Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-03-27N3-26-75 3-27-75 Mr. Thacker noted that May 7, 1975, has been set as Youth in Government Day in Albemarle County. The Board has received a request from Mrs. Margaret Wood asking that the Board participate in some way. He asked that the Board members give this consideration so a decision can be made at the meeting tomcrrow night. Mr. Thacker said the Board was to have had a meeting tomorrow afternoon at 4:00 P.M. but Mr. Wood has a meeting scheduled with Mr. John Hanna of the State Highway Commission in Richmond and will not be back in time for such a meeting. Mr. Wood has asked that the meeting be scheduled for another time. At 9:00 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adjourn this meeting until 7:30 P.M., March 27, 1975, in the Board Room of the County Office Building for another work session on the 1975-76 County Budget. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. None. Mr. Wheeler. An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on March 27, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Office Building Board Room, said meeting being adjourned from March 26, 1975. PRESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J.T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler, .and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. T. M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive. The first item on the agenda was the discussion of the proposed Scottsville Flood Management and Economic Revitilization Program. Mayor A. Raymon Thacker, Council Member Thomas Bruce, and a number of Scottsville citizens were present for this discussion. Mr. Thomas Bruce reviewed the events leading to this session. Mr. Bruce specifically mentioned Mr. Batchelor's memorandum of March 18th, showing comments and questions by the staff regarding the proposed project. Mr. Wheeler asked Mr. Bruce if a representative of Balzer and Associates had been contacted to procure answers to the staff's questions. Mr. Bruce stated that it was not possible for Mr. Balzer to attend this meeting. Upon hearing that no one from Balzer and Associates could attend this meeting, Mr. Batchelor said he had Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, contact the company and discuss the questions as noted in his memorandum of March 18th. Mr. Bailey stated he first spoke to Mr. Balzer and then to a Mr. Richard L. Williams, who is an engineer consultant for the Balzer firm. Mr. Bailey then read from a letter received from Mr. Williams which quoted some statistics concerning the reservoir capacity and the dam site. Mr. Bailey added he was not sure he agreed with Mr. Williams' figures, but that he did agree with the dollar amount estimated to complete Phase I. Mr. Gerald Fisher said he was concerned about the fact that~ no planning work has been done to begin construction phases. He then asked if the application with H.U.D. also included the detailed planning for the construction. Mr. Bruce answered that the engineering costs for planning were included in the funds requested from H.U.D. for this one phase. -Mr. Fisher next asked about an eariler application for E.D.A. (Economic Development Adminis- trat~on~ funding to do the overall planning. He added that this request would require funding by the~~ of Scottsville and the County of Albemarle, and noted this was never approved~by the Board. Mr. Bruce stated that the E.D.A. funds would still be required to cover administrative costs for the project. Mr. Wheeler asked if the location of the dam and the reservoir would effect any of the Service Authority's utilities. Mr. Bruce said it was a natural conservation area, and that it would not effect any utilities. Mr. Batchelor pointed out that his memorandum did not deal with the Mink Creek phase of the application, but with later phases in the project. He therefore felt most of the discussion taking place was unnecessary. Mr. Wheeler then asked Mr. Bruce if he needed approval of just Phase I or the entire program. Mr. Bruce stated that they would like approval of the entire project as pre- sented in the Balzer Report; but since the report was submitted to H.U.D. in a four Phase plan, approval of Phase I would be adequate for the moment. Mr. Thacker made a statement to Mr. Bruce that he had no objection to the project in theory, but the problem was the County considered the Balzer Report a "Planning Report". As a planning report it did not contain any engineering feasibility studies and cost studies. Mr. Thacker stated he felt ~the County and staff's main concern is to know exactly how this plan is going to be imple- mented and if the funds will cover all expenses. Mr. Bruce pointed out that prior to submitting the preapplication, they asked Balzer and Associates to review their cost estimates. He said Balzer report contains 15% for engineering and contingencies, and after the review it was decided to raise this 15% to 20%. Mr. Bruce noted the only thing that can be funded through H.U.D. for fiscal 1975 is Phase I of the Balzer Report. If money is available for fiscal 1976 from H.U.D.~ then an additional application will have to be sub- mitted to H.U.D. At this point, Mr. Thacker offered motion to adopt the following resolution regarding the Town of Scottsville's preapplication request of Phase Z of the Balzer Report. Second to this motion was made by Mr. Carwile. ~ WHEREAS, on February 28, 1975, the Town of Scottsville, ~Virginia, submitted to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, a preapplication for Federal ASSISTANCE for a ~rant to implement a Flood Management and Economic 3-27-75 Revitalization Program for Scottsville, Virginia, as prepared by Balzer and Associates, Community Development Consultants, Roanoke, Virginia; and WHEREAS, since actual construction of this project will occur both within the Corporate Limits of the Town and also in the immediate adjoining portions of Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby consent to the filing of a preapplication form for funds to implement Phase I of this report, known as the Mink Creek Reservoir. Mr. Bailey questioned who woUld be in charge of operating the dam and maintaining the Reserv- oir. Mr. Thacker answered that this would be worked on during the planning stage of the ?hase.I program. Mr. Henley asked the approximate value of the proPerty that would be saved by building the dam. Mr. Bruce answered approximately $10,000,000. Mr. Wood requested further explanation as to what the motion and resolution c~ommitted the Board to. He said he would like to see more concrete information before the Board acts. Mr. Thacker stated due to the deadline set by the Federal Government, they had to act immediately with the information they had. Mayor Thacker proceeded to read a letter from Mr. Mason of H.U.D. stating acceptance of the Scottsville preapplication and granting funds in the amount of $494,400 for Phase I construction of the flood wall impoundment of Mink Creek. Deadline for submission of the final application was set for May 15, 1975. Mr. Henley asked for clarification of what the E.D.A. funds were to be used for. explained that it would cover administration costs. Mr. Bruce Mr. Fisher stated he has attended two presentations of the Balzer Report, and he has read it. He compared it to the County's Comprehensive Plan in that it show, the final results desired, but states no exact way of arriving. Mayor Thacker stated that H.U.D. accepted their preapplication realizing the plan has not been worked out in detail and that H.U.D. gave assurances of other departments in the government helping make the idea a workable plan. Mr. Fisher then questioned who the dam structure would belong to upon completion of the project. Mayor Thacker answered by saying he did not know what maintenance costs would be nor who the structure would belong to, but hopefully these questions will be answered in the near future. Mr. Wheeler requested Mayor Thacker and Mr. Batchelor to set up a meeting between Mr. Balzer and the County Staff, then called for a vote on Mr. Thacker's motion. Role was called, and motion to adopt the aforementioned resolution was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile stated he would be abstaining from action on the following discussion. Mr. Kelly Reynolds, County Fire Marshal, was present to discuss the Board's approval of a permit for the Jaycee's to hold a Circus in the County. He wished to have a condition placed on that permit making it mandatory to observe all County fire regulations. Mr. Thacker stated that this point was covered at yesterday's meeting, and that upon granting the permit it was understood that all County and State fire regulations be observed even though they are not specifically spelled out. Next on the agenda was Mr. Fred Scott,~requesting clarification of Special Permit #421 (approved on November 13, 1974, Minute Book #12, pages 340-343). Mr. Scott questioned the meaning of condition #4 in his Special Permit which states the airfield is subject to "Administrative review after five years". He said there was a substantial investment required by him, and he was afraid that if this field does not pass the review after the first five years, he will suffer a substantial financial loss. Mr. Carwile asked what the other conditions in this Special Permit were. Mr.- Scott presented a copy of the nine conditions imposed, these were read by Mr. Carwile. Mr. Fisher felt this matter should be brought back to the Planning Commission since they originally imposed the conditions. Mr. Carwile felt the Board had final say in these matters, then added he felt it was improper to impose time restrictions where capital had been invested. Mr. FiSher added that he felt, even though the Board may legally have the right to make changes in special permits, it was unfair to adjacent property owners to change conditions without notification. Mr. Thacker stated if conditions in a special permit are not complied with, the permit is automatically revoked, therefore he sees no reason for a five year inspection. At this point, Mr. Carwile made motion to delete condition #4 reading "Administrative review after five years" from Special Permit #421. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood. Mr. Henley said he wouldn't want to change any conditions without getting more advice on the matter. He then asked if any Special Permits are granted without time limits. The consensus of Board members agreed that special permits are granted without time limits. At this point, role was called, and motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. Mr. Fisher Motion was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, to approve the minutes of January 8, 1975 as presented. Role was called, and motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. The Board next discussed a request by Mrs. Margaret Wood of the County Extension Office for Board of Supervisor participation in Youth in Government Day on May 7, 1975. Mr. Wheeler noted the ............. ~lv q:00 A.M.~ and stay for about two hours. In polling the ~ +~ n~ m~mbers 3-27-75 The next item discussed was the rezoning of McIntire School for use by the County as an office building. (deferred from March 26, 1975) Mr. Wheeler stated at the last meeting, that City Council requested the Board to have a traffic study conducted in the area of the school, to aid in deciding if the rezoning should be approved. Mr. Batchelor noted the Highway Department would require a resolution if they were requested to make the traffic study. He also noted that Mr. Robert Warner of the State Highway Department said the County may be required to pay for this study. Mr. Wheeler said the Charlottesville City Council would be discussing the rezoning matter on April 21, 1975 at a public hearing to be held in the Council Chambers, therefore the traffic study information must be received prior to that date. Mr. Batchelor added it was his impression that the City would expect the County to pay for all the implementation costs for an entrance and exit into McIntire. Mr. Fisher said he would prefer seeing the Highway Department make the study, but was not sure if they could make the April 21st deadline. Mr. Carwile felt it would be best if the Board re- quested the Charlottesville City Council to defer the public hearing from April 21st to some later date. Mr. Wood agreed asking for a delay in the public hearing was the proper course of action. Mr. Thacker commented that the entrances and exits from McIntire were site plan problems, not zoning problems, and that the City's request for a traffic study was not required. Mr. Wheeler suggested the Board allow the Highway Department to conduct the study, then possibly the Board will know if they wish to go further with the McIntire Rezoning matter. Mr. Carwile made motion to have the Highway Department conduct a traffic study for the McIntire School area. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher, and resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Wheeler and Wood. Mr. Thacker. WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has applied for a rezoning of the McIntire School Property which lies within the boundaries of the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, traffic problems resulting from the County's proposed use of the McIntire School Property as a County Office Complex must be resolved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby request the Virginia Department of Highways to make a traffic engineering study of ingress and egress to the McIntire School Property by way of the Allied Street/Harris Street/ McIntire Road intersection and the two entrances from the Route 250 By-Pass; and FURTHER, that this study be coordinated with the County Engineer and the County Planning Department, and all costs for said study be paid by Albemarle County; and FURTHER, it is understood that an estimate of the cost of this study will be given to the Board before beginning work on said study. Adoption of a resolution empowering Mr. George St. John, County Attorney, to represent the Board of Supervisors (both as Board members and as ind'ividuals), in the James Fleming "Evergreen Development" case, was deferred until Mr. St. John could be in attendance. The remainder of the meeting was a budget work session, dealing with the following departments: a) b) c) d) e) f) i) J) Zoning Department Building Inspection Soil Erosion Control Parks & Recreation Capital Outlay Fund Land Use Tax Dog Warden Virginia Association of Counties Highway Safety Commission Rescue Squad Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile to advertise a public hearing on the proposed 1975-76 budget, for Wednesday, April 16, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. in the County Courthouse. Role was called, and motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Motion was made by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adjourn the meeting to Monday, March 31, 1975 at 4:00 P.M. then to 7:30 P.M. to conclude the budget work sessions. Role was called, and motion to adjourn was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Chairman