Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-21January 21, 1976--(Adjourned-f~r-o~ ~a~n~a~y !~-~2~!~} - An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 21, 1976, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 15, 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: County Executive, J. Harvey Bailey; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, John L. Humphrey... No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. No. 2. Deer Run Subdivision Bond (this matter was deferred from both the meetings of ~ December 18, 1975 and January 15, 1976). Mr. Tucker said the Board had asked the staff to review this bond with Mr. James Whyte, the developer, to ascertain whether said bond is adequate to bring roads in this subdivision up to state standards for inclusion in the State Highway System. Mr. Whyte was present. He said his contractor has talked with representatives of the Highway Department to ascertain what needs to be completed. An estimate of the cost involved has been received,bbut no contract has been signed at this time. The work will probably be commenced in April. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Whyte if he would object to posting additional bond, based on an estimate of the County Engineer. Mr. Whyte said he would rather not since he would have to borrow money to do the work and pay interest on that money. The bond the County presently holds is not drawing any interest. Mr. Bailey suggested that the Board might offer Mr. Whyte a choice between posting additional bond with the County or withholding building permits. Mr. Dorrier asked if there is any building activity anticipated in the near future. Mr. Whyte said no. ~, Mr. Henley said he did not want to impose a hardship on Mr. Whyte but next month the Board may have another person in front of them in a similar situation and he felt steps should be taken to insure that the roads will be taken into the Highway System at some time. Mr. Roudabush said he knows Mr. Whyte very well and knows his intentions are good. He there- fore moved that the Board impose a moratorium on building permits in Deer Run Subdivision until the Highway Department certifies to the Board of Supervisors that t.he roads are constructed to their standards or additional money has been posted with the County to insure the work will be done at some future date. 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 Roudabush. None. No. 3. John Moore - Site Plan, Pine Haven. (Deferred from both the meetings of December 18, i 1975 and January 15, 1976.) (Mr. Roudabush said he had been involved in preparation of the site plan and therefore would abstain). Mr. Bailey said he had met with representatives of the City Engineering Department since this matter was last discussed. The City is presently engaged in a study of the drainage problems within the City and'is receptive to the idea of participation by the County in areas where the drainage basin is split. A number of different ideas were discussed as to the extent of respon~f_ sibility a developer would have for off-site development particularly in drainage matters. This would have to be worked out carefully in order to be equitable. Mr. Bailey said he has suggested to the City that if the owner of this property is agreeable to posting a bond for a specific period of time against the improvements of drainage work required, that the Board might accept that bond and let him.start.this Dro~ect. ,It was suggested that as an alternative the developer might install a ~ ....... r~ rovi ' ' ~ ......... p mmng ponamng ror storm waters that would hold and p~mit current culverts to carry water through without damage. Mr. Bailey recommended that this owner be given, an opportunity to post a bond with the County in an amount of $750.00, as computed by the staff, for a period of five years, during which time the City and the County could enter into a program to correct the flood plain conditions in this locale. Mr. Fisher said he has received many telephone calls from people living in this area and knows there is a problem at the present time. If some program can be worked out whereby drainage facilities can be improved, then this amount of money would be available for this property. It would establish a need for the County to enter into some planning on watersheds and have on paper a complete plan for the future so that under this program some State statutes would begin to apply~ Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to offer Mr. Moore the opportunity to post a bond in the amount of $750.00 with the County for a five-year period toward the ultimate solution of this drainage problem. If such bond is posted, Mr. Moore can then proceed with Pine Haven. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, and Iachetta. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush. No. 4. Public Hearing.~ Preapplication - Community Development Block Grant ~unds. of this public hearing was given in the Daily Progress on January 19, 1976). Mr. Bailey said these funds would be used for three projects: 1. Extending the water main in Scottsville to eliminate a well and serve additional residences in Stoney Point Subdivision east of Scottsville. 2. Funding of a Charlottesville Housing Improvement Program. ~ 3. Sewerage facilities to serve the Crozet area. (Notice January 21, 1976 [Adjourned from January 15) lifting it~ through a force main to the present facility which serves several schools above~Crozet. If and when the intercepter sewer line is constructed, the package plant which now seC'YeS the schools can be eliminated. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Ashley Williams, acting County Engineer, to explain item number one. Mr. Williams said this is to extend a water main in Scottsville to a subdivision known as Stoney Point. It is the intent of an owner on adjacent properties to build low income housing and that property can also be served by this line. The line would also go to the new shopping center and there are adequate customers there to come on line. This would replace the well which is presently being used to service Stoney Point. For extension of the line, about 6,000 feet of eight-inch line and a pumping station to deliver pressure at the terminating point would cost an estimated $91,800.00. Mr. Fisher asked if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority would consider this project as a cost-efficient investment. Mr. Bailey said he did not think the Rivanna Authority would be interested in this as a project for themselves. If the Albemarle County Service Authority, by this extension, could pick up some additional 20 customers they would come closer to a break even point in the future. Because economic conditions have cut back the hours of operation of Uniroyal, less water is now being used than when the plant was put into operation. Mr. Dorr±er said he felt this was a good project. It also fits in with the flood management plan of the town of Scottsville. If everything goes well that community will be expanding. Mr. Roudabush asked if this project had been considered for community development funds because there are no other immediate funds to do the same job and primarily because this would serve low income housing. Mr. Williams said yes. Mr. Fisher asked the cost of item number 3. Mr. Williams said it is estimated at $208,600.00. Dr. Iachetta asked-how much effluent would be treated and from what sou.rces. Mr.~Henley said ~his is from 27 to 30 homes and businesses. Dr. Iachetta asked the piping distance. Mr. Williams said it would be 12-inch pipe from a source point 3,800 feet to the location where the pumping station would be set and then 3,700 feet of eight-inch force main to the treatment plant. This would then have capacity to come on line as a gravity feed. Mr. Bailey noted that this project would fit in handily with the overall ~scheme since a gravity line will be required to phase out this line at some future date. Housing Program - Mr. Michael Carrol said he understands the purpose of Community Development Funds ~s to work with housing for underprivileged or minority groups which is part of what the county is doing with their housing request. A housing coordinator, if hired, could coordinate activities with CHIP, should these funds be approved. Mr. John Taylor, CHIP Program, was also present. He said that the CHIP Program is directed at owner occupants who are the poorest in the county and whose home~s are in the worst condition, but still habitable. These funds would be only part of a total program working toward this end. The CHIP Program is a non-profit, general contracting firm using volunteer labor although there are 25 full-time staff members in addition to the volunteers. In addition to Community Develop- ment Grant funds and F.H.A. funds, CHIP also uses funds from the Federal Action Agency, the Virginia Employment Commission which administers CETA funds, ~the Virginia Office on Aging and HUD funds as well as gifts from citizens. Mr. Fisher asked the amount of this request. Mr. Taylor said $60,000.00 is estimated to help purchase materials with $15,000.00 for general operations for a total of $75,000.00. Mr. Bailey asked the number of housing units which could be repaired with'these funds. Mr. Taylor said that by the end of 1975, CHIP had completed work on 42 total housing rehabilitations, mostly in the city. They estimate 25 for the fiscal year 76-77. Mr. John Humphrey, County Planner, said he had talked to Mr. E. E. Thompson of the Albemarle County Service Authority about the extension of the water line in Scottsville. The comprehensive plan for Albemarle County envisions a development cluster around the town of Scottsville with the extension of a water and sewer line to serve this area. The Subdivision of Stoney Point is within that cluster. The Crozet sewer trunk line is also indicated in the comprehensive plan and wo~ld serve the southwestern part of the Crozet community cluster. It would also help to alleviate a health hazard. At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Roy Barksdale, a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, said the Crozet sewer system has been before the Planning COmmission several times. The Planning Commission has been told that when the county and Mr. ~ancey ~ointty built the Brownsville sewer treatment plant, the county reserved three taps for the ~ schools and Mr. Yancey reserved 88 taps. He asked if the county has any legal way to make a fourth tap to the treatment plant. Mr. Bailey said when the school board bought the land for the western Albemarle High School, a certain percentage of the taps allowed to Mr. Yancey went with that property so none of that capacity has been absorbed. Mr. Fisher said this proposal raises questions in his mind. He feels the county needs to protect at all cost, the availability of that sewer treatment plant for schools; Brownsville, Henley, and the western Albemarle high school. No one else from the public speaking, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Bailey had informed the board last week that the chance o~f receiving any funds is slim, and he asked Mr. Bailey to give priorities. Mr. Bailey said if any money is realized, it will probably come attached to a specific program. Once the application is submitted, he did not feel that the county has any options as to what program will be funded so therefore would recommend that the three items discussed be submitted without setting priorities. Dr. Iachetta asked if the heari~ng on last Thursday ~ualified as one af the two public hearings required. Mr. Carrol said in speaking to members of the HUD office in Richmond, they had only stated that the Board was required to hold two scheduled public hearings. The definition of a public hearing was left to the Board. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta instructing Mr. Bailey to file the application as submitted to the board. 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. No. 5. Public Hearing: Discussion of Methods and Objectives to be used in updating the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that the State Code requires the Planning Commission to review the Comprehensive Plan every five years and, if necessary, to update same at January 21, 1976 [Adjourned from January 15, 477 tonight to give their views. He then asked for planning staff comments. Mr. John Humphrey said the purpose of the review is to re-evaluate the existing Comprehensive Plan, its concept of growth based on today's developmental trends and technology under existing county policy and under the guidelines of Virginia State Law. There are two methods for doing this; one with the exi-sting staff and one with a consultant. The staff feels that they have about 80% of the expertise needed to accomplish this review, but do not have the time because of the day-to-day work of the Planning Department. In order for the staff to accomplish this review two or three additional members would need to be added to the staff. Because of their close work with the Board, the Planning Commission, and the citizens of the County there would be an advantage in having the staff do this work. Mr. Humphrey said this work could also be accomplished through a professional consultant, however this sometimes offers a disadvantage by not having close contact with that consultant. Close contact could be maintained if a consultant is selected who would have sufficient staff to be able to concentrate on the particular project that Albemarle County has in mind and maintain weekly liaison to ensure that the quality and the input is what the county wants. The staff recommends that citizen input be obtained either during the course of the investigation and development of facts or through a citizen's advisory group. Mr. Humphrey said the goal of this review would be to develop a five year Comprehensive Development Plan with a twenty-year outlook and with special attention given to .growth impact on the environment and public services. The objectives would be: 5. 6. ?. 8. An update of the economic survey; Development of a land use plan and evaluation of an existing concept for development of the cluster; A public facilities plan which would include such items as school needs, roads, parks, fire services, police protection, library services, medical facilities, water ~nd sewer services, storm water facilities, and solid waste disposal facilities; The staff feels that more attention should be given to a housing element than in the original plan; An open space plan; An environmental assessment; A detailed cost-revenue analysis for a five-year plan; and A capital improvement program developed by the Planning Commission for the first time, and forwarded on to the Board of Supervisors for action. Mr. Humphrey said if a consultant is selected, the Albemarle Planning Department staff will provide existing land use data and development activity, present and historic. This will save money because the staff has already started on this investigation and has in hand much of the information. The Director of Planning will coordinate activities and the work program between the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff, the general public and the consultant. The Planning Staff makes the following general recommendations: The consultant in submitting a proposal should include a cost for each work element with a suggested method of payment. The consultant should submit a time schedule indicating estimated time for completion of the individual work elements and with an estimated date of completion of the total program. The staff feels it will take approximately eight months from the beginning to the end of the review. The consultant will be responsible for the publication of the comprehensive plan and will include estimated costs for 500 copies. The consultant will be responsible for presentation to citizen groups as required and as may be established by the County in obtaining public input during the initial work and at the completion of each work element. The staff feels that this will review cost between $45,000.00 and $60,000.00 based on unofficial estimates obtained from several consultants several months ago. Mr. Humphrey suggested that instead of sending proposals to 20 or 30 different firms, that only half a dozen applications be sent after screening of consultants by a committee. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Humphrey explain a cost-revenue analysis. Mr. Humphrey said this would be a detailed analysis of the five-year, growth plan, tying this to expenditures for capital improvements as opposed to revenue which would be received from any development proposed. This analysis would indicate whether the plan is balanced as far as land uses are concerned. It would have to be based on todays expected real estate values with a five year projection of those values maintained. Mr. Fisher asked if he were speaking of using cost of revenues as differentiated from a capital improvement program which talks only about capital outlays. Mr. Humphrey said yes. A lot of people have said the comprehensive plan was done in a vacuum. No one was aware if total development would pay for itself. Mr. Humphrey said many times he has disagreed with this approach on a cost-revenue study. However, he feels it does have merits in order to see that there is a balanced community. By doing this study, it will eliminate a lot of arguments that the study was not done, and therefore the plan has no real validity as far as proper land uses are concerned. It should be prepared for the overall county instead of just on one residential area which would not pay for itself. Dr. Iachetta asked the cost of three additional staff persons. Mr Humphrey said this is estimated at between $30,000.00 and $35,000.00 which would not include basic materials. It does pose one disadvantage in hiring a person for one or one-and-a-half years and then letting them go. Mr. Dorrier asked if there were any chance of getting someone at the University of Virginia to act as a consultant either on a part-time or full-time basis. Mr. Humphrey said he did not feel that one individual could do the work. The staff feels that someone from the outside, with a fresh approach, would be more objective. Mr. Fisher said the time span must also be considered. Mr. Dorrier asked the cost of the original comprehensive plan. Mr. Humphrey said it was a total of $60,000.00 with the Federal and State Governments paying $40,000.00 and the county paying $20,000.00. Mr. Roudabush said he was glad to see Mr. Humphrey recommend that this be a five-year comprehensive plan with a 20-year outlook. He asked if this would meet the legal requirements of the state. Mr. Humphrey said that most localities are going to a 20-year plan. The Board could consider what is already in effect adding more detail on-the urban area in the 5-year plan. Mr. Roudabush asked if the environmental assessment would be assigned to a staff member or the 478 January 21, 1976 CAdjourned from January 15) Mr. Fisher said he had asked Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, to look into the question of funding this study with revenue sharing funds. Mr. Jones said instructions from the revenue sharing office are not explicit on this point. He feels that only the portion of the plan which speaks to financial aspects could be funded from revenue sharing and then only if a consultant bid on the work and allocated his cost for each item. There is a danger ~n allocating funds from revenue sharing, spending those funds, and then having a federal auditor strike that payment. Mr. Fisher asked for further staff comments before opening the meeting to the public. Mr. Robert Tucker said the planning staff has requested that the Board approve a temporary position from federal funds to work in the field preparing a land use study. The funds presently allocated to the County go thro'ugh June 30th. This matter was brought to the Planning Commission last night and they recommended approval. Because of the time involved, a person is needed immediately for work on the moratorium area. At this time the public hearing was opened. The first to speak was Mrs. ~Joan Graves. She feels it is important to establish the comprehens±ve plan as a legal document and not consider it as merely a guideline. She asked if this will be a plan which can be upheld in court since the court has refused to uphold provisions in the present comprehensive plan when they have come into contention. Mr. St. John said that Section 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia is entitled "Legal Status of the Comprehensive Plan". It says that no public facility, no public building, no p~blic street, no public utility can be put into a county that has a comprehensive plan until the Board finds that these public facilities are in accord with the comprehensive plan." The State Code now requires that every county have a comprehensive plan, but does not require that they have a zoning ordinance. Therefore, Mr. St. John said he.feel~s the Comprehensive Plan has been elevated to a legal position that is somewhat more powerful than the zoning ordinance. When the previous board adopted the Comprehensive Plan, they had stated that the plan wOuld be used'as a guide only. Mr. St. John said it has always been his ~p~.ion~ that you either have a plan or you do not and that those words did not mean anything. Mr. Paul Peatross, a member of the Planning Commission, said the Planning Commission supports Mr. Tucker's statement that an additional staff person is needed. Whether the plan is done by a consultant, or the staff, there is a n~ed for this person. However, it has been recommended that if a consultant is used, the Planning Commission would like to have a local person selected; someone who is familar with County problems. Next to speak was William Woodworth, reading for Citizens for Albemarle the following statement: "The Citizens for Albemarle wishes to submit the following comments and suggestions regarding revision of the Comprehensive Plan. In view of the rapid pace of development in Albemarle County, we believe that the need for updating the master plan is urgent and that such revision should be commenced at once. Although we are aware of the need for new zoning standards, such as were embodied in the first proposed revision of the zoning ordinance last winter, we believe that amendments made during the past year have so weakended the proposed zoning map that it should not be adopter in its present.form. Because efforts to strengthen the proposed zoning map might tend to delay amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and because the revised plan might render any zoning map obsolete. We do not recommend action to adopt a complete proposed zoning ordinance and map at this time. We do support limited action to introdUce some of the Provisions of the proposed zoning ordinance into our present ordinance, especially the addition of a conservation zone, provided that this action would not interfere with the Comprehensive plan. We recognize that action to revise the plan would place a severe strain on the Planning Commission and that there may be a need for the services of individuals with special qualifications. We therefore urge that the Planning Commission enlist a panel of citizens representing as nearly as possible all segments of the population to serve as an advisory sub-committee charged with reviewing the master plan in recommending any necessary or desirable changes to the commission. This panel should be required to report to the commission within a clearly understood period of time. The Planning Commission should then hold the public hearings on the pan~t recommendations before preparing its final recommendations to be submitted to the Board of Supervisors. We recommend that those charged with revision of the master plan be directed to place the priorities on the status of the plan so that its recommendations Control the formation and administration of the ordinances of the County, rather than the reverse, as has frequently been the case in recent years. In conclusion, we should like to commend the new Board of Supervisors for its early attention to planning and resource protection to spite the many urgent matters on the agenda. We hope that the stress of business will never cause you to loose sight of the long range needs of our community." Next to speak was Mr. Robert W. Keller, who read the following communication: "I would like to submit a copy of an article published in the Daily Progress which discusses the relationship of Planning to Zoning. The article addresses the lack of coordination and the reversal of roles between our Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Zoning Map. The proposed Zoning Map, which includes the existing zoning, is an accumulation of individual interests not coordinated by an underlying plan. To revise the Comprehensive Plan to fit the zoning would deny the definition of the word "Planning". You do not "plan" random distribution and imbalance. To revise the zoning to fit the Comprehensive Plan would engender endless arguments about upzoning and downzoning, to little avail. January 21,~976 (Adjourned from January !5/~-~7~- 4'79 There are three elements to be satisfied by Planning: 1. The County's obligation to furnish services to the public. 2. The public benefit obtained by best land-use practices. 3. The owners' and builders' rights to the use of their land. We must find the common ground between these interests. I believe this common ground lies in the economics of the market, place; what the County can efficiently provide in public services; what land owners and builders can offer in housing and development; and what the public can afford in social amenities. In the article I suggest an approach to Planning based on economics that will avoid the subjective arguments of zoning and will put Planning in its logical framework~~ I request your consideration of the suggested approach." Dr. Iachetta asked ~hat type of technology is required to draft a land use map. Mr. Keller said accumulated soil inventories, all public works or existing development, plus any public works projects; an accumulation of everything that is known about the county. If everything about the county is not known, the board would still be working on a five-year cycle. It is not necessary to project everything that might happen in the county for the next 25 years. Mr. Roudabush said zoning may be used to implement the Comprehensive Plan but is not required. He asked if Mr. Keller was suggesting that zoning might be used. Mr. Keller said his approach does not use zoning per se. He suggested that the county start with the data collected for the Comprehensive Plan. They would also need what is similar to the proposed zoning ordinance. Something that defines densities and the limitations for those densities, but it does not have to be a zoning ordinance. It could be called a land use ordinance. His proposal is to avoid conflicts between existing zoning as established before the plan was drawn, since a lot of that zoning was misplaced and will never be used because of economics. He was suggesting what might be called area comprehensive plans. Mr. Fisher asked if he were suggesting that the County do away with zoning. He replied yes, since the two do not match. Mr. St. John said that section 15.1-447 of the Code of Virginia~sets out in detail what the Planning Commission shall survey and study in preparation of a Comprehensive Plan and implementation of that plan. Such items as the use of land, characteristics and conditions of existing development, trends of growth or changes, natural resources, population factors, employment and economic factors, existing public facilities, drainage, flood control and flood damage prevention measures, trans- portation facilities and any other matters relating to the subject matter and general purposes of the Comprehensive Plan, probable future economic and population growth of the territory and requirement therefore. Mr. St. John said the Comprehensive Plan shall recommend methods of implementation unless otherwise required by section 15.1-447. These may include, but need not be limited to an official map, a capital improvements program, a subdivision ordinance and a zoning ordinance and zoning district maps. Mrs. Betty Scott, representing the League of Women Voters, read in the following communication: "In early 19'71, the Comprehensive Plan was approved and the Planning Commission was directed by the Supervisors to bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the newly adopted plan. Four years later, the commission presented the results; public outcry sent them back to the drawing board.for another year. The final result presented to the Supervisors last fall has several good points, as the League has stated many times. We believe the time element is one that you should consider most carefully in deciding your next step. We are aware that the Planning Commission must work several months on the moratorium area. We hope that this will result in a recommendation for a true Conservation Zone to protect our water supply. As the Planning Commission and Planning Staff proceed with this work, growth and development in the County will continue, and flexibility in the zoning ordinance is absolutely essential in coping with it adequately. The~present. ordinance, which is-hopelessly ineffective, will not do the job. If the Board concludes that review of the Comprehensive Plan is necessary before adopting the proposed zoning ordinance, we suggest amending the present ordinance immediately. We suggest that you add a variety of commercial zones - e. g. Commercial Office, Commercial Limited, and Commercial General - to replace.the present B-Z Zone, and a cluster option for residential subdivisions. These, along with a Conservation Zone-, would go a long way toward giving~the County some flexibility in zoning while the Plan is being reviewed". Mr. Fisher.noted that some changes have been suggested for the zoning ordinance and these will be before the Board of Supervisors later this month. No changes have been suggested thus far in the zoning map itself, although some of the suggestions for changes in the zoning ordinance would effect :the zoning map. These will require additional work before they can be implemented. Mr. Roy Barksdale, a member of' the Planning Commission, said there is a definite need for more zones in the.Zoning Ordinance. Next to speak was Karen Lilleleht who read in the following communication:~ "It seems, to me that there are two basic things wrong with the current method for reviewing the Comprehensive Plan. First, the Planning Commission, as it is presently constituted is not representative of the community at large. Second, its deliberations are not reaching any 480 January 21, 1976 [Adourn~d from January 15) significant segment of the citizenry and so there is little inpUt from any but special interests and equally little output in the form of information as to What the Commission is doing and how and why it is doing it. As a consequence, the final forms of plans, ordinances and maps are presented at Public meetings to audiences who see merely changes they do not understand presented to them by people they have scarcely ever seen. I would like to suggest to you two possible solutions to these problems. There are at least two large groups in Albemarle County which are in no way represented on the Planning Commission -- the farmers and the poor and poorly-housed. You and the Commission are going to have to make some very basic and far-reaching decisions in order to accommodate the legitimate interests of these groups, and they should be represented on the Commission which does so. It might be appropriate for you to precede the Commission's labors by amending the County Code to enlarge the Commission from its current nine members to the maximum allowable of thirteen, if only for these next crucial few years. There would certainly be no need to keep the Commission's membership at~13 should its business eventually return to fairly routine matters. My other suggestion Would'be for the Commission during this period to hold its meetings, not in the County Office Building, but in the schools in the various communities throughout the County. With sufficient advance notice, people who would not be able to come into the city might very well decide to come to local meetings. Such accessibility and openness would in itself improve people's perception of the Commission and its activities.~ But beyond that, a regular half hour of informal public input after the Commission has completed its business would be beneficial to the public, the Commission and the Comprehensive Plan. It would certainly be preferable to the confrontations we have seen at formal presentations of finished products, and such continuous two-way communication might serve to defuse some of the emotional content of the final hearings. I hope that you will give this or some similar plan careful consideration. Certainly, past methods have not worked well, and we as a County can only benefit by more and better input and output between citizens and government~" Next to speak was Mr. William Colony. He said he first became involved in planning 14 years ago when zoning did not exist. He realizes this Board is faced with a controversy. The University of Virginia has recently obtained four new members, and although they would not volunteer to do the work, they could provide assistance and advice to a consultant, a Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, or the Board. In looking at the statement made by Mr. Humphrey, he found there are elements which must be included in the Plan. Such concerns as a fiscal cost impact, a revenue analysis, a capital improvements program, along with land use planning and development planning. However, most important is the environmental assessment. He said a lot of planning has ended up as useless, troublesome documents because they are not justified on any sound basis, such as a resource capability analysis, social and political budget, or a community response budget. No one else wishing to speak on this matter, Mr. Fisher asked that it be carried over to January 28. No. 6. Approval of Minutes: October 1, October 8, and October 22, 1975. by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve these minutes as submitted. carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None Motion was offered The motion No. 7. Other matters not on the agenda. Peter Kennedy said he had submitted a lottery permit application for the NROTC Honor Guard at the University of Virginia and same was not on tonight's agenda. He asked that the Board take action. He said he had discussed this application with the legal advisor at the University of Virginia and had been told that the application was correct. Mr. St. John said he had had some trouble with the question of whether or not this permit was for the purposes authorized under the state statute since it was noted that this is to obtain money for the Naval ROTC to march in the parade at the Mardi Gras. Since t~ey will be marching as official representatives of the University of Virginia, he felt that it would be-correct for the Board to approve the. lottery permit. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to issue a lottery permit to the NROTC Honor Guard University of Virginia, in accordance with the adopted rules 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. Mr. Frederick Whiteside, Southside Albemarle Association, was present to present to the Board .a problem which the landowners in southern Albemarle County have experienced during the recent hunting season. He said the landowners in this part of the County had been inconvenienced and damaged by a large number of people hunting deer from their vehicles, along the side of the public highways in the County, hunting deer with dogs, cows have been shot, and there has been trespassing on private property. They presented to the Board a resolution and suggested ordinances for a solution to this problem, more particularly, requesting the appointment of a second game warden by the Commonwealth of Virginia for Albemarle County. Mr. Dorrier said he had met with this group last night and they requested this additional game warden because the General Assembly is in session and the Virginia. Game and Inland Fisheries appoints game wardens at this time. He and the Association request the Board to adopt a resolution to be sent to the local representatives in the General Assembly asking that this additional game January 21, 1976 (Adjourned from Januar~ 15, 1976) Mr. Roudabush suggested that the County Executive talk with the present game wardens in the County, and.that the County Attorney draft a resume o£~robIemsainvotved with funding of an additional game warden. It was ordered that this matter be carried over to January 28. Mr. Bailey asked that the Board approve additional personnel for the Planning Office at this time. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mrs. David, bo authorize the Planning Staff to hire a temporary person, a planning aide, at $672.00 a month, to assist until June 30, 1976; said person to be paid from CETA funds. The motion was carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None No. 8. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, a lottery permit was issued to the Albemarle County School Board for the 1976 year, in accordance with adopted rules of this board for the 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. No. 9. Mutual Aid Agreement-Law Enforcement Assistance Plan. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board of Supervisors had approved the Law Enforcement Assistance Plan on December 18, 1975, but had neglected to authorize the chairman to sign the Mutual Aid Agreement. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, offering motion authorizing the chairman to sign the ~ following agreement. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. This agreement, made and entered into this day of , by and between the political subdivisions of the State of Virginia, who are signatories hereto. WHEREAS, these political subdivisions of the State of Virginia have determined that the provisions of law enforcement mutual aid across jurisdictional lines in emergencies will increase their ability to preserve the safety and welfare of their citizens; and WHEREAS, the governing body of each of these political subdivisions of the State of Virginia who are signatories hereto have adopted resolutions authorizing the execution of this reciprocal agreement, certified copies of said resolutions being hereto attached, NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows' 1. When a state of emergency resulting from the existence of a state of war, internal disorder, or fire, flood, epidemic or other public disaster exists within the boundaries of any of the parties hereto, the party or parties shall notify the other party or parties to this agreement of such emergency and its need for law. enforcement assistance. Such assistance shall be rendered according to the procedures established in the operational plans developed and agreed to by all of the parties to this agreement pursuant to the provisions in paragraph 2 herein. 2. The mutual assistance to be rendered under this agreement shall be available upon the development and approval by the parties hereto of an operational plan. The plan shall outline the exact procedure to be followed in requesting and responding to a request for assistance. Upon execution of this agreement, the parties hereto shall designate an appropriate official in each jurisdiction to participate in the development of the operational plan. The parties shall meet at least annually to review and, if necessary, to propose amendments to the operational plan. Any-proposed amendments shall not be effective until approved in writing by all the parties to this agreement. 3. The services performed and expenditures made under this agreement shall be deemed for public and governmental purposes. Ail immunities from liability enjoyed by the local political subdivision within its boundaries shall extend to'its participation in rendering mutual aid under this agreement outside its boundaries, unless otherwise provided by law. Each party to this agreement shall waive any and all claims against all the other parties hereto which may arise out of their activities outside their respective jurisdictions while rendering aid under this agreement. Each party shall indemnify and save harmless the other parties to this agreement from all claims by third parties for property damage or personal injury which may arise out of the activities of the other parties of this agreement outside their respective jurisdictions while rendering aid under this agreement. 4. All the immunities from liability and exemptions from laws, ordinances, and regulations which law enforcement officers employed by the various parties hereto have in their own jurisdictions shall be effective in the jurisdiction in which they are giving assistance. All compensation and other benefits enjoyed by law enforcement officers in their own jurisdictions shall extend to the services they perform under this agreement. 482 January 21, 1976 [Adjourned from January 15) 5. Law enforcement officers rendering assistance under this agreement shall do so under the direction and control of the appropriate official designated by the jurisdiction requesting the aid. The parties shall notify each other of the name, address, and telephone number of the official authorized to direct mutual aid activities within their jurisdiction. 6. This agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by all the parties hereto upon written notice setting forth the date of such termination. Withdrawal from this agreement by any one party hereto shall be made by thirty days' written notice to all parties but shall not terminate this agreement among the remaining parties. No. 10. Other matters from Board members not on the agenda. Mr. Bailey noted that he had received a progress report on the Betz Study ~f~.B.~e Rivanna River Reservoir dated January 15, 1976~ He noted the following items from this report: Summar~ of Stream Data Results Stations located on Mechums River have much higher loadings of nutrients than do stations on Moormans River. Three stations on Mechums River normally have the highest values for solids and nutrient loadings -- Station 2, near the confluence of Moormans River, Station 15, upstream from the mouth of Lickinghole Creek, and Station 16, downstream from Lickinghole Creek. Station 12, on Lickinghole Creek, typically has high phosphate concentrations in relation to low flow data. The highest flow data and nutrient concentrations occurred during sampling weeks 2 and 6. These were the periods with the most rainfall. Loadings of suspended solids are typically higher in Mechums than Moormans River, except for week 9. There was a small amount of rainfall prior to the sampling date, and concentrations of solids became very high at Stations 4, 5 and 6. A comparison of Piney Creek (Station 4) and Buck Mountain Creek (Station 5) shows much higher sediment loadings in Buck Mountain Creek (Station 5) shows much higher sediment loadings in Buck Mountain Creek. However, nutrient loadings in the two streams are comparable. High loadings of suspended solids, total phosphate, orthophosphate, nitrate, and ammonia are generally correlated with increased stream flow. During sampling intervals with little or no precipitation, there is little sediment or nutrient input from Naked Creek (Station 1), Moormans River (Stations 3, 7~, 9 and 10) and Doyles River (Station 8). Sample period 2, which was conducted during a record rainfall for Virginia, produced data which were atypical of other sampling intervals. Ten inches of rainfall were recorded during the interval of September 18 - September 26, resulting in high flows and excessive suspended solids concentrations. Loadings for Ivy Creek (Station 17), with respect to the flow, are disproportionately higher than all other stations. The flow measurements at Station 18 (below the reservoir) are high, but all loadings are low, with no nitrate concentration being detectable. Large amounts of solids and nutrients appear to remain in the reservoir. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Bailey make a report on progress of repairs at the airport. Mr.. Bailey said, for the new Board members, the'City and County had experienced some difficulty with the contractor in completing work at the airport on the ILS project. There had be~ iicompromise made and additional funds were granted for the work. All of the work has now been~completed except seeding, and money is being withheld for establishment of turf in the spring. By May, this project should be complete except for the purchase of land which has been in the process now for a couple of years. He then handed to the Board members financial statements ~of the Charlottes- ville-Alb~marle AirPOrt Board for the year ending June 30, 1975. · At ll:02?Piii~i~M., motion was offered by Dr. IaChetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn this · meeting until Wednesday, January 28, 1976, at 2:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ~~ ~~~-~-- Chairman