of the test that does not draw down the water level. Whenever the applicant desires to determine the ability of a well to meet a fixed demand, regardless of how much additional capacitY the well may have, the well shall be pumped continuously for 48 hours at the rate desired to be certified or greater. The capacity of the well so tested shall be rated as the constant pumping rate maintained throughout the final six hours of testing, provided the draw down level also remains constant throughout this time regardless of its location relative to the lowest detected stream in the well. In such cases as it appears impractical to measure the draw down which occurs during a pump test, the pumping shall be continued for 48 hours or 72 hours as specified in Ztem 2 above, whenever the full use of the well is contemplated, or as in Item 3 above in such cases when a fixed demand is sought. The capacity of a well so tested shall be rated as one-half the constant pumping rate that is maintained throughout the final six hours of the test. The capacity of a well as determined in Item 2, Item 3 or Item 4 above, as the case may be, shall be allocated at the rate of 0.50 gallon per minute per dwelling unit for the purpose of limiting the number of dwelling units or equivalent dwelling units graded in a given central well permit. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Wrecker Service Contract. Mr. Fisher said one of the Board members had asked that this be discussed with the Board after seeing same advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Agnor gave the following information: l) In May he received a call from an attorney asking the County's procedures for ~m~lovin~ the ~]~e of m tow t~]nk. O, oll]~sion wa~ ~lled~e~ ~n th~_ ~]ro, hmse of October 27, 1976 (Afternoon - Adjourned from October 20, 1976) 433 3) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) be moved, a member of his department decides which wrecker service to call. If there is an automobile accident and the owner is not injured or inconscious, ~he~mwner is asked which service should be called. The deputies are often put in a position of calling for a tow service through the dispatcher. Some~ times there is difficulty in getting a wrecker service and several calls must be made. The Sheriff and Mr. Agnor agreed that this presented an opportunity for criticism of the County's purchasing power by having a decision made by an employee in an emergency situation. The Sheriff agreed that it would be better to have towing service tied to a contract that would have certain provisions and an established fee schedule. A model contract was drafted by the Purchasing Agent and approved by the County Attorney. In the meantime, another call was received from another law firm with the same question. A contract was then advertised for bids. Three bids were received. One bid was withdrawn and there are two still pending acceptance or rejection. The contract calls for the wrecker service to be at the scene of an accident within 30 minutes after being called, and if they are not there in that time period, another wrecker would be called and the contractor would have to pay the bill. Vehicles must be kept in a fenced area. During emergencies such as snow storms, the Sheriff would have the option of obtaining service wherever it is available. A set fee schedule is included. Mr. Agnor said he realizes that this places all of the service under one contract for a year and eliminates others. An effort to put this on a rotation basis by areas was discussed, but this presents problems for the Sheriff in administration. Sheriff Bailey was present. He said he had wanted to, eliminate the word collusion, but after thinking about this further, he felt it would be best to continue the present procedure used in his office but try to rotate calls more. He feels this contract will cut out the small man entirely and his office has used many small service stations who offer wrecker service. Mr. St. John said the County will not underwrite any payments to the wrecker service. The car owner is responsible for any charges. This is not a service the County provides. is the granting of an exclusive franchise in this County and he did not feel the Board has the authority to do this. Thi Dr. Iachetta said he had asked that this be discussed since he was conqerned that the County is entering into a contract for services not provided by the County and for which the County has no obligation to pay. Mr. Henley said he felt it would be better to let the Sheriff handle this matter. No action was taken by the-Board and the subject was dropped. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Highway Engineer, was present. Hydraulic Road Project. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Mr. Fisher said in May a letter was received from C. B. Perry asking for answers to the following items on the Hydraulic Road Project: "The first point deals with sidewalks. If the County is interested in having sidewalks constructed in conjunction with this project, the Department's policy requires that the County furnish the necessary right of way for construction of the sidewalks at no expense to the Secondary Road Funds. Also, the County would have to pay half of the cost of construction. The other half of the construction cost would be borne by the Secondary Road Funds. The second point deals with bicycle trails. If the County presently has an approved County wide Bicycle Plan and the County would like to have a bicycle trail constructed in conjunction with this project, the Department's policy requires that the County furnish the necessary right of way for the construction of the bicycle trail at no expense to the Secondary Road Funds. The construction of the bicycle trail would be financed by the Department. The third' point deals with the construction of curb and gutter with storm sewer. This project presently contains curb and gutter from Route 29 to just past the intersection of Route 631. It is the Department's policy that the construction of storm sewer be financed by the Secondary Road Funds and other resources 'on the basis of run off, ratios, and percentages of participation." Mr. Fisher said in August the Planning Commission adopted a recommendation for sidewalks in the urban area; basically that recommendation is that sidewalks be required in compliance with recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan. On October 8, a memorandum was received from the Director of Planning making the following recommendations: "Sidewalks. The Comprehensive Plan indicates that Route 743 is projected as a major collector and recommends sidewalks (six feet width) on both sides of the street. The Planning Commission is very concerned about the need for providing sidewalks in the urban area, especially in this area where a large portion of the urban area's population is existing and proposed and because of the existing school complex on Hydraulic Road. While the County would have to provide the necessary right-of-way for such sidewalks where needed, there is recent legislation existing in the State Code (Sections 15.1-239 - 2~9.1) which provides that local governing bodies may assess affected property owners for the sidewalks abutting their property. -434 October 27, 1976 (Afternoon- Adjourned from October 20~ 1976) Bike Trails. The County's adopted Bikeway Plan, which is an element of the Compre- hensive Plan, recommends that a bicycle trail paralleling Hydraulic Road be provided from its intersection with Rio Road southward to its intersection with Georgetown Road. It is our recommendation that the bike trail be located on the west side of Hydraulic Road." Mr. Fisher asked what the County's cost responsibilities would be for this project. Mr. Agnor said the only costs known at this time are the per footage costs for construction of concrete sidewalks. The cost of the right of way involved is not known. Mr. Roosevelt has asked that the Board discuss this project without those figures. Mrs. David asked if the six foot sidewalk is a Highway Department standard. Mr. Rooseve said the Highway Department has no standards for sidewalks, but he did not know of any time when they have installed a sidewalk of less than four feet and this is four feet clear withou' utility poles. Mr. Fisher said this is one of the highest density areas in-the whole County and he did nov think the project should be undertaken without putting in adequate pedestrian ways. His only question is whether there should be sidewalks on one side or both sides. Mr. Roudabush said if the Board decides to do this, they will have to make it clear that this is the first time the County has ever participated in buying right of way for secondary roads and participated in the cost of construction. Mr. Hent~y asked about the plans for the road. Mr. Roosevelt said it will have 48 feet of pavement with two-foot curb and gutter on each side and then a small amount of additional right of way. The road will be wide enough for four lanes, but it depends on how parking is handled as to whether it will be used as four lanes. Dr. Iachetta asked what had happened to the signal light which was to have been installe~ at the corner of Georgetown Road and Hydraulic Road. Mr. Roosevelt said a traffic study was made and a signal has been recommended for both this intersection and the intersection of Georgetown and Barracks. The'fsignals have not been finally approved. If they are approved, he will try to have the money which was set aside for work on the curve on Georgetown Road transferred to pay for these signals, plus some turning lane work. Since this project is a minimum of two years away, he had hoped to get an easement from Mr. Rotgin to get the area needed for the turn lane so he could have grading work done and the signal installed at its final location. This has been unsuccessful to this point. Mr. Fisher said he is in favor of investigating the costs of construction of six foot wide sidewalks on both sides from Route<29 North to Georgetown Road as recommended by the staff and funding the County's share from Revenue Sharing funds. Dr. Iachetta said he feels the Board will face this problem on the other end of the loop at Rio Road. Since that area is now undeveloped, there might be an opportunity to get some of that right of way dedicated. Mr. Roudabush said he felt there would be as many pedestrians coming from the other direction and suggested investigating the costs for sidewalks on both sides from Route 29 to Albemarle High School and from Albemarle High School only ~hat~e east side of the project to Rio Road. Mr. Agnor said not knowing the costs presents a dilemma. He asked if the Board can change its mind after the costs are determined. Mr. Roosevelt said the plans can be revised before starting work, but he needs some guidance as to the plans to be developed for a public hearin on this project. If after the costs are determined and if the Board feels the sidewalks are too expensive, the plans can be revised and the sidewalks removed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to advise the Highway Department to include in the plans for this project, sidewalks of a six-foot width on both sides of Hydraulic Road from Route 29 North to Rio Road, noting that the decision as to whether all of these sidewalks will be left in the plans will be made after a public hearing on this project. 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. Mr. Fisher said the second point to be resolved concerns bike trails which are rec- ~ ommended by the Comprehensive Plan from Georgetown Road to Rio Road. Mr. Roosevelt said there are a lot of different designs that can be considered. It can be built on a separate roadway by itself in back of the curb and gutter or it can be built as a widened area within the existing right of way. On this project, it would probably be best in the existing right of way. Dr. Iachetta said if there is a bike trail ~only on one side of the road, it would need to be on the west side so it can tie into other sections. Mr. Fisher asked how much right of way is required for a bike trail. Mr. Agnor said it requires eight feet for two-way traffic. Mr. Fisher said the additional eight feet of right of way and the construction sounds expensi~ Mr. Roudabush did not feel any plans should be made for a bike trail across the vacant lands past Albemarle High School until there are some plans filed for developing this land. Mr. Roosevelt said the full cost of the bike trail will be borne by Secondary Funds. The only cost to the County is for the additional right of way. Dr. Iachetta said with all the road problems in the County, bike trails are not a priority item with him at this time. Mr. Agnor said he did not want to ask the Board for a decision until the costs were known, but since they are not he would bring to the Board's attention that there is only one developed lot on that side of the road between Georgetown Road and Georgetown Green. Beyond that point it is all undeveloped except for a church. In essence this would involve buying the right of way in front of the convenience store and the church and then requiring the rest of the right of way as site plans are filed for the vacant lots. If_the bike trail is incorporated into the plans now, the construction wiI1 be paid by the Highway Department. If the bike trail is not incorporated into the plans at this time, and construction is under- taken at a later date, the total cost would probably fall on the County. Mr. Roosevelt said it would probably be with County funds since the General Assembly is trying to decide what to do about funds for bike trails and under what conditions they will be built. The Highway Department has an interim policy at this time in which they state that if the right of way is furnished by a county that has a comprehensive bikeway plan, the Highway Department'wil! build the bike trail as part of an improvement project. October 27,1976 (Afternoon- Adjourned from October 20, 1976) 435 P Mr. Fisher asked if there is any idea how much construction will cost. Mr. Roosevelt said the best estimate at this time for an eight foot width of threeinch asphalt behind curb and gutter is $3.00 a lineal foot. This bike trail would be about 4,800 feet or $14,400. Right of way on this' type of construction project runs about 30% of the cost of construction. This project is estimated to cost about $1,000,000 with the overall right of way costing $300,000. The Highway Department owns 30 feet of right of way and will be purchasing another 30 feet. For every foot of right of way bought back from the edge of the road, it costs about $10,000 for the full length of the property. The Highway Department would be buying two extra feet for sidewalks and an extra five, feet for bike trails. The design speed of this road is 35 m.p.h. With a four-lane width and relatively low speeds, a sheared road concept, where there is no additional right of way, but bikes use the roadway that is there, could~-be considered. If the Board feels there will be a lot of demand for a bike trail in the future, it shouZd be provided, however, Mr. RooseveltYsaid he personally feels the facility will be sufficient to carry the bike traffic for many years in the future. Mr. Roudabush said the County School Board owns about one-half of the property in question. It might be better to incorporate that section of the road into the plan, have the bike trail built, and reserve the decision on the remainder until development occurs on the remainder of the west side of the road. Mr. Fisher agreed ~hat if the County did not con- struct the bike trail on its own property, it would be difficult to get the rest built. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion requesting the Highway Department to include on the plans for this project a bikeway from Georgetown Road to Lamb's Road on the west side of Hydraulic Road with the decision as to design of the bikeway left to the discretion of the Highway Department. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Rouda~ush. None. Mr. Fisher said the third point to be addressed is storm sewers with curb and gutter. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Perry had indicated in his letter of May 19 that curb and gutter with storm sewers is already planned from Route 29 North past the intersection with Route 631. Mr. Perry said it is possible to finance these storm sewers on the basis of run off, ratios, and percentages of participation. The estimate given was $30,000 from CounTy funds. The other option is not to have curb and gutter but this requires more shoulder so therefore requires more right of way. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department, in a policy dated January l, 1973, agreed to pay the cost of storm sewers based on 100% runoff from within the State's right of way and 25% based on the runoff from areas outside the road right of way and within the watershed common to the project. Seventy-five percent would have to come from other sources. Mr. Roosevelt said the storm sewer system made necessary on this project by the desired curb and gutter totals approximately $81,000. It is estimated that 42% of the runoff is the County's or about $34,000 of the cost. If the County does not pay for the storm sewer system, the Highway Department will not build curb and gutter, but a rural section. If a rural section is built, more right of way will be needed. Instead of a four-lane road with curb and gutter there would be a four-lane road with six to eight foot shoulders plus open ditches. If this occurs, he would strongly recommend against building this project at all. Mr. Agnor said if no curb and gutter is built, this would eliminate sidewalks. Mr. Fisher said this is the first project where the decisions was made by the Board two years ago. When the Board agreed that the Highway Department should divert funds to this project, he did not think the Board was told they would have to put up any County funds and he is shocked. Mr. Roosevelt said there are other items such as utilities located within the existing right of way which have not been mentioned. Cost for relocation of utilities is borne by the Highway Department, but water and sewer lines are the cost responsibility of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Roosevelt said the decision the Board makes today on curb and gutter will have to be lived with in the future. Sidewalks and bike trails can be deleted after the public hearing, but if the project is designed with storm sewers and the Board decides to go back to a rural section, this would require another public hearing. Motion was theJn offered by Dr. Iachetta to advise the Highway Department that the design for this project should incorporate curb and gutter with the necessary storm drainage and that the Board has been advised that the County's approximate cost for this storm drainage is $34,000. 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. Agenda Item No. 5. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. the following letter from the Airport Board: Mr. Fisher said he had received "October 14, 1976 The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board' and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Joint Airport Commission would like to bring to your attention the need for upgrading Route 649 (Airport Road) from Route 29 to the Airport entrance. This route is used by everyone utilizing the Airport, and as such is the communities' "front driveway", so to speak. The size, surface condition and layout of this route is not suitable for the large volume of traffic this route carries daily. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation's figures indicate that this route from the Airport to Route 29 has an average annual daily traffic count in excess of 3,000. The accident records for this same stretch of road reveals that there were 33 accidents on this road from late 1970 through mid-1976. These accidents resulted in nine injuries and one death. Undoubtedly as the number of businesses increase -- there have been four new businesses open on the road in the past two years -- and the turning movements into and out of these businesses, there will be an increased number of accidents. 436 October 27, 1976 (Afternoon- Adjourned from October 20~ While the Board and Commission are not in the highway design and maintenance business, we do feel that realignment of the road to eliminate the several blind curves, widening of the riding surface with adequate left turn lanes and shoulders would certainly both make the road safer as well as project a better image to the traveler to or from our community. The County Comprehensive Plan forecasts a major county-state primary route status for this route from Earlysville to Route 29. Not to take a narrow view, but to confine ouselves to our own experience, our major concern is with the portion between the Airport and Route 29. Therefore we request that you give every consideration to upgrading this portion of the road. We stand ready to work with you in supplying information and interest in seeing this project through." Mr. Fisher asked if this road is included in the Highway Department's long-range plans. Mr. Roosevelt said it is not in the present six-year plan for improvements of the Secondary System. In the near future, he intends to write the Board and request that the Board advise him of its priorities for the next six years, in detail. The Highway Department is currently revising the Urban Transportation Plan for this area. The County has an adopted Compre- hensive Plan and a Planning Office with staff that is capable of advising the Board of the transportation needs of the County. Mr. Fisher said he did not know if the Board has the time or the skill to do this. Mr. Agnor said he was not sure how much time this would take, but felt the Board should take the opportunity to make these recommendations. (Note: Mr. Henley left the meeting at 5:00 P.M.) Mr. Fisher then inquired about improvements to the bridge on Park Street Extended. Mr. Roosevelt said this is not in the current six-year plan. He has reviewed that plan and finds two major projects scheduled for about four years from now for which he finds no justification. Priorities can be changed in that plan. The connection between Rio Road and McIntire Road is in the sixth year of the plan. He has heard that the City has nearly finalized their plan for their section of this improvement and will contact Mr. John Greene to see if the .preliminary work has been finished. Mr. Roosevelt said he considers the Board to be the only spokesman for the County citizens when they act as a whole. But, when they come to him individually, this gives the resident engineer power to make the decision and he does not want that power. Mr. Agnor announced that HUD has contracted with an agency to do an act~rial study on rates for flood coverage in areas of the County. A press release will be in the paper on this soon. Mr. Agnor said he had distributed to the Board this date a summary on the Convention Bureau contract. This item will be on the agenda for discussion on November 10. Mr. A~nor said the Division of Industrial Development is having a briefing in Richmond on November 3 from 10 A.M. to 3 P.M. In the absence of an active Industrial Development Authority, Fred Ferguson from the Chamber of Commerce will attend for the Economic Developmen' Commission. He asked who should attend for the County. It was suggested that either Mr. Roudabush or Ray Jones attend. Mr. Roudabush said since the Board adopted the 75 foot setback in the A-1 zone a number of people have tried to put additions on their houses and found they are in non-compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and have to go through an appeals procedure. This has happened because most of the subdivisions in the rural part of the County never applied for a rezoning when the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. He then offered the following resolution for adoption: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia does hereby state its intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance~b-~-~¢~'~-~ the addition of the following: Any structure located within the A-1 Agricultural zone which was in existence prior to October 21, 1976, and is now non-conforming by the virtue of the adoption of the above 75 foot front setback requirement - if otherwise permitted - may be expanded, enlarged, extended or remodeled with administrative approval of the zoning administrator provided, however, that such expansion, enlargement, extension, or remodeling does not extend beyond the present building line. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission is directed to hold public hearings on this amendment and to send their recommendation on same to the Board at the earliest possible date. The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. October 27, 1976 (Afternoon - ~ Ajourned from October 20, 1976) 437 Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Preston Coiner has resigned as a member of the Resource Recovery Study Commission. He recommended that Dr. Iachetta be appointed to take his place. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 5:26 P.M. the Chairman requested an executive session-to discuss property acquisition. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. The meeting reconvened at 5:45 P.M. Expenditures for the Month of October, 1976, were examined, allowed and certified to the Director of Finance for payment and charged against the following funds: General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund Textbook Rental Fund School Construction-Capital Outlay Fund General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Federal Revenue Sharing Fund Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax $ 416,586.21 1,138,735.70 43,015.03 41,031.70 87,522.02 66,554.00 51,972.28 16,836.41 538.32 96.11 $1,862,887.78 Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting. The motion carried by the recorded vote which follows: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley.