Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1972-12-211 2-21 - 72 367 A regular meeting of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County~ Virginia, was held on December 21, 1972~ at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Stuart F. Carwile (arrived at 10:~5 a.m.), Gerald E.Fisher, Jo T. Henley, Jr., William C. Thacker, Jr., Gordon L. Wheeler and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr., (arrived at 9:~0 a.m.). Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive and County Attorney. The meeting opened with The Lord's Prayer led by the Chairman. The minutes of the meetings of November 2, November 8~ November 16 and November 22 were discussed° Motion to approve these minutes with the following corrections and additions was offered by Mr. Thacker. November 16, Page 321, next to last paragraph, Bellair Road should read Bellair Subdivision; November 16, Pag~e 323, spelling of name should be McMurran; November 16, Page 32~ where Mrs. Rosenblum was speaking of protection for Chris Greene Lake and asking for a site plan, it should be stated that no site plan is required in an A-1 zone; November 16, Page 327, Jr. left off of the name of Fred Scott; November 16, Page 331 - went into executive session, did not mention reconvening; November 16, Page 328, next to last line~ retention of Mr. Wyant was on a time basis~ total amount not to exceed $~,000; November 22, Page 33~, vote on SP-200, Mr. Wood voted aye~ Mr. Wheeler voted nay. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the followings'recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley~ Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. On motion by Mr. Thacker~ seconded by Mr. Henley~ County offices were authorized to close at 12:00 Noon on Friday~ December 22, 1972~ as an extra Christmas holiday for County employees. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. Statements of expenses of the Department of Finance, the Sheriff's Office and the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney were submitted for the month of November, 1972. On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mro Henley, these statements were approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Carwile and Wood. Reports of the Department of P~blic Welfare were submitted for the month of October, 1972~ in accordance with Sections 63-67.1 and 63-67.2 of the Code of Virginia. 368 Mr. Henley brought to the attention of the Board that at a Welfare Board meeting held yesterday~ Mr. Ritchie had stated that the Federal Government is clamping down on states having ineligible welfare receipents. Mr. Ritdhie Also stated that since he had been in office there had been only one incident found~ this a matter of $2.00. M~. Henley felt it should be a matter b~ou~ht before the public that Albemarle~County i~ not one of the areas that~have ineligible receipents. Mr.Batchelor stated that under a previous administration~ the Federal Government had issued rules saying that anyone who signs for welfare is automatically eligible and the locality did not have to investigate those cases. Albemarle County discussed this at length and continued to investigate all new cases. Now the Federal Government has issued new~galations and because some localities have followed previous regulations~ all localities will be penalized. Some counties have stated that they will take the Federal Government to court on this and NAC0 has indicated that they will intervene. Mr. Henley felt that the state is too slow in getting their "house in order" and he feels the state formula is too complicated. Mr. Wheeler stated that he had always felt local control of welfare is best and that Albemarle County has been fortunate to have the best people head their welfare operation., They have also been fortunate to have a Welfare Board that is active and has considerable knowledge of the 8itizens of Albemarle County. The following communication was received from Stromberg-Carslon: "December 13~ 1972 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville~ Virginia Gentlemen: Stromberg-Carlson's faith in the growth and future of~Albemarle County has continually been demonstrated by the steady growth of our facility on Route 29 North. We are presently in an expansion Program which will enlarge our building space by 33% and our employment by 66%. Growth of these propor$ions bring with them additional responsibitites-- the major one of which is properv planning for the safety of our employees. It is in the area of employee safety for which I am asking your assistance by approving our request for industrial access funds as described in the attached and your cOntinued support in expediting this matter. Yours very truly~ (Si~ned) C. J. Jameson Plant Manager ABK/CJJ:ss Attachment" Mr. Allan B. Kindrick was pres~t to support this request. Mr. R. W. W~rner of the Highway Department not being present at this meeting and the Board members having several questions~ Mr. Wheeler asked that Mr. Humphrey talk to Mr. Warner and make a report on this request at the January meeting. ~ 2-21-72 369 The following communication was received from the Virginia Department of Highways: "December 8, 1972 Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Charlottesville~ Virginia 22901 Gentlemen: As requested in resolhtion by your Board on May 18, 1972, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved effective October 1, 1972. ADDITIONS LENGTH ORCHARD ACRES SUBDIVISION Belle Drive - From Peachtree Drive to Orchard Dr. 0.07 Mi. Alberta Drive - From Peachtree Drive to 0rcha~d Dr. ~0.07 Mi. Orchard Drive - From end of present State maintenance to 0.1~ Mi northwest. 0.1~ Mi. Peachtree Drive - From end of present State maintenance to 0.16 Mi. northwest. 0.16 Mi. Sincerely, (Signed) J. E. Harwood Deputy Commissioner" At the November J6 meeting of the Board a request from Mr. Paige Lynch concerning ~JI$~kefield Road was presented to the Board. A similar request has been received from Mr. Vaughan Stewart, Jr. who lives at 2233 Wakefield Road. After some dicussion of the matter, Mr. Wheeler recommended that this request be sent to the Planning Commission for recommendations and returned to this Board at the January meeting. Mr. Batchelor brought to the attention of the Board a news item of November 24 sta%ing that work would begin on a three mile portion of Va. 20 south within i~eek. Mr. Batchelo~ advised the Board that he had recently received a letter from Paxson~ Marshall and Smith~ attorney's for Mr. David F. Cooke, stating t~a~tMr. Cooke had no interest ~ applying for a Federal Flood Damage Loan. Mr. Pickford stated that he had not received an answer from the Attorney General on this matter. In connectbn with Route 637~ Mr. Fisher offered motion to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, on January 21~ 1971, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution requesting that certain funds allocated to Route 810, Project No. 0810-002-126,C501 be transferred'to Route 637, Project No. 0637-002-138,C501, and WHEREAS~ a public hearing was held on December 7, 1971, to determine if a new location was needed for Route 637~ and twelve months having passed and this Board not being advised of this de~ermination, NOW, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways, be and is hereby requested to advise this Board of a decision in this matter and if a decision has not been made~ to advise date when decision may be expected. 370 The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Mr. Wheeler requested the Planning Department to give a report~ at the next regular meeting of the Board~ on a matter concerning Route 826. As requested by Sheriff George Bailey~ the following resolution was offered by Mr. Henley~ seconded by Mr. Wood and carried by the follewing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwileo RESOLVED: PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 716~ ACTS OF ASSEMBLY OF 1972, the following deputy Sheriff employed by the County ~ Albemarle is hereby certified as full time law enforcement deputy who has met the qualifications of the Law Enforcement Officers Training Standards Commission and is eligible to receive hhe minimum salary of $7~200 per annum. Richard B. Martin At 10:O0 A.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing on the repeal of Sections 3-1 and 3-2 of the Albemarle County Code. Such public hearing was advertised in The Daily Progress on November 29 and December 6~ 1972: No one from the public spoke. It was the general concensus of the Board that this matter should be carried over until the afternoon session so that Mr. Carwile could be present. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance of the County Jail was submitted along with summary statement of prisoner days for the Month of November~ 1972. On motion by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. Fisher~ these statements were approved by the following~recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Claim of the Jail Physician was submitted for the Month of November~ 1972, in the amount of $17.00 of which two-thirds is reimbursable by the State. On motion by Mr. Fisher~ seconded by Mr. Thacker~ this claim was approved for payment by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. Report of the County Executive was submitted for the month of November~ 1972~ as information. :371 Mr. Wheeler stated to the other Board members that the County had received some ~6 pieces of mail containing checks for December ~ taxes, these letters being postmarked December 6 or 7. Some of the taxpayors stated that their letters were in the post office on December ~, however, the County had followed the Code and applied penalties to these taxes. Mr. Batchelor stated that the County could not exonerate any of these penalties unless they received an affadavit from the postmaster stating that the postmark was incorrect. Claim against the Dog Tax Fund was received fr~m Emmett Thompson for 7 hens and 2 roosters killed by dogs. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Fisher, Mr. Thompson was allowed $13.50 for this claim. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. The Fo~16wing communication was received from Ray Jones: "December 18, ~972 Memo To: T. M. Batchelor, Jr. From: Ray B. Jones Subject: Well Lots The following citizens have made offers on well lots no longer in use by the County. 1. Montvue a) Parcel 60B-3A purchased by the County from Sydnor in Deed Book ~$6, Page ~99. Mr. Gerald Cook owner of Lot 3, Block A has made an offer of $~00 for this lot. The well lot was cut out of his lot on the northwest back corner with access to Magnolia Drive. b) Parcel 60B-B1B purchased in Deed Book ~6, Page ~99. Mr. Frank Finger og/~&r of Lot 1, Block B has made an offer of $300 for this well lot. It was originally a portion of the lot owned by Mr. Finger and is located on the back side of this lot. 2. Flordon a) Parcel ~9A-C9~ purchased from Sydnor in Deed Book ~6, Page ~99. The owner, Dr. Charles W. Hurt, of Lot 9, Block C has offered to purchase this lot for $$00. Since all of the above lots are too small to build on, it is recommended the Board of Supervisors take the necessary action to have the sales approved by the Court. Mr. Jones was present to ask that the Board reserve the right, for 90 days, for the Service Authority to remove any electrical equipment from these lots. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood toa'ccept the above offers,, as recommended by Mr. Jones, and in the transfer of these lots, that they be made a part of the original parcel. Motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Carwile. At 10:30 A.M. the Chairman called for a public hearing on the following matter as advertised in the Daily Progress on November 29 and December 6, 1972: 1 2-2i -72 37,2 CUP-lC1. Albemarle Development Corporation. To locate a trunk sewage line to be located east of Route 29 North and south of Route 631 (Rio Road). Said trunk will traverse the area known as ~Branchlands" via a 20 foot righ$-of-way. Said trunk line is to be a 12 inch facility extending some 3~160 feet from the property of applicant to existing manhole on property of M. C. Millerl and F. H. K.~ Corp. Property involved is described as County Tax Map 61, Parcels 129~ 129A, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Humphrey gave the staff's report and stated that the Planning Commission recommended approval subject to: (1) the State Water Control Board granting their approval before the line is used and (2) that proper sizing of the line be established by the County Engineer and the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission did not have knowledge~ at the time they acted on this request~ of a resolution Passed by the Service Authority on November 7~ 1972. He also stated that the County Engineer had revieWed the lines for sizing and feels they are adequate. Mr. Wheeler advised that ~.he Board of Supervisors had endorsed the Service Authority's resolution. (N. B. 9, November 8, 1972, Page 31¢). Mr. Joseph Gibson was present in support of the petition. He stated that he realized there was a jurisdictional conflict between the City and the Service Authority~ however~ he had tried to draft an agreement which would protect all rights. During the interim~ while this jurisdictional conflict is being resolved~ and so as not to put the County in jeopardy of losing funds, Albemarle Development is w~iting to pay into escrow the sum of money that would have been paid to the County if the County ends up being the servicing subdivision. Mrs. Frances Martin stated that she felt the City and the County were both exaggerating about their ability to handle the sewage from this piece of land. No one else from the public spoke. M~ Fisher offered motion to defer this matter until December 29 at 11:30 A.M. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thacker and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fishery Henley~ Thacker~ ~¢neeler and 'Wood. NAYS: None. At the August 17 meeting of the Board~ Mr. Frederick Noble, President of the Madison Hall Volunteers~ had appeared to request an appropriation of $4~000. A committee composed of Mr. Carwile and Mr. Fisher was appointed on September 21 to study this matter. In line with this~ Mr. Fisher offered motion to approve the request for a $~000 contribution for this fiscal year, with the provision that the Board be furnished with a r~port from Madison Hall at the end of their operating year as to the operations that have taken place and in more detail than those reports furnished in the past. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile. There followed a lengthy discussion in which several members of the Board expressed hesitancy about approving an appropriation of this size in the middle of a budget year. The Chairman requested that the motion be withdrawn and referred Mr. Nob~ to the~get committee. Mr. Fisher then withdrew the motion. Laramore & Lambert~ architects for renovation of the Levy OperatHouse presented a written report~ same-to be discussed at next month's meeting of the Board. F Mr. Mike Gleason and several members of the Bi-Centennial Commission were present to ask that the Board officially endorse the Bi-Centennial Master Plan as presented at a public hearing on September ~, 1972. Motion to adopt the Bi- Centennial Master Plan was offered by Mr. Thacker, seconded by Mr. ~arwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwi!~,~Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood The following communication was presented by Mr. Magruder Dent, Secretary of the Land Use Tax Committee: "30 November 1972 The Board of County Supervisors, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. In re: Recommendations for Amendments ~o Be Sought in the Land Use Tax Provisions of the Code of Virginia Gentlemen: The Land Use Tax Study Committee appointed by you has considered your request that we recommend any changes which we believes h0uld be made in the Virginia statutes to make a land use tax plan more desirable and submits the following interim report, so that, if this report is approved by you, there will still be time to request the support of area legislators for such amend- ments during the 1973 Session of the General Assembly. 1. We believe that the biggest problem area in the present statute is its failure to permit flexibility of application in different counties of the state. We recognize that limits must be provided, but believe that the statu~ecan provide ranges within which each county may pick its own standards, without imposing the same standards on every county in the state, regardless of its needs or problems. are: The most obvious points where we believe flexibility might be needed a) The Minimum acreage for eligibility b) The Minimum gross income required for eligibility This committee is not, however, prepared to state that the points mad~ above are necessarily applicable to ~lbemarle County. 3. Regardless of these recommendations, we also believe that the present statute is not beyond our effective use now. While changes might be made if these suggested amendments are adopted, the law as it stands today provides a structure which we believe would be beneficial to Albemarle County. Based upon tax ~figures available to the Committee, it is probable that taxes will move upwards more if the ordinance is not adopted than they will if it is, and, therefore, your Committee is unanimous in recommending the adoption of a land use tax plan for Albemarle County in ample time for it to be effective in the 1974 tax year. In making this recommendation, this Committee does not overlook other benefits to all residents of the county which cannot be calculated in dollar terms. $. Your Committee is continuing its study of details of the application of such an ordinance and will submit a further report of its recommendations for the implementation of this decision at an early date. Respectfully submitted, LAND USE TAX STUDY COMMITTEE (Signed) Robert B. Hogue, Vice Chairman, Route 3, Box 126, Charlottesville, Virginia 22901" 374.. Mr. Fisher stated that the question of the definitions ~s~tolwh~:i$celigible for ~lief has bothered him. He felt that the man who mak~ the majority of his incom'e from the land should be defined as ~ farmer. Mr. Robert Musselman~ speaking for the committee s~ted that it was the sense of the committee that there is not too much prospect of getting a workable amendment of the law that would set up such a definition and that the basis of this act~ set forth in the first section~ is the preservation of land inits preseRt state. This is a purpose that can be served~ regardless~ of who it is that owns the land. This is not something that is particularly germane to whether the County is offering special help to one person or another. In other words~ the Committee came to the conclusion ~hat this is not a statute designed to provide special relief for any one group~ it is expressly intended to he,provision that provides encouragement to retention of land in its present form for some period of time and this is very much to the interest of the County~ both esthetically and economically and in accordingly it was the Gommittee's unanimous opinion that this statute~ even/its present form~ is something that can be lived with and would serve a useful purpose to the County of Albemarle. The Committee felt that if some flexibility could be built into the law~ this would be desirable~ but that the bill in its present form has ~ery substantial advantages for the County. Mr. Fisher stated that he would not argue with that purpose and intent~ however~ it is now necessary for the County to determine how much this would cost if~deverybody who is eligible takes advantage of this. He §tated that the Board had asked Mr. Scott at last month's meeting to work with the County staff on this report. Mr. Musselman stated that the staff had provided the Committee with material and they expacSed to have a fairly extensive report soon. He also stated that after a preliminary review it did not appear to the Committeeethat the cost would be prohibitive. Mr. Wheeler stated that one area of concern to him was the minimum Dcreage for eligibllity. He felt that this should be larger. Mr. Musselman stated that the Committee had ~iscussed this but that the statute expressly requires you to eliminate from any acreage any house tract and therefore there can be no relief for the house tract under this statute. He stated that this still offers some incentive for people not to shop the land into little bits and pieceS~ which eventually costs the County more money. Mr. Wheeler stated that the Board would be discussing this report with their representatives in Richmond and that the Board intended to move forward and come to some conclusion on this matter. The following communication was received from Sheriff George Bailey: ~December ~, 1972 To: Members of the Board of Supervisors From: George W. Bailey~ Sheriff In line with your approval of the hiring of two additional men for 12-21-72 375 the Sheriff's Department, I herewith submit request for special appropriation to cover this expense~ Salary of two deputies (1/2 year) 8,700 & 7,200 Purchase of two vehicles (3,361.20 & 3,71-2.15) Car Maintenance (2 vehicles) 700 each Uniforms ...................... Social Security Retirement Group Life Insurance Blue Cross-Blue Shield w-- False Arrest Insurance (62.50 x 2) --- $;7,9¢0.O0 7,073 35 , oo[oo 2 fo. oo 465.06 1¥~.90 2~.48 189.12 12 .oo Total $1 7,620.91 I have requested the Compensation Board to participate in the salary of these two men, however, I have not received a reply as of this date. Very truly yours, (Signed) George W. Bailey Sheriff, Albemarle County" Mr. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by/Thacker, seconded by Mr. H~nley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $17,620.91, be and is hereby appropriated for expenditures by the Sheriff's Department. The Chairman entertained a motion to adjourn into executive session to discuss a matter which will be the subject of public hearing at a later date. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following~recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker and Wheeler. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Wood. The Board reconvened at 1:40 P.M. Mr. ~itfield Morris~ contractor for operation of the Ivy Landfill and Mr. Stuart Tapscott, contractor for operation of the Keene Landfill were present at the request of the Board. After reporting on present operations and both contractors expressing some dissatisfaction with recent changes made by John Pollock, Mr. Wheeler asked that in the future all changes go directly to the contractor through either~Mr. Batchelor or Mr. Bailey. Mr. Wheeler also directed the County Executive and the County Engineer to bring recommendations to the Board on closing of the landfills at night. SP-217. Med Park~ Ltd. Action on this petition had been deferred from November ~2. Mr. Turner was present and stated that he had no further evidence to present. A Mr. Keller. who[lives in Glenorchy stated that he felt a continuous business section would affect this area badly. Mr. John Lloyd~ adjoining property owner stated that he felt the Board should follow the recommendation of the Planning ~ommission and ~eny. 376 Mr. Reuel Wiebel stated that once this land becomes commercial there is no way of knowing how far this will expand and asked for assurance that this would continue as a quiet neighborhood.. Mrs..Frances Martin, Citizens .for Albemarle, stated that~ they had discussed this matter and found no justification for allowing this use of the land. Mr. Wheeler felt a-two-year permit would give the owner a chance to derive some revenue from the land and would, give a longer time to plan something that would be beneficial to the neighborhood. Mr. Henley offered motion to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission and desy. Motion .was seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley and Wheeler. NAYS: Mr. Wood. (Mr. Wood prefaced his vote by saying that this land is alread9 zoned B-1 and he felt the Board is misleading the people into feeling no business will ever go on this land.) ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. ZMP-250. Citizens Corporation. Action on this petition had been deferred from December 13, 1972. Mr. W. Lindsay was present for the petitioner. Mr. Humphrey restated that the Planning Staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval. Motion to follow recommendation of the Planning Commission was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote': AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley, ~aeeler md Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. ZMP-2~2. George Cason. Action on this petition had been deferred from December 13, 1972. Mr. Cason was present in support of the petition. Mr. Humphrey restated that the Planning Commission recommended approval in compliance with statements on previous rezoning. Motion to approve was offered by Mr. Woody seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. ZMP-255. I. J Breeden. Action on this petition had been deferred from December 13, 1972. (Mr. Carwile did not participate nor take any action on this matter). Mr. Pliny Cropp was present in support of the petition. Mr. Humphrey stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial~ not on the use but they would rather see the applicant apply for a special use permit. Motion to deny was offered by Mr. Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote:~ AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS:~ None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. 377 SP-222. ~ki Landi Inc. Action on this petition had been deferred from December 13~ 1972. (Mr. Carwile did not participate nor take any action on .this matter). Mr. Humphrey stated that the site plan for this application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on Monday~ December 18. He had communicated with persons having similar facilities and had also spoken with a representative of Monsanto. He then gave a verbal report on his findings. Thereffollowed a lengthy discussion on the characteristics of the pellets~ particularly relating to the possibility of being a fire hazard. Mr. Wood offered motion to approve SP-222 as recommendedI by the Planning Commission and ordered the County Engineer to work out the size of the water lines on the slope,-on a-square footage basis~ to provide for fire protection. and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fishery Henley~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker ~ABSTAINING: Mr. Carwile. SP-227. R. O. & Victoria H. Burton. Action on this petition had been deferred from December 13. Mr. Pickford stated that he had read the agreement and everything seemed to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Wood to approve SP-227 conditioned upon the signing of an agreement by the owners of lots 1~ 16~ 17~ 18~ 20~ 21 and 22 of Block 2~ Section 2~ Deerwood Subdivision; lot 7~ Block 2, Section 1~ Deerwood Subdivision; lots 9 and 10~ Block 4~ Section 2~ Deerwood Subdivision. The motion also,_carried authoriz&tion for the Chairman to sign this agreement. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fishery Henley~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. ,,... .,.//i At this timer the Board continued the discussion of repeal of~sections 3-~ and 3-2 of the Albemarle County Code. There being no further comments~ Mr, Wood offered motion to approve the repeal of these sections. Motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Wh'eeler and Wood. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Henley. ABSENT: Mr. Thacker. The Chairman stated that an agreement for a joint ~ity/County landfill operation at the Ivy landfill was not ready for discussion and asked that this matter 5e deferred until 11:O0 A.M. on December 29~ 1972. Mr. J. T. Camblos asked if the Board would assure the property owners near the landfill that the City would not be allowed to use this landfill until an agreement was executed. Mr. ~fneeler stased that this was the concensus of the Board~ and asked Mr. Batchelor to convey to the City that they should not start using this landfill until after this Board had taken action in public session. Motion was seconded by Mr. Henley~ 378 In the matter of the Scottsville annexation case~ Mr. Thacker stated that he was concerned about the Town itself, about the revenue that the Town would lose when the shopping center becomes a fact, and also about the area contained in the Town's annexation order. He felt it would be unfortunate .if the Board fou~jat for those in the area being sought by the City of Charlottesville and not for those being sought by the Town of Scottsville. Mr. Forrest Paulett stated that he felt it was bad for the citizens of Scottsville to fight against each other and stated that as an intervenor in this suit~..~ he was not in favor of any annexation aZ all. Mr. Carwile asked if only the area containing the proposed shopping center were annexed if Mr. Paulett would then have an objection, Mr. Paulett replied that the intervenorS would probably withdraw their objection if the area to be annexed were confined to the proposed shopping center. Mr. Wheeler requested a short executive session to discuss information relating to this matter with the County Attorney. Motion was offered by Mr. Thacker~ seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker, Wheeler and Wo~d. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened. Mr. Thacker stated that he did not want to see this annexation suit become lengthy and offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of~Supervisors of Albemarle County does hereby express its opposition to the annexation proceeding as institu~ed~against the County by the Town of Scottsville insofar as the area sought to be annexed by it is concerned. However~ the Board has and does express~its willingness to assist the Town of Scottsville in its desire to remove its business district from the area of its presa~t corporate limits~ which are prone to flooding. Accordingly~ and if the Town of Scottsville reduces the area sought by it to the hereinafter described portion of the Co~nty~ then this Board does further RESOLVE that the necessity for an expediency~ of the annexation of such area by the Town of Scottsville exists and that such annexation should be decreed as soon as possible~ and for this purpose the County hereby consents to composition of the Court by the Judge of the Albemarle County Circuit Court only. The area of the County covered hereby is described as follows: 379 ('1) Beginning at a point, the intersection of the eastern margin of State Highway 6 with the north corporate limits of the Town of Scottsville, Albemarle County, Virginia; (2) Thence with the-said corporate limits in a Southwesterly direction crossing State Highway 6 to the western margin of State Highway 6; (3) Thence along the western margin of State Highway 6 in a north- .westerly direction to its intersection with the centerline of State Route 726, a corner with parcel 24 A, section~130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map~ (4) Thence with the centerline of State RoUte 726 and the eastern boundary of parcels 24 A and 33, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map~ in a southerly direction to the intersection of the centerline of State Route 726 and State Route 737; Thence with the centerline of State Route 737 and the southern boundary of parcel 33, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in a westerly direction to a point, a corner common to parcels 33 and 34, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map; (6) Thence along the western boundary of parcel 33, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in a northwesterly direction to a point, a corner common to parcels 33 and~25 N, section 130, on the Albemarle. County Tax Map, in the eastern boundary of parcel 34, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map; (7) Thence along the northwest boundary of Parcel 33, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in a northeasterly direction to its intersection with the southern margin of State Highway 6; (8) Thence with the southern margin of State Highway 6 and northern boundary of parcel 33, section 130~ on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in an easterly direction to a point, a corner of parcels 33 and 24A, section 130', on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in the southern margin of State Highway 63 (9) Thence corssing State Highway 6 in a northwesterly direction to a point, a corner with parcels 2~ F and 2N, section 130, on theAl'bemarle County Tax Map~ in the northern margin of State Highway 6; (10) Thence with the southwestern boundary of parcel 2N, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map~ in a northwesterly direction to a point, a corner with parcel 2~ F, section 130~ on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in the boundary of parcel 2N, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map; (11) Thence by a new line with parcel 24, section 13'O, on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in a northeasterly direction to a point, the intersection of the centerline of State Route 726 in the western margin of State Highway 20; (22) Thence with the centerline of State Route 726 and the southeastern boundary of parcel 24, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map, in a southwesterly direction to a point, the intersection of the centerline of State Route 726 in the northern margin of State Highway 6; (13) Thence with the northern margin of State Highway 6 in a southeasterly direction to the point of beginning; containing in all 19 acres, plus, of which 16 acres are in parcels 2N A, 33, and a portion of 24, section 130, on the Albemarle County Tax Map, and 3 acres, plus, in the ~ight of way of State Highway 6. The Board dmes 'hereby authorize its annexation counsel to proceed in such manner as they deem advisable in accord with it~ intent as expressed in this ~esolution. The foregoing~motion was seconded by Mr. Carwile and carried by the following recorded vote: 380 12-.21.-72 AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, ~Henley, Thacker, ~heeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Motion to reappoint- William C. Clontz and Charles Ancona to a new three- year term, effective December 1, 1972, on the Joint Airport Commission, was offered by Mr.~ Wood, seconded by Mr. Fisher and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. None. Moiion was offered by Mr. Carwile, seconded by Mr. Thah~er~ to reappoint H. C. Lanahan, George W. Bailey and Lloyd F. Wood, Jr. to new four-year terms on the Albemarle County Highway Safety Commission, effective January 1~ 1973. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher, Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and 'Wood. NAYS: None. Upon motion by Mr. Carwile~ seconded by Mr. Wood, David Carr was reappointed to a four-year term as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Said term expires on December 31, 1976. Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Wood, Ellen Craddock was reappointed as a member of the Albemarle County Planning Commission~ for a four- year term expiring on December 31, 1976. The foregoing motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher offered motion to adopt the-following resolution: POLICY STATEMENT, SOIL EROSION CONTROL WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on October 29~ 1971, did adopt certain provisions of the Zoning Ordinance in order to control the harmful and damaging effects of soil erasion and sedimentation on non-agricultural lands~ and WHEREAS, in the first year of enforcement some points of administration .of said provisions have required clarification, and WHEREAS, it lies within the power of this Board to provide such clarification in a policy statement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that it shall be the policy of the government of the County of Albemarle that standards of erosion and sedimentation control o~ projects financed from tax revenues, bond issues, or user fees, and sponsored or shared in by the County Government shall equal or surpass the standards required of any private owner, contractor, or developer on privately financed development or construction projects on non-agricultural lands. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile, Fisher, Henley, Thacker, Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. 3'81 The Clerk was ordered to send a copy of the foregoing ~esolution to. all department heads. On motion by Mr. Thahker~ seconded by Mr, Henley~ ~the Clerk was ordered to advertise for a public hearing~ an ordinance entitled "Real Estate Tax Exemption for E~derly Persons°" Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carwile~ Fisher~ Henley~ Thacker~ Wheeler and Wood. NAYS: None. Mr. Batchelor stated that the welfare office employed as a technican~ a past rec&p~ent of welfare~ and this person had stated that Christmas was a particularly sad time for children. In light of this~ the welfare staff had used their personal time to m~ke stockings and gather toys and had entertained approximately 2~0 children at a Christmas party on last Sunday. He stated that the success of this could be summarized by one six-year old boy who walked up to Santa Claus and said "Santa~ I sure to thank you for my toy~ it is the first time you have remembered me." Mr. Batchelor stated that he felt the welfare department is not only interested'.~in doing their job~ but is also interested in the people as a whole. He felt they deserve credit for working in the worst conditions any county emPloyee has to tolerate. Mr. Wheeler thanked Mr. Batchelor for his statement. Upon proper motion~ the meeting was adjour~d, Chairman