Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-08-16 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 16, 1973 at 9'00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present' Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile (Arrived at 10'37 a.m'.), Gerald E. Fisher, William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. Absent' Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers present' County Executive and County Attorney. The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer led by Mr. Wheeler. Upon motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wood, the minutes of June 6, June 13, June 20, June 21, June 27, July 11, July 18 and July 19 were approved with the following corrections' page 131 change large "A" to a small "a"; page 143 referring to Appendices A & B, add note that these are on file in the office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors; page 145, on approval~ of McIntire School as county office building, ~o-ndi'tign No. 2; the intent of the motion was, if a new north elementary school was completed by the fall term of 1974 and not June 1974; page 154 at top of page, condition No. 5 - change word "implied" to "indicated"; page 156, Mr. St. John's ruling on the Tiffany petition was as follows' "I understand Mrs. Tiffany plans to sell items which would be defined as arts and crafts, antiques, etc., but she also plans to sell meats, hams and groceries which are items definitely approved under the definition of a general store. In a case where you have an overlap of two uses, either of which are allowed in the ordinance and are not unlawful, you have to decide which is the primary use and which the accessory use. I don't believe the ordinance means to restrict a person by limiting to those items delineated for sale under the definition of a country store. In the presence of Mr. Tiffany, who is attorney for his wife, I have heard a statement of what they plan to sell and I feel this is properly an application for a country store." page 156, on approval of SP-258, should read "with administrative review at the end of one year, for one additional year"; page 170, 8th line should read' "He said that as of June 15, there are two houses under construction to which no water connection has been made and there are six vacant lots on which the developer has planned to start buildings in October." Vote was taken as follows' AYES' Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. Upon motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher, the following resolution was adopted' BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle --~ County, Virginia, that the Secondary System Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, as submitted by Mr. R. G. Warner~ Resident Engineer, be and the same is hereby approved as £ollows' Ordinary Maintenance Maintenance Replacements Improvements $ 551,800.00 185,840.00 · 1,262,3.66.00 $ 2,000,006.00 The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote- AYES- NAYS: ABSENT- Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. 8-16-73 A reques~ was received from the Virginia Department of Highways asking that certain sections of Route 635 be abandoned, discontinued or added to the secondary system. This designated as Project 0635-002-131, C-501. After a short discussion of this matter, motion was offered by Mr. Wood, to advertise this for a public hearing on September 20 at 9:30 A.M. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the 1967 Major Streets and Highway Plan prepared by the Virginia Department of Highways indicated the need for a major arterial street running north and south through the central portion of Charlottesville and adjacent portions of Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the 5th Street Project currently under construction will provide only the first link in this needed thoroughfare; and WHEREAS, a number of major City projects, including the revitalization of downtown Charlottesville, the development of Pen Park and the new high school, now under construction, and a major County project, the Vocational Technical School, are dependent on this new north-south arterial street for needed access to and from other portions of the City and to and from the County to the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the Virginia Department of Highways be requested to begin designs for the following project at the earliest possible date: 1. Ridge Street from Oak Street to Main Street. 2. The intersection of McIntire Road with the 250 By-Pass. o McIntire Road - Rio Road from Preston Avenue, North to the City limits and' into Albemarle County to the Vocational Technical School, as found on plates 20, 21 and 22 of the report entitled "Charlottesville - Major Arteria} Street and Highway Plan - Functional Plans - 1967" as prepared by the traffic and planning division of the Virginia Department of Highways. This plan was adopted by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on June 16, 1968, for the Urban A~.ea of Albemarle County with modification noted in the minutes of the Board of Supervisors as found on page 322 of the minute book of the Board of Supervisors. BE IT FURTHER RESOLYED, that the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors be directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Virginia Department of Highways. Mr. Fisher said he felt the design phase of this project would have a bearing on access into McIntire School Property and he wondered if ~his might make the study on McIntire, by the City, longer. Mr. Wood felt the Board should proceed in good faith and assume the City will not be arbitrary and hold up rezoning on the McIntire property. vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Vote was taken at this point and the motion carried by the following recorded Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. 8-16-73 A request was received from W. Morris Foster asking that certain roads in Earlysville Heights subdivision be accepted into the state secondary system. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Wo.od, to adopt the following resolution' BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following sections of roads in Earlysville Heights Subdivision: Approximately 550 feet - Ridgemont Road from State Route 743 to its intersection with Viewmont Road Approximately 900 feet - Viewmont Road from Ridgemont Road northwest to its termination at a turnaround BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 ft. unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 491, page 3. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. Mr. Henry J. Brown apppeared before the Board with a matter relating to the Pines Subdivision roads. He stated that he had received approval from the highway department to build these roads, had hired a contractor and built them in accordance with state specifications. He also had given a bond for the amount of the contract to the County of Albemarle. It has now been brought to his attention that the highway department will not take in a road unless the property is owned by more than one owner. This subdivision was built by him for rental purposes and therefore cannot be taken into the system based under present highway policy. Mr. Wheeler said that when Mr. Brown asked for subdivision approval it required that a bond be posted for the road. He did this in order to obtain RS-I, one-acre lots and he then subdivided and put the plat to record. Now he is faced with the highway department who will not take in the roads with only one property owner. Mr. Warner said this had been highway department policy for a long time. Mr. Batchelor said this leaves the county in a dilemma since the bond will be adequate only for a certain length of time. Mr. Thacker offered motion directing Mr. Batchelor, Mr. Humphrey, the county attorney and Mr. Warner to make a report on this matter at the September n~ting.~, of the Board. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. At 9:45 a.m. the Chairman called for a public hearing on an ordinance to vacate a certain portion of plat known as section D, Carrsbrook Subdivision, dated December, 1961, and recorded in Deed Book 376, page 224, Albemarle County Clerk's office: such vacation to include andonment of a portion of right of way approximately 400 ft. in length. Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on August 3 and August 10, 1973 with adjoining property owners being notified by certified mail. person to speak was a Mr. Hemmer. He stated that he received notice The first of this meeting through Better Living from whom he had purchased his lot noted as lot 1, section 45b, and he asked what this meant. Mr. Warner said this had been dedicated as a public right of way and if vacated, the land would revert to the adjacent owner on either side. Mr. Hemmer said that when he bought this property he asked for a copy of the plat and it showed a road alongside this property. On this basis he had paid a premium for a corner lot. He asked what happened if he opposed. Mr. Wheeler said he had every right to oppose and he would have been~ heard by the board. Mr. Lee R. Lucas said he lived at Lot 8, Block A and he also bought on the basis of the property being on a corner lot and paid a premium for routine property. By actions beyond his control he no longer has a corner lot. Mr. Thacker said that since this land had been platted and put to record in 1961 there have been several changes in topography and he did not know if a road could be built and he did not know if the highway department would permit another entrance onto Route 29 at that point. He said these were items which had to be taken into considera- tion. Mr. D. B. Loftin, 3508 W. Monacan Drive, spoke next. He said this matter had been before this board once before and it was agreed at that time that the right of way would be left. He felt the road should have been constructed by Dr. Hurt since the property owners paid for the road when they brought their property and he is against vatting this road. He said Mr. Wendell Wood had bought the property along Route 29, had graded this without a permit and removed their right o£ way. Mrs. Ruth Lucas spoke next. She s~id their property had been greatly depre- ciated by the grading that had taken place along Rt. 29. This occurred about 5 months after they had bought and this created a safety hazard. Mr. Hemmer said the statement had been made that the county or the state may not allow another entrance onto Rt. 29 and he asked if Mr. Wendell Wood anticipated putting a road into his property. Mr. Thacker said there should be a differentiation between a road going in off of a primary highway and an entrance onto private property. Mr. Wheeler said that anyone who owns a piece o~ private property can apply to the highway department for an entrance off of the highway onto his property. This Board is not involved in that application. Mr. Warner said that at this time the topography of the land would make it almost impossible to put an exit there, however, since it is dedicated to public right of way, if someone wanted to construct a road, it would be considered. 8-16-73 Mr. Wendell Wood said that about a year ago he talked to Mr. Lucas and he was in favor of closing this right of way. Most people that he had talked to in Carrsbrook were in favor of closing this since they did not want to generate traffic off of Rt. 29 through this subdivision. He said he has no intention of ever building a road on his part of this land. Mr. Fisher said this seemed clearcut when he first heard of it, however, it appears that graHing has taken place since the land was platted and this has made it impossible for a road to be built without a great deal of expense. Mr. Wendell Wood is now in the position of-obtaining approximately one-fifth of an acre of land that has already been graded and it seems that the residents of Carrsbrook feel their right to this right of way has been preempted by actions of another citizen off site. Mr. Lloyd Wood said it was his understanding that the residents of Carrsbrook did not want another access off of Route 29 and he felt it might be wise to defer action on this ordinance until the citizens affected could talk to their attorneys about their individual plats. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker to defer any action on this ordinance until September 20. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Carwile and Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher commended the highway department on the resurfacing of Route 250 West. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Warner if he had received the as-built drawings on Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drives. Mr. Warner said that he had received nothing further. Mr. Wheeler asked if anything had happen,~d .-on a request from M. J. Conte for the closing of Old Route 53. Mr. Warner said that he had a meeting scheduled on this matter on Monday, Augus~ 20. Mr. Warner introduced his new assistant, Mr. Charlie Perry, who replaced Richard Coates as Assistant Resident Highway Engineer. The next item under discussion was site plan review for Charlottesville Shopping World. Mr. Wheeler asked that the record show he was not participating in this discussion since his office is representing the owner for the proposed sale of this property and he asked that Mr. Thacker take over duties as Chairman. Mr. Thacker said this was an informal review of a request which had _c_ome to the Board of Supervisors through certain interested citizens of the Berkeley committee and also certain members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Wood asked Mr. St. John to give a ruling as to whether or not the Board could review this matter since at the time this item was ordered put on the agenda there was a question as to the Board's position in this matter. Mr. St. John said that since the request for this informal hearing was brought to the Board he had looked into the matter and since it was requested by interested parties or bona fide ~g~et~x-parties, it was his opinion that the Board, under the law, 298 must consider this matter. He said the defect or fallacy in the procedUre was created since it had never been spelled out clearly. He asked that the record show authorities for this. The pertinent section of the zoning ordinance, Chapter 7, Sections 7-7 indicate the Planning Commission is acting in a recommendatory or through~W-6 which advisory capacity and although it does not state who they are recommending or advising, it is the governing body. Section 2-7-4 of the zoning ordinance applicable to planned unit developments says: "Following the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the approval of the governing body of the preliminary plan. " The State enabling statute Section 15.1-427 says the Planning Commission is an advisory body primarily and the only exception to that in the State Code is for approval of subdivisions where Section 15.1-475 prescribes a procedure for appeal directly to the Circuit Court from the Planning Commission. On this basis he advised the Board that it was not only proper, but, the duty of the Board to review this particular factual situation. He said where the County may have been remiss was in not spelling out this procedure. Mr. Thacker asked the Board's status since two members were absent and one had abstained. Mr. ST. John said since this matter was scheduled for an informal hearing the Board had no official standing to make any ruling, however, they could receive information which goes in~o the minutes and which can be acted upon with a quorum. Mr. Dave Wood asked~if an application for site plan review to-the Planning ~ Commission came under the zoning code or the subdivision ordinance. Mr. St. John said it should rightfully come under the subdivision ordinance but in the case of Albemarle County, the site plan review provisions are part of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wood asked if the County had a separate subdivision ordinance. Mr. St. Jdhn said this is not a subdivision. Mr. Wood said it was since they are cutting 12 acres out of a 17 acre piece of land and he felt they were making applica- tion for site plan review under the subdivision ordinance. The land is already zoned B-1. Mr. St. John said his opinion had not changed and referred ~o Section 15.1-456 which provides for an appeal to the governing body from any decision of the Planning Commission approving any kind of public improvemeat, including streets, schools, or parks. He said this roadway or entranceway that is under discussion is a street or is a change in use of streets. Section 15.1-456 also states that in a case such as I this the majority of the membership of the Board of Supervisors can overrule the Planning Commission on this question if the prescribed procedure is followed. Mr. Dave Wood said zoning had been mentioned and it had not occurred to him that this proceeding came under the zoning ordinance.:---~ Mr. St. John said he asked the Planning Officer who processed this at the Planning Commission stage whether this is a subdivision or ~f this is strictl~ site plan approval under the zoning ordinance and he was told that this was site plan approval under The zoning ordinance and not a subdivision. He said if that is incorrect than it is certainly under the subdivision ordinance, but it would not make any difference 8-16-73 199 since the State legislation is bound to apply. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. James Cosby, if he would begin by presenting his reHuest to ~he Board. (Mr. Carwile arrived at this time). Mr. James Cosby said he was representing the Berkeley Community Association. On July 30th, the Planning Commission held a hearing on the subjec~ of the Charlottesville Shopping World petition for site plan approval. A number of points were raised and some are still in ~ controversy. The major point revolves around the proposed access onto Dominion Drive which is the residential collector street for Berkeley community and also Four Seasons. The Berkeley Community Association had asked that a study be made of the impact this access would have on Dominion Drive, a residential street and on the intersection at Route 29 and on the aesthetic value of the entrance way. He did not feel this was properly done. Parking space requirements were also the subject of some controversy. They had asked for an opinion from the zoning administrator as to whether the parking spaces would comply with existing zoning laws, whether the law should be changed, or whether a variance should be obtained. He said the zoning administrator did provide a written memo but to his knowledge it was not given to the Planning Commission and therefore was no~ considered. The residents of Berkeley Community are concerned that the difference in parking spaces may lead to an overloaded parking condition which will result in people parking on Dominion Drive. It is the opinion of the Berkeley Community Association that permitting this access will cause a substantial amount of traffic exiting from the shopping center onto Dominion Drive and this will create a tie up of traffic which will require a widening of the road and will probably lead to ultimate destruction of the pine trees along Dominion Drive. He said the Berkeley Community Association has no objection to the shopping cen~er itself, but, they believe that the shopping center should not be a burden on a residential neighborhood, and they believe that the State and it's duly appointed authority, the governing body of this county, should protect and preserve the rights of individual citizens as well as the rights of co~Inercial enterprise. The Berkeley Community Association requested the Planning Commission ~o make this a "No Left Turn" exit £rom the shopping center onto Dominion Drive and also wanted a traffic light at Rt. 29 considered. Although installation of a light was discussed at the staff level, it was not considered at the Commission. Mr. Cosby said the ultimate requirement to widen Dominion Drive is the most im- portant factor and to the best of his knowledge was not considered. The Planning Commission did not have reports of experts for taking the action which they did take. He asked that the Board o£ Supervisors deny the access to Dominion Drive or alternatively, disapproving it would return it to status quo, and if the developer wanted to appeal that, he could. If not disapproved it should be sent back to the Planning Commission with instructions to the Planning Commission to reopen the hearing on the question o~ access to Dominion Drive and its impact on widening Dominion Drive, the white pine row, consistency with the Master Plan and to report 8-16-73 2OO its findings to or recommendations in writing back to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. Warner to comment. Mr. Warner said he had discussed the site plan with Mr. Bill Roudabush and it was subject to review by the site plan review committee. Turn lanes off of Rt. 29 into the shopping center area and access into Dominion Drive were part of the recommendations. Mr. Thacker asked about the matter of widening Dominion Drive and a traffic light at the intersection of Dominion Drive and Route 29. Mr. Warner said no traffic light study has been made. Mr. Thacker asked if this is a determination of the Highway Department and not the Commission. Mr. Warner said it would be determined at their request. He said that traffic patterns may ultimately determine that Dominion Drive must be widened, but he could not say at this time. Mr. Fisher asked on what basis the entrance onto Dominion Drive was recommended. Mr. Warner said it was to provide access to the service area. Mr. Bill Roudabush said one of the primary reasons was the traffic coming from Berkeley, and Four Seasons. They would not have to come out of Dominion Drive, make a left turn and cross the highway again to enter the shopping center. Mr. Fisher asked who would determine if such a traffic pattern would be allowed. Mr. Warner said the Highway Department would use the over-all traffic flow pattern and make recommendations so far as the developer is concerned. Mr. Roudabush said a traffic study was made of this site by Norman Gerber & Associates, traffic consultants, and also planning consultants in Charlottesville made a study of this particular inter- section and also the entire stretch of Rt. 29 to the Rio Rd. intersection. The deve- loper made traffic studies of his own and he also consulted the Highway Department and obtained the traffic figures that were available there. He said the traffic aspects were not ignored by the Planning Commission. On the question of the number of parking spaces, considerable discussion was held regarding the number of spaces, and the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Humphrey relayed the information from Mrs. Miller's memorandum to the Planning Commission and discussion did center around the number of parking spaces. Mr. Cart, who is the manager of the Barracks Road Shopping Center, concurred with the Planning staff that the number of parking spaces were sufficient, 5.5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. is the recommended national standard based on information of the Urban Land I. Institute and also the National Association of Shopping Centers. Mr. Roudabush said it was stated at the Planning Commission hearing and also indicated on the site plan that there are only two white pine trees involved in construction of this entrance and there is a notation of this on the site plan. The site plan calls for additional white pines the full length of this piece of property to provide additional screening and also for a screening barrier 20 feet wide all along the perimeter of the residential property. Where there are no trees, the site plan provides that additional white pine trees will be planted. He said the following conditions were imposed on approval of the site plan: 8-16-73 201 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Utilities being available prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or connection to the sewage line on the south side-of Dominion Drive. Also upon an agreement with the Albemarle County Service Authority. That any white pines on the South side of Dominion Drive which might be removed by the requirement for a right turn lane be replaced. That "no parking" signs be placed from Route 29 to the eastern margin of Lot 1-A in Berkeley. That the parking spaces shall comply with the requirements of our ordinance, unless the Board of Zoning Appeals grants a variance. White pines be planted in bare spots, or buffer zone and the buffer zones be seeded. That the tenants-who back up to Berkeley keep their trash inside the building, to be included in the written lease, except those who use compactors. (These compactors would be enclosed in a building behind the main portion of the shopping center). That considerations be given to a deceleration lane along Route 29 to Dominion Drive. Mrs. Joan Graves said she had no recollection of Mrs. Miller's memo being mentioned at the Planning Commission hearing. She did not see how any meaningful plans could be made if the corner lot is not included in the overall site plan. She said if the Board allowed the entrance onto Dominion Drive the Berkeley Community Association would like it a one way access so there would not be four way traffic turning at that point. Mr. Michael Demetsky said there is a deteriorating traffic pattern off of Route 29 within the Berkeley area and south and he felt the speed limit is too high on Route 29 at this point. He said it is the responsibility of the County to have the Highway Department make a comprehensive study. He said that at the Planning Commission meeting when the traffic problems were discussed, one in the audience was given the impression that they did not base their discussion on a comprehensive study. The overriding issue is that access off of Dominion Drive would prevent vehicles having to Cross Rt. 29 twice and he felt this was valid, however, the other factors discussed such as turning lanes were discussed in terms of judgements and not based on comprehensive studies. In view of the road grade in the area and the changing nature of the highway, he said it is the burden of the government to look at these problems and provide adequate transportation and assure the citizens and the shopping center that the problems are being handled properly. Mrs. Robert Leavy, an adjacent property owner to the planned shopping center said Dominion Drive is a residential access road and she objects to having trucks on Dominion Drive since she felt this would be a hazard and create noise.~ ...... Mr. A1 Chapman asked if Dominion Drive would lead to the service area and he asked if the residents of Berkeley could be guaranteed that there will be absolutely no service trucks on Dominion Drive. Mr. Rubin, one of the applicants for this site plan, said there could be no such guarantee, however, those trucks would come previous to the opening of the shopping center. 8-16-73 202 Mr. Chapman asked if a professional safety engineer had.been called in to consult on this matter. Mr. Warner said there had not been a professional safety engineer study this. Lawrence Petty, Jr. said the Planning Commission took action with knowledge Mr. of a traffic engineer's study made for the developer. The Berkeley Community Association had no study made fbr the citizens of the Commonwealth. He said the idea that Berkeley residents would have to cross Route 29 twice to do business in the shopping center had not changed their pos±tion, however, they have trepidations about any plan that would permit a 200' x 200' lot on the corner of Route 29 to be excluded from the overall plan. He said that as president of this association he had 140 people call or give him written notice that they object to this exit onto Dominion Drive. Mr. Cosby asked Mr. Warner if he could give the design capacity for Dominion Drive, vehicle trips per day, standards and also its present load and predicted loan and he asked if these questions were asked of the Highway Department. Mr. Warner said this was discussed and the Highway Department felt that Dominion Drive had capacity in excess of what it is now handling. Mrs. Levy said service trucks coming between 7:30 A.M. and 8:00 A~M. would arrive at the same time as all the school buses. Mr. Fisher said he would like to have an opportunity to discuss the traffic aspects with the Planning staff and Mr. Warner and to receive all the reasons why the Highway Department felt this access was required and why the Planning Commission did not see fit to request "No Left Turn" signs or the closing of the road. Mr. Wood felt the only points raised that needed clarification were those pertaining to parking spaces and the entrance to Dominion Drive. He said the Planning Department would either amend the zoning ordinance to the national stand~ffor parking spaces or the developer would be granted a variance and he felt the main consideration was one of allowing a commercial entrance onto a residential street and he felt the developer should proceed with other aspects, of this project. MX. Cosby said that when Mr. Wood encouraged the developer to proceed he felt it might possibly prejudice the position of the Berkeley Community Association, that if the developer relies on what this body says it may adversely affect the rights of the other side to appeal. Mr. Wood said the points in contention were the parking and the entrance, it should not delay any actions that the developer wants to take. Mr. Cosby said these are the present points of contention, however, it is con- ceivable that if a determination is made in favor of the access that in appeal' the Berkeley Community Association may want to say that this illustrates that the land is overburdened and they are opposed to the entire shbpping center. He asked that the matter be resolved before anybody takes definitive action one way or the other. Mr. Wood said he had no intention of voting against the shopping center, however, 8-16-73 203 he felt that as the governing body, the Board should have the power to preserve the residential entrance into Berkeley and he felt this was the only reason this matter was before the~Board. Mr. Thacker asked Mr. ~t. John what options were open to the Board at this time. Mr. St. John said that since this was scheduled for an informal hearing, which would be in the minutes, he felt this should be set down on an agenda for another meeting and at that time the Board would want to be prepared to make a de~ision on this matter. He said that when this comes up on an official agenda anyone, else who wants to be heard on the matter would have the right to be heard. Mr. Fisher then offered motion to place this matter on the agenda of August 23, 1973, at 7:30 P.M. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. ABSTAINING: Mr. Wheeler. As requested by the Board of Public Welfare, the following resolution was offered for adoption by Mr. Fisher: WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Public Welfare is of the opinion that the name Department of Public Welfare is a deterrent to their staff in the development of a positive relationship with clients; and WHEREAS, a change of name would be a positive step toward improving the public understanding of this function of government and would better convey the philosophy and goals of this department to all the citizens of Albemarle. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby approve changing the name of the Department of Public Welfare to the Albemarle County Department of Social Services and the title of the Superintendent of Public Welfare to the Director of Social Services. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT- Mr. Henley. Request was received from Isabel Palmer asking that the Board concur in the following appointments to t~he Community Mental Health and Retardation Services Board. Dr. William Drucker, Dean of the University School of Medicine to fill ~ut the unexpired term of Dr. James Hamlin. The name of Rear Admiral William Perkins representing Fulvanna County in place of Mrs. Aroiline Harding. Motion To approve. this request was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote' AYES' NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley. 204 A request was also received from Mrs. Isabel Palmer asking for the following changes in the By-Laws of the Region X Community Mental Health and Retardation Services Board' Revision #1 ARTICLE IV - MEMBERSHIP (revision as recommended by Charlottesville) Section 1. The membership of the Board shall consist of not less than nine or more than fifteen persons jointly approved and appointed by the Council of the City of Charlottesville and the Boards ~f Supervisors of the Counties of Albemarle, Nelson, Greene ~nd Fluvanna. The appointments shall be so apportioned among these localities that the Board shall have one member representing each 10,000 population within each locality. It is recognized, however, that when the Board fails to conform to the population representation just prescribed the BOard can and shall continue to perform and function in every way, the same as if it were in ~onformity, until such time as the member political subdivisions act to ~correct its. non-conformity by their filling of vacancies as they occur. The membership shall be as broadly representative as possible of all lay and professional elements of the community, but shall specifically exclude any employee of the Department of Mental Hygiene and Hospitals of ~h~ SAt, ate of Virginia. laxX-- /" The~Board voted to amend sentence 2 (underlined) as follows' The appointments shall be apportioned among these l~ocalities on the basis of population, not less than one member per political subdivision. The4Board also voted to add the following to the end of the last sentence of Article IV, Section 1' .State of Virginia, or to any successor to such department of the State of Virginia. Revision #2 ARTICLE IV - MEMBERSHIP (revision as recommended by Charlottesville) Section 4. The Executive Director shall be an Ex-Officio member of the Board and shall serve as the professional staff to the Board, provided that the Executive Director shall be a non voting member of the Board. The~Board voted to accept this revision as recommended. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to accept the recommendations of the Mental Health Board and approve these changes in the by-Laws. Motion was seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Elwood Hall was present on behalf of Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Albemarle County Schools, to request a special appropriation. He said that on July 31, 1973, the School Board had opened bids on the new Scottsville Annex. The iow bid for that project was $255,262, or $21,362 over the amount budgeted for that construction project. The School Board had hoped to build the school and furnish it for $233.,900 which is the amount that was budgeted. He said two factors appeared to have caused this increase, one being the increase in construction costs and the second the school roads which must be upgraded to satisfy State Highway standards. This increase resulted f~om the requirement to add a deceleration lane and improve the school driveway to qualify for State Highway Department snow removal service. 8-16-73 205 The present estimated cost to construct and furnish the building is approximately ~?~,_.~ $35,000//than currently budgeted. This includes $21,362 referred to in the construction bid, $4,000 for a well, water lines and water storage tank, and $10,000 for furniture and equipment. Mr. Hall requested a special appropriation of $35,000 to add to the $233,090 which was received from the County and from the Federal government for this project so that the School Board can award this contract without any further delay. Mr. Thacker said he felt the Board would run into this problem on anything they are going to build in the future and he hoped that this would expedite the study which he had requested. Mr. Wood then offered motion to adopt the following resolution' BEFIT RESOLVED, by the Board of Supervisars~of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $35,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to the School Construction Fund for construction of the Scottsville School annex and expenditure is hereby approved. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley. Mr. Thacker reiterated that having seen the increase in cost of construction in this area he would like to impress on the School Board to study his original request. Mr. Wheeler asked if a committee had been appointed, and Mr. Hall said yes. He then requested that the names of this "School Construction Committee" be sent to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Ray Jones was present to make a report on the water supply in West Leigh and Flordon. He presented to the Board of Supervisors first a list of bids which had been taken on the Stillhouse-Ivy water line. He then presented to the Board a schedule during the month of July for days water was hauled to West Leigh and Flordon subdivisions. He said this had caused problems with the maintenance force and even though the Service Authority had not acted on this matter he felt it would be advisable to maintain the moratorium on building permits in these subdivisions at least until the first of year. Mr. Wheeler said he felt the Board had directed Mr. Jones to carry the Board's concensus back to the Service Authority and he asked why this matter had not been acted upon. Mr. Jones said the Service Authority had not met. Their regular meeting had been postponed until this day in order to allow for the opening of the Stillhouse-Ivy bids. Mr. Carwile asked what it cost to haul a load of water. Mr. Jones said the Service Authority had, at one time, hired an outside firm to haul water. It was costing $25.00 a load and he was hauling only 1500 gallons a load. The Service Authority is now hauling 2500 gallons a load. Mr. Wheeler said it was his opinion that the Board should maintain the moratorium on building permits in West Leigh and Flordon subdivisions for at least anoiher 8-16-73 month, at which time Mr. Jones could bring a report back from the Service Authority. Mr. Thacker offered motion to continue the moratorium on building permits in West Leigh and Flordon Subdivisions until September 20, in order to allow time for a full report from the Service Authority. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and seconded by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS~ None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. At 12:07 P.M. an ~xecu~ive session was requested by the chairman in order to discuss litigation with the County Attorney. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley. The Board reconvened at 1:30 P.M. Request was received from Ronald R. Morris, Mel-Ray Corporation, asking that certain roads in Brookwood subdivision, Crozet, Virginia be accepted into the State Highway System. Motion was offered by Mr. Carwile to adopt the following resolution: AYES' NAYS' ABSENT: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following sections of roads in Brookwood Subdivision, Crozet, Virginia: Approximately 400 feet - Claudis Drive from its intersection with State Route 1204 to just north of its intersection with Jamestown Road, such intersection located on Block D, Lot 1 of Section 2 Approximately 1,150 feet - Jamestown Road from its intersection with Claudis Drive to its intersection with Brookwood Road Approximately 350 feet - Brookwood Road from its intersection with State Route 1204 to its intersection with Jamestown Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 ft. unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 494, page 370 and Deed Book 513, page 311. Motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Ray Jones presented the following resolution from the Albemarle County Service Authority: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority desires to expand its jurisdiction or project areas within the County of Albemarle to provide services to citizens in certain areas not included in its past project or jurisdiction areas; and 8-16-73 2O7 WHEREAS,' the four party agreement between the County, City, Rivanna Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority provides the option to the Albemarle County Service Authority ~o purchase certain facilities now owned by the City and located in the County within six months after appraisal of such facilities; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the project areas to be established prior to acquisition of such facilities; and WHEREAS, the Rivanna Authority intends to make certain improvements in the community some of which will be within the proposed areas; BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Service Authority hereby requests the Board of Supervisors to designate the following project areas: (1) Ail that area located inside the buy and sell line and outside the city limits as stipulated in the four party contract adopted in May 1973, (2) That area south of the City inclusive of the Biscuit Run watershed located between Route 20 South and Route 631 (Old Lynchburg Road); and (3)That area known as Pantops on Route 250 East and extending out to the Shadwell Interchange. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said that in referring to~Biscuit Run watershedlfrom an engineering standpoint/he would rather see the bulk of the watershed taken in at one time because it would allow for gravity sewage service for that entire area. Mr. Fisher said he would like to have these matters, particularly Biscuit Run, and Pantops, studied by the Planning Commission to see how this will effect development and how this fits into the Master Plan. He felt this should be accomplished before the public hearing. Mr. ~hacker said he knew Mr. Fisher's concern, however, the establishment of jurisdictional areas does not mean that this area will ever receive service and~if it does~any service will be the subject of a special permit and the Board will act on it a~ that particular time. Mr. Jones said the Service Authority is concerned about the time frame. If appraisals were made and the Service Authority was given six months on the by and sell option then they would have to go through this same procedure which includes a month or so of hearings. They were not concerned that this would happen within the-~ext month, or,-~so. Mr. St. John said this hearing and the total resolution would have'to be ad- vertised once in a newspaper at least ten days before the public hearing. Although the Board must have a study by the Planning Commission as a matter of law the Planning Commission's recommendations can be made with or without a public hearing. He referred to Code Sections 15.1-456, 15.1-1243 and 15.1-1247. Carwile offered motl'' 'on to set September' 19, 1973 at 7'30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse as a public hearing on expansion of the jurisdictional areas for the~Albemarle County Service Authority and also requested that the Planning Commission make a report of their recommendations. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES- NAYS- ABSENT' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Mr. Henley. 208 Mr. Batchelor said he had received a report from the Bureau of Solid Waste and Vector Control on the County's landfill operations and there were areas of deficiency reported. These deficiencies must be corrected in order to obtain a license from the State. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey said the report is in two parts. The first part is a report from Timothy P. Mallan, Pollution Control Specialis~ of the State Water Control Board who inspected the landfills on June 13, 1973. He felt one of the main considerations was the leachate pr.oblem off-site. Before correcting this, however, he said the County would have to prepare a survey in order to make long-range plans. He said there were other areas of deficiency that should be corrected, such as: a telephone at the Ivy Landfill, a shelter for the contractor, sanitary facilities at both landfills and lights for the night operations at the Ivy landfill. Mr. Bailey said if the engineering department makes the survey it will take approxi- mately 60 days. If someone outside of the County is hired it will cost between $3,000 and $4,000. The plans developed would show how to drain, how the surface road should be laid and how the fill borrow areas should be worked. After completion of the plan, the engineering department would stake areas for the contractor. He was quite certain, although he felt it could be delayed until after talks with the Water Control Board and the Solid Waste Division,.-that the County would have to build a dam or pond To help with the leachate problem. Mr. Wheeler said he would like to comment on three items in the report. Spreading and compacting, covering and filling and final cover were all listed as poor. Mr. Bailey said he was not of the same opinion as Mr. James. He felt- there was a fair amount of compaction, that the cover had been sufficient since the first of the year and that very little of the area had been covered with a final cover. Mr. Fisher asked a question about night operations. Mr. Bailey said the University and Mortons are continuing to use the landfill at night and since discussions with them there has been very little difficulty during the last six months. Mr. Wheeler asked if there is a man on duty during the night hours. Mr. Bailey said no. Mr. Wheeler said he remembered the Board had directed that there be an attendant on duty and he asked why there was not one on'duty. Mr. Fisher said he felt this Board had indicated that if anyone used the landfill at night they would have to make sure that operations were performed correctly. He felt the lights should be installed by the ones requiring night operations and he did not think the County should pay for this. Mr. Wheeler said the minutes of March 15th, stated the hours of the operation of the Ivy landfill be changed to 7'30 A.M. to 4'00 P.M. and if the landfill is used after those hours it should be done with an attendant present and any additional costs required be borne by the users. Mr. Bailey said he found letters in his file dated March 19, to Mortons and 8-16-73 and the University of Virginia, but they had never been sent. Mr. Wheeler said that if an attendant was not on duty at night, he felt the or~ers of this Board had not been carried out. Mr. Batchelor said he had found that the attendant would cost over $4,000. Mr. Thacker said he felt this was the users problem. Mr. Carwile offered motion to instruct the County Engineer and the County Executive to contact the haulers who are using the landfill at night that arrangements are to be made within 30 days to have an attendant present or the Board would have to consider closing the landfill at night to these users. Mr. Fisher said the whole intent of the motion of March 15 was that the users would be given the option to operate and use the landfill during night hours if they would pay the cost for an attendant. Mr. Carwile's motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Wheeler said in reference to operating deficiencies at the landfills mentioned earlier in the meeting, he felt Mr. Batchelor should have corrected immediately those items which are not in q Mr. W. W. James, to make a report of the o meeting. Mr. Fisher said he felt the County we landfill in the forseeable future and the~ felt the County would have to proceed wit~ Statements of expenses of the Depart~ uestion and after talking with ther deficiencies at the September 20th uld have to continue to use the Ivy e would be expenditures involved. He proper planning. ent of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney were submitted for the month of July, 1973. On motion by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Ca~ the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, ThaCker, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Statement of expenses incurred in th~ submitted along with summary statement of Claim of the Jail Physician was also subm: amount of $28.00, of which two-thirds is by Mr. Wood, seconde~-by Mr. Fisher, thes~ by the following recorded vote: AYES' NAYS' ABSENT' Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Thacker, None. Mr. Henley. 'wile, these statements were approved by rheeler and Wood. maintenance of the County Jail was )risoner days for the month of July, 1973. .tted for the month of July, 1973 in the 'eimburs~able by the State. On motion statements were approved for payment heeler and Wood. 8-16-73 2i0 Mr. Thacker asked about an article he had seen in a n~wspaper concerning a bill which Madison County had not paid on jail costs. He asked'for a status of that jail bill at the next meeting. Report of the County Executive for the month of July, 1973, was received as information. Reports of' the Department of Public Welfare were submitted for the months of May and June, 1973 in accordance with Sections 63-67.1 and 63-67.2 of the Code of Virginia. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund from Thomas D. Wetsel was deferred until September 20th. Upon proper motion the meeting was adjourned at 2:45 P.M. Chairman