Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-05-21SPECIAL 5-15-75 (Day) 5-21-75 (night) Mr., Batchelor said he would be presenting sometime in the future, a request for the Board to be administrative signing agent for a United Way program on drug abuse. Mr. Fisher described the program, which United Way brought before the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission for assistance. Mr. Wheeler read a letter criticizing the appearance of the County Office Building, as being in very poor condition and appearance. Mr. Wheeler requested Mr. Batchelor to take care of this mat- ter. Mr. Wheeler requested the subject of an appointee to the Library Board be placed on the agenda for May 28, 1975. Mr. Wheeler noted that the Supreme Court has ruled t t the Board of Supervisors has the authority to set salaries for the Office of the Clerk of the Circui~ Court. He noted that Mrs. Shelby Marshall has requested a pay and job classification study be condudted for her office. Motion was made by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Carwile authorizing the consulting firm of Friez, Schroeder & Lowe to conduct the requested study, with the fee for the study being at the option of the County Executive. .Role was called, and motion Carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' Messrs. Carwi!e, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. Mr. Fisher read a portion of a memorandum from Mr..Kelly Reynolds, County Fire Marshal, stating the fire hydrant study for the Sugar Hollow area is being abandoned. Mr. Batchelor said this is because of water pressure, but Mr. Reynolds is preparing a full report on County fire fydrants for presentation in June, and more detailed explanations would be given at that time Meeting was adjourned at 12:30 P.M. Chairman Pursuant to the following notice, which was certified and mailed on May 16, 1975, the Board of Superviso?'s' of Albemarle County, Virginia, met in special session at 8:00 P.M. on May 21, 1975, in the County Office Building Board Room, Charlottesville, Virginia, with the following members: PR:ESENT: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr , and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. · ABSENT: Mr. Gordon L. Wheeler. OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. T.M. Batchelor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John County Attorne~ and Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. ' . "This is to give notice of a special meeting called by Mr. Stuart F'. Carwile and Mr. William C. Thacker, Jr. for the purpose of discussing the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance." In Mr. ~Wheeler,s absence, Mr. William C. Thacker chaired the meeting. Mr. T. M. Batchelor made a few opening statements regarding the draft of the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance to be discussed. He stated that this draft meets the approval of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation Commissi and Albemarle County staff members. Mr. Batchelor added that since the last draft, there has been only one significant change. The County, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Commission and the citizen member of the Advisory Committee will now have equal votes. Also, enfor mentalso requires of the ordinanCea minimum will number be handled of personnel, by the County zoning administrator. The ordinance as present Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, stated that of the several drafts, this is the most enforceable. The major difference in the latest draft and all others lies in the plan approvJ authority. In all but the latest draft, the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District had final approval of all plans submitted. In the latest draft, an advisory committee has final approval and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District is strictly a member of the advisory committee. Miss Page Godsey, Administrative Assistant, stated that there were four options as to who should have the plan approving authority. 1) Have a County official appointed as the plan approvi authority with no input from other sources. 2) Have an advisory committee with representatives fr the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District, a private citizen member, and a County official; with the County official giving the "rubber stamp" to the committee,s decision. 3) Have 4)theHaveTh°maSno formal JefferSOncounvySOilordinance.and Water Conservation District Commission be the plan approving author~ Mr. St. John said in the latest draft, the County does all the work and the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District Commission helps in an advisory capacity. He added that the United States Soil Conservation Service, headed in this area by Mr. Gordon Yaeger, has agreed to review and give opinions on plans, but will not get involved in any other work related to the ord~ Mr. Randolph Wade, representing the Blae Ridge Home Builders Association, presented three recommendations Which his association would like to see added to the proposed ordinance, l) Eli~ jail penalty in enforcement and levy fines instead. 2) Concern over bonding requirements. 3) Requests a representative of the community be placed on the advisory committee. Mr. Fisher voiced concern as to whether the County will effectively be able to enforce the ordinance, or if ~forcement could better be handled by some State agency. He added he would not ............. s w~eb would allow continuous offenders to avoid penalization. 5-21-75 (Special) 5-25-75 (Hight) suggested .the best way to avoid problems is to have someone from the advisory committee go into the field and work directlY with the developer. He added that in his years of experience he has found the developers most cooperative and more than willing to comply. ' Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Hartwell' Clarke woulH have sufficient time to properly enforce this ordinance along with his other responsibilities as Zoning Administrator and Building Znspector ..... He said that as long as Mr. Clarke feels he can handle this added responsibility, he will go along with the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Fisher stated he was concerned about the make-up of the advisory committee. He did not .feel a member of the Planning Commission (which is an advisory body in itself) should be involved in the implementation of the ordinance. Mr. Batchelor stated the reason the Planning Commission is involved in the advisory committee is because they are so involved in site plan work. He added that the Planning Commission representative on the advisory committee can be a designated agent, allowing them to designate someone who possibly is a county staff member. Mr. St. John spoke to the enforcement aspect of the ordinance. He stated he has tried pros- ecuting under the old ordinance but has never been able to win because no one had ever actually visited the site. He felt it was essential for either one member or the entire advisory committee to actua!~y visit the site before giving recommendations and approval. Mr. Hartwel'l Clarke agreed with Mr. St. John that visiting the site would be helpful. He added that having a member of the Home Builders Association on the advisory committee Would be helpful in determining w~ether'.-or n~ a recommendation by the committee would be workable. After considerable discussion as to who should be appointed to the advisory committee, Mr. Carwile suggested the deletion of the Planning Commission member, and replace it with "a member appointed by the Board of Supervisors who shall have experience and/or technical expertise in the fields of construction and engineering, and they shall be appointed for a term of one year" Mrs. Frances Martin said in order to avoid a conflict of interest, the person considered to fill such an appointed post should not be an active participant in the construction/developmen~ ..... field. She also questioned how the County would control property owners causing erosion if they have not submitted plans under this ordinance. Mr. St. John said under the new ordinance, only unpaved agricultural roads would be exempt. Mr. Batche!or added that violators in most cases are given an opportunity to correct the violation before the County institutes court action. At this point, Mr. Carwile offered motion to advertise the proposed ordinance for a public hearing. (That draft which provides for the advisory committee consisting of three members, with the elimination of the one member appointed by the Chairman of the Planning Commission, substituting a member appointed by the Board of Supervisors having experience and expertise in the fields of construction and engineering, For a term of one year with compensation for non-staff members being set by the Board from time to time by resolution; and appeals to be brought to the Board of Supervisors. This public hearing to be held on June 18, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse. Second to this motion was made by Mr. Wood, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Thacker noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Rolfe E. Schroeder, consultant for the County's adopted Pay/Classification Plan, stating he would conduct a classification and pay survey for the employees of the Circuit Court Clerk's Office at a cost of $400 based on a three da7 study. At 9:35 P.M. motion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Wood, to adjuurn this meeting. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs.. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wheeler. ~/~ A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 8, 1975, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, r. and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent: Mr. Gordon L. W~eeler. Officers present: County Executive, T. M. Batchelor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John.~ ~lso present: Deputy County Attorn~es, James Bowling and Frederick Payne and Assistant County .anner, Robert Tucker. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. with Mr. Thacker chairing. !. ZMP-316 and SP-4~6. Holy Comforter Catholic Church. (Deferred from April 9, 1975.) Tucker st'ated that the applicant had requested a further deferral in order to solve some legal oblems which had arisen. Motion to defer these petitions until June 18, 1975, was offered by Mr. ad, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: ZS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wood. ~S: None.' ~ T ~EN : Mr. Wh~