Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-01-02January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervzsors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 2, 1997, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M., by the County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Tucker asked for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Bowerman nominated Charlotte Humphris as Chairman. Mr. Marshall seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Mr. Bowerman moved to close the nominations. Roll was called and the nomination carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Humphris. Agenda. Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mrs. Humphris opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Perkins nominated Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Bowerman seconded the nominations. Mrs. Humphris closed the nominations. Roll was called and the nomination carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall. Mrs. Humphris thanked Board members for re-electing her as Chairman. She said last year was an interesting year. She thanked Board members for their confidence and cooperation. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerk. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to reappoint Ella W. Carey as Clerk and Lettie E. Neher as Senior Deputy Clerk for calendar year 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Year 1996. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Mrs. Humphris said in the past the Board has canceled its third meeting in December due to its proximity to the holidays. She asked if the Board had any preference as to whether it wanted to cancel its third meeting in December for 1997o Board members concurred with canceling the December 17, 1997, meeting. Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to set meetings for the first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., and the second and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the County Office Building; and cancel the December 17, 1997, meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: January 2, 1997 (Regular Day MeLting) (Page 2) oooo 6 AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set dates to hear zoning text amendments by citizens for June 18, September 17 and December 10, 1997 and March 18, 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption of Rules of Procedure. Mrs. Humphris mentioned the language in the Rules of Procedure. She asked if this is the actual verbiage the Board should be adopting. Mr. Davis said the language came from the Code of Virginia. Mr. Davis agreed that the wording was awkward and he could bring to the January, 1998 organizational meeting some new language. Mr. Davis said new language was added to the Bcard's Rules of Procedure, which would allow in instances where meetings are canceled because of snow or other dangerous conditions that if there are advertised public hearings, they are automatically carried over to the next meeting date rather than having to readvertise. Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to readopt the Rules of Procedure. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas° None. (The adopted Rules of Procedure are set out below:) RULES OF PROCEDURE ALBEMARLE BOARD OF COUNTY SUPERVISORS A. Officers Chairman. The Board shall, at its first meeting after election, elect one of its number as Chairman, who, if present, shall preside at such meeting and at all other meetings during the term for which so elected. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-528) Vice-Chairperson. The Board shall, at its first meet- ing after election, also elect one of its number as Vice-Chairperson, who shall preside at meetings in the absence of the Chairman and shall discharge any other duties of the Chairman during his absence or disabil- ity. (Virginia Code Section 1 5. 1-528) Term of Office. The Chairman and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected for one-year terms; but either or both may be re-elected for one or more additional terms. Bo Clerk and Deputy Clerks The Board shall, at its first meeting after election, desig- nate a Clerk and one or more Deputy Clerks, who shall serve at the pleasure of the Board and whose duties shall be those set forth by Virginia Code Sections 15. 1 -53 1 and 15.1-532 and resolution of the Board as adopted from time to time. Co Meetings Annual Meeting. The first meeting held after the newly elected members of the Board shall have quali- fied, and the first meeting held in the corresponding month of each succeeding year shall be known as the annual meeting. At such annual meeting, the Board shall establish the days, times, and places for regu- lar meetings of the Board for the ensuing twelve months. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-536) January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3) Do 000037 2 o 3o Regular Meetings. Except as otherwise provided by law, the Board shall meet in regular session not less often than once each month upon such day or days as has been established. Provided, however, that the Board may subsequently establish different days, times, or places for such regular meetings by passing a resolution to that effect in accord with Virginia Code Section 15.1-536. Provided, also, that when the day established as a regular meeting day falls on a legal holiday, the meeting shall be held on the next following regular business day, without action of any kind by the Board. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-536) If the Chairman, or Vice Chairman if the Chairman is unable to act, finds and declares that weather or other conditions are such that it is hazardous for Board members to attend a regular meeting, such meet- ing shall be continued to the next regular meeting date. Such finding shall be communicated to the members of the Board and the press as promptly as possible. Ail hearings and other matters previously advertised shall be conducted at the continued meeting and no further advertisement shall be required. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-536) Special Meetings. A special meeting of the Board shall be held when requested by two or more members thereof, such request to be made in writing, addressed to the Clerk of the Board, specifying the time and place of the meeting and the matters to be considered thereat. Upon receipt of such request, the Clerk shall transmit this information in writing to each member of the Board and to the County Attorney, by registered mail, not less than five days before the day of such meet- ing. Provided, that in lieu of registered mail, such notice may be served by the Sheriff of the County. Provided, further, that no matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such meeting unless all members of the Board are present and agree to such action by a majority vote. {Virginia Code Section 15.1-538; Virginia Code Section 1 5. 1-9.1 :1 ) The Clerk shall also notify the general news media of the time and place of such meeting and the matters to be considered. Order of Business The agenda for all meetings shall be established by the Clerk of the Board in consultation with the Chairman, with the first two items on the agenda for each regular meeting of the Board being the pledge of allegiance and a moment for silent meditation. Quorum A majority of the members of the Board present at the time and place established for any regular or special meeting shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of adjourning such meeting from day to day or from time to time, but not beyond the time fixed for the next regular meeting. {Virginia Code Section 1 5.1 -536) Voting Ail questions submitted to the Board for decision shall be presented by appropriate motion of a member, seconded by another member, and determined by a voice vote of a majority of the members present and voting; except that in the case of any matters involving the appropriation of any sum exceeding $500.00, a majority of the total membership shall be required. The Clerk shall record the name of each member voting and how he voted. Whenever any member wishes to abstain from voting on any question, he shall so state and his abstention shall be announced by the Chairman and recorded by the Clerk. (Article VII, Section 7, Vir- ginia Constitution) Since the Board has elected not to provide for the appointment of a tie-breaker, any tie vote shall defeat the motion, resolution or question voted upon. (Virginia Code Section 15.1-540) January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 0000;18 4 o 5o Matters requiring public hearings shall not be subject to vote by the Board before such public hearing has been held; provided that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the deferral or continuance of consideration of any matter prior to the holding of such public hearing. Amendments to a motion, unless accepted by the member making the original motion and the member seconding the same, shall be subject to vote by the Board before any action is taken on the original motion. Discussion of any motion may be terminated by any member's moving the previous question, whereupon the Chair shall call for a vote on the motion and, if carried by a majority of those voting, shall then call for a vote on the original motion under consideration. A motion of the previous question shall not be subject to debate and shall take precedence over any other matter. 6o 7 o After a vote has been taken on a matter before the Board, any member may move for its reconsideration, provided such motion is made at the same meeting or an adjournment thereof at which the matter was originally acted upon. The effect of the motion to reconsider, if adopted, shall be to place the original question in the exact position it occupied before it was voted upon. Any vote previously taken by the Board, with the exception of zoning matters (which shall be subject to reconsideration only as above stated) and ordinances, may be rescinded by a majority of total membership of the Board. G. Amendment to and Suspension of Rules of Procedure These Rules of Procedure may be amended by a majority vote of the Board at the next regular meeting following a regular meeting at which the motion to amend is made. By majority vote of those Board members present and voting, these rules may be suspended on any matter before it. Any rules of procedure not covered by these sets of rules will be governed by Robert's Rules of Procedure. Agenda Item No. 10. Policy for Appointment to Boards and Commissions, Adoption of. Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to readopt the Policy for Appointment to Boards and Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 11. Appointments. Mr. Bowerman offered motion to appoint L. DuPratt Johnson to the Social Services Board, with a term to expire on December 31, 1997. Mr. Martin offered motion to reappoint George A. Spry to the Equaliza- tion Board, with a term to expire on December 31, 1997. Mrs. Thomas offered motion to reappoint Samuel A. "Pete" Anderson, III, as the University of Virginia's nonvoting representative on the Planning Commission, with term to expire on December 31, 1997. Mr. Marshall seconded the motions. Roll was called and the motions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 000039 Agenda Item No. 13. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting by the Government Finance Officers Assocma- tion (GFOA). Mr. Rhu Harris, President of GFOA of Virginia, said it was a pleasure to come before the Board and present to the Finance Department this award. The Certificate of Achievement Program has been in operation since 1946. The purpose of the program is to encourage and assist governments to prepare financial reports of the highest quality for the benefit of citizens and other parties with vital interest in government finances. During the time the program has operated it has gained world-wide recognition as a premier indicator of excellence in financial reporting for governmental entities. To earn a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Albemarle County had to substantially conform to the programs' demanding criteria which go well beyond the minimal requirements of general accepted accounting principals. The programs participants submit copies of their Comprehensive Annual Financial Report to an in-depth review and evaluation by two members selected at-large from an impartial panel of government finance officers, certified public accountants, educators and others with experience in reviewing financial reports. Albemarle County has been extremely success- ful this year with both the Budget Award and now the Certificate of Achieve- ment for Excellence in Financial Reporting and is in the top ten percent of localities nationwide which receive both awards. It is unusual for a city or county to receive both of these awards. It is his pleasure to present to Melvin Breeden and the Finance staff, this Certificate of Achievement. Mr. Breeden, Director of Finance, thanked Mr. Harris. The Finance staff is proud to receive this award. He appreciated the Board's and County Executive's staff support over the years. He recognized Ed Koonce and Ann Murray from the Accounting Division and thanked Jack Farmer's staff. Agenda Item No. 14. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins, to approve items 14.1 through 14.3 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. (Discussions on items are included with the agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Item No. 14.1 Appropriation: Education Division {donation for various school projects), $4800 - (Form #96043). At its meeting on December 9, 1996, the School Board approved the following appropriations: Appropriation of $4,000 from The Challenge Foundation. Cale Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $4,000 from The Challenge Foundation to be used to help defray the expenses of the teachers from Cale who will be presenters at the National Core Knowledge Conference in March. Appropriation of $500 from the Broadus Wood PTO. Broadus Wood Elementary School received a $500 donation to be used to pay for services rendered to the school to implement the foreign language pilot program. Appropriation of $300 from the Wal-Mart Foundation. Burley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $300 to purchase plants to improve the landscaping areas around the school. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation %96043, in the total amount of $4,800. By the recorded vote above, the following resolution of appropriation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96043 FUND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DONATIONS FOR VARIOUS SCHOOL PROJECTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1220161411580500 1220161101132100 1225261101580000 STAFF DEVELOPMENT SALARIES-PART-TIME TEACHERS MISC. EXPENSES TOTAL $4,000.0O 500.00 300.00 $4,800.OO January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000040 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200018100181109 DONATION $4,800.00 TOTAL $4,800.00 Item No. 14.2. Resolution requesting that Woodcreek Drive in Woodcreek Subdivision be taken into the State Secondary System of Highways. By the recorded vote above, the following resolution was adopted: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, in regular meeting on the 2nd day of January, 1997, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Woodcreek Subdivision (SUB-92-118) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 2, 1997, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Woodcreek Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 2, 1997, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: Woodcreek Drive from Station 0-43.80, edge of pavement of State Route 20, 2992.85 lineal feet to Station 29+49.05, real of cul-de-sac, as shown on plat re- corded 8/26/93 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court in Deed Book 1336, pages 565-569, with a 50 foot right-of-way, with additional deeds filed 11/15/96 in Deed Book 1576, page 74, 11/15/96 in Deed Book 1576, page 77, and 12/12/96 in Deed Book 1581, page 679, for a total length of 0.57 mile. Item No. 14.3. Set public hearing for February 5, 1997, to amend the County Code in Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, to establish a $20 service fee on all returned checks tendered to the County. The Executive Summary states that Section 8-12 of the County Code currently imposes a penalty of $25 for returned checks tendered for payment of taxes. There is currently no provision in the County Code for imposing a fee for returned checks received for any other purpose. While the majority of checks received by the County are for taxes, the County is experiencing increased problems with returned checks for other activities. This is likely due to the increase in fees charged for various activities such as Parks and Recreation programs, after school programs, school lunches, etc. The proposed amendments would provide for a $20 service fee on all checks; the $25 penalty would apply in addition to this service fee if the check was in payment of taxes and the taxpayer fails to remit payment within five days after notification. Due to the staff time involved to contact the person who issued the return check and, if necessary, reverse transactions and take legal action, the fee and penalty would appear to be appropriate. Staff recommends that a public hearing be set to amend the County Code imposing this additional service fee. January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 00004 . By the recorded vote set out above, the Board set the public hearing for February 12, 1997, to amend the County Code in Chapter 1, General Provisions, and Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, to establish a $20 service fee on all returned checks tendered to the County. Item No. 14.4. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors for the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for October 28 and November 25, 1996, was received for information. Mrs. Humphris asked that when acronyms are used , i.e., SCADA, CDL, VHB, they be identified in the minutes. Item No. 14.5. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for October 17, 1996, was received for information. Mrs. Thomas suggested that water conservation be one of the criteria used to determine rates. Mr. Tucker commented that the Service Authority Board is discussing this issue. Item No. 14.6. 1996 Third Quarter Building Report as prepared by the Department of Planning and Community Development, was received for informa- tion. Item No. 14.7. Letter dated December 12, 1996, from the Honorable George Allen, Governor, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding welfare reform, was received for information. Item No. 14.8. Letter dated December 17, 1996, from the Honorable George Allen, Governor, to ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, regarding funding for higher education, was received for information. Item No. 14.9. Letter dated December 18, 1996, addressed to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, Chairman, from Mr. Thomas L. Hopkins, Director, Department of Environmental Quality, re: County's continued support of the designation of the Moormans River as an exceptional water, was received for information. Item No. 14.10. Letter dated December 19, 1996, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Assistant Resident Engineer, re: Issues from December 4, 1996, Board Meeting, was received as follows: "We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the December 4, 1996, Board meeting. Traffic signal analysis review at Rio Road and Old Brook Road. This has been submitted to the Traffic Engineer for his review. Route 240 - from Route 250 to Crozet East. Review for possible speed limit reduction. This has been submitted to the Traffic Engineer for review. Route 683 - please review for potholes and deep drainage ditches. This work is in progress to the East of bridge, near dead end, to fill in deep ditches. Work will be com- pleted as~soon as weather allows." Agenda Item No. 15a. Work Session: 1997/98-2002/2003 Six Year Second- ary Road Plan. Mr. David Benish~ Chief of Community Development, said the Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan is VDOT's Plan for the allocation of road construction funds for a six year period. It consists of a priority list of projects and a financial implementation plan. The VDOT Six Year Plan is based on local priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors {the County's priority list of road improvements). Since 1986, the Commission and Board have approved this priority list of projects which would cost, in total, in excess of available funds over the six-year planning period. With such a list developed, subsequent financial plans can be prepared and revised in response to available annual funds. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the proposed Priority list for secondary road improvements with the deletion of priority %6-Greenbrier Drive Extension. The Commission was concerned about the impact to Whitewood Road Park, the necessity of the project and the impact to residential areas. January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 00004 Mr. Benish said major changes to the County's priority list include: Plank Road (Route 692), in North Garden has been lowered signifi- cantly in the priority list (from %22 to %33). It was previously included in the priority list by staff to support the North Garden Development Area designation. North Garden is no longer desig- nated a Development Area and there was no public request related to this project. The funds previously allocated to this project in the Six Year Plan have been transferred to the Meadow Creek Parkway project north of Rio Road for planning and design. The Route 606 and Route 743 relocation projects, required to meet Federal Aviation Administration safety requirements, have been included in this list for information purposes. These projects will be federally funded. No secondary funds will be used on the projects. They have been listed along with the Hydraulic Road and Avon Street/Route 20 connecter road, which are (or will be) under construction, as projects which no longer need to be ranked with other potential projects. VDoT~s draft Six Year Secondary Road Construction Plan basically coincides with the County's priority list with two exceptions: Old Ivy Road is ranked %9 on the County priority list, but shown as the last regular project on the VDOT Six Yea.r Plan (%23). VDOT residency staff is recommending that no commitment be shown in the Secondary Plan until the full scope of the Route 29 Bypass project is determined, given the potential for improvements to Old Ivy Road to be included in the Bypass project. Route 712 road paving project (North Garden) is prioritized consistent with the County's priority. However, it is being shown as a deferred project (no additional funding allocated to it) in the VDOT Six Year Plan due to the lack of available right-of-way to complete the project. Based on the Board's road paving policy, the project will not be pursued further until full right-of-way is donated. Route 711 and Route 760 road paving projects in North Garden have been deleted from the Six Year Plan. As with Route 712, full donation of right-of-way is not anticipated and construction cost, particularly for Route 711, would be high. This action is also consistent with public comments received last year as part of the public meetings on the Land Use Plan. The general consensus of the~public comments was to focus paving improvements on Route 712. The funding previously on Routes 711 and 760 has been reallocated to Routes 615, 737, and 702. Ail of these projects have the necessary right-of-way available. Mr. Benish said there were no other substantive changes in the priority list. Ail projects from previous years remain in this Plan and are working towards development. No action is required for this meeting. The Board must hold a public hearing prior to approval of the County's priority list of road improvements and the VDOT Six Year Secondary Plan. The Board needs to set a public hearing date. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the Avon Street/Route 20 South connector road that would serve Monticello High School. The proposed ranking lists the road as "not applicable". He asked if the road should not be listed in the Six Year Plan as a priority. Mr. Tucker said Route 20 is a primary road so it will show up in the plan for primary roads as opposed to the secondary road plan. Mr. Benish said the improvements related to the connec- tor road tieing into Route 20 can be done as part of the connector road project. Any other improvements not related to that would be in the primary plan. Mr. Benish added that the first four projects listed in the plan (Route 743-Hydraulic Road; Avon-Route 20 Connector; Route 606-Dickerson Road and Route 743-Earlysville Road) are currently under design or construction and the staff did not see the need to prioritize them. Mrs. Thomas said a group of people who live in Bellair Subdivision have been working directly with regional and high level VDoT officials and have gotten a consensus of how they want their intersection improved. The improve- ment includes shifting Canterbury Road. The project is not on this list. The group have not been going through the normal channels. Mr. Tucker said most of the work will be done as a primary road project, even though it is a secondary road being shifted. Mr. Cilimberg said the only place staff has seen that project shown is in the Western Bypass design as a new intersection with a connection to Canterbury Road. It has been shown as a possible alternative connection in association with the Western Bypass project. In his opinion VDoT does not seem, from its discussions with the committee, to be too excited about doing that with the Western Bypass along with ramps at the January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) {Page 9) OOO043 existing Old Ivy Road intersection. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not remember seeing a cost associated with the project. Mrs. Thomas said she also has not seen a cost. Although she has not been a part of the group, it has been meeting for some time regarding the project. Mr. Mills said VDoT is still meeting with the group and has shown them the latest design, and they want to meet again. It is his understanding the project will be funded with primary funds, which will have to be requested at the Primary Road Preallocation Hearing in March, 1997. The group has been made aware of that information. Mrs. Humphris asked how that project gets incorporated into the County's planning process. Mr. Mills said it would not hurt for this Board to include that project in its request. VDoT has told the group that they need to be at the Preallocation Hearing to make the request. Mrs. Humphris asked if this is going to be a separate request from the County's request. Mr. Mills said it has sort of been guaranteed that this project is going to occur at the Bellair intersection. To his knowledge, there are no funds available at this time. The funds have to be allocated through the preallocation hearing. Mrs. Humphris asked who guarantees the funds. Mr. Mills responded it is beyond his office. Mr. Benish said the staff will bring the Primary Plan to the Board to review in either February or March for that March public hearing. Mrs. Humphris commented that the Board would like to know all about the project. Mr. Cilimberg suggested asking VDoT to provide staff with a copy of the plan and the cost of the project, and then staff will bring the information to the Board as part of the priority list. Mrs. Humphris commented that the County has been totally left out of the loop, although the group has been made promises. Mr. Mills said the plans have not been finalized. Several schemes have been shown to the group. Basically the road is supposed to come out where Route 601 intersects to the east of the Bellair Market. He will try to get the Board a final plan when his office sees a plan. Mrs. Thomas said it has been a good process in the sense that there have been a lot of people working on it and getting their ideas acknowledged; it is just that at the early stage, four years ago, they jumped over the County. Ail the information she hears is second hand. Mr. Perkins asked what happened to the Jarmans Gap Road Project. Mr. Benish said he believes priority %11 (Route 691) is the project. Mr. Perkins commented that Route 691 is the correct road number. Mr. Benish said he would verify the road name which is listed as Greenwood Road. Mr. Perkins said he has received several calls about the road that leads to Innisfree and the number of handicapped people that use the road. He asked if this road would qualify for the 'Pave In Place Program" for dead-end roads. Mr. Mills said he has not done any research, but he thinks it may qualify since it is a deadend road. Mr. Charlie Williams of VDoT said they have met with representatives at Innisfree to address some of the things VDoT can do and to see if "Pave In Place" is an alternative. The traffic count is down somewhat, but VDoT can take a look at that and do a new count and maybe look at some preliminary things rather than going into full scale improvements at this time. VDoT is currently gathering figures, vehicle counts and cost estimates. Mr. Perkins asked what the minimum count have to be. Mr. Williams responded 50 vehicle trips per day. Mrs. Thomas commented that Route 702 (priority %58) is one of the few unpaved roads that is in a designated growth area, but there will be a lot of strong feelings against having it paved because it is a favorite road for joggers. Mrs. Thomas commented that there are a lot of little changes that have taken place. Mr. Benish said staff uses a priority rating system, taking into consideration traffic volumes, certain geometries of the roadway, mainly the width and whether the road is in a designated development area. Every other year staff runs all the projects through this rating system and staff creates a fresh list. Staff tries to keep things consistent over time. Staff did make some minor adjustments, but no substantive changes to the priority list. Mrs. Thomas asked about priority %46 {Route 813-Starlight Road). The comments state that this is a school request for the need for turn-around space. It sounds to her to be an important project, but it is so far down on the project list it will not get any funding in this Board's life time. Mr. Benish said this is a project that was important enough that it got identified individually. There are actually several school requests with these type minor changes. Two years ago, the staff under priority %1 (County-wide funding) bumped up the annual funding to give VDOT more flexibility in funding these minor type improvements that did not need to go to right-of-way acquisi- tion. This is one of those projects that could not be done in that fashion, so it had to be prioritized separately. There is no magic to the priority list. It is a starting point. If there are projects the Board thinks should be higher, staff can consider those projects and try to advance them. January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) 000044 Mrs. Thomas referred to priority %53 .(Route 679-Grassmere Road) said the people understood all the right-of-way was available, but now apparently it is not. Mr. Mills said one of the larger properties where the right-of-way has not been received is Westvaco. Mr. Bowerman said the residents of Greenbrier Road are concerned about this proposed improvement project. The Planning Commission removed the recommendation from the list it forwarded to the Board. He always assumed this project would be done because it was needed; it has been in the plans for 18 years. He met with some of the neighborhood representatives several weeks ago and unless he is able to better understand the justification for continu- ing the project, it will be difficult for him to support it. It always seemed to be to him an integral part of the total transportation plan, but the residents asked him specific questions that he was unable to answer regarding the need for that particular stretch of roadway. The residents mentioned that with Earlysville being downgraded from a community that some of the need for the road was lessened. The residents indicated the significant impact to the Park. He knows there was an attempt to minimize the impact of the roadway on the Park and on the adjacent neighborhood. He does not have a traffic count figure. He does not know what the improvements to Hydraulic and Rio Roads will do to the impact of traffic wanting to utilize Greenbrier. He needs that information at the public hearing so he can make an intelligent decision as to whether he wants to keep this extension in the plan or whether the need has waned over the intervening years. Mr. Benish said staff will try to get a precise account of the Green- brier/Whitewood/Four Seasons Drive impact. Unfortunately one of the down sides of their MINUTP (transportation planning) modeling system is that it does not do a good job of analyzing internal streets within traffic zones. It is much more of a regional model. Staff does have traffic volumes for Hydraulic Road and modeling numbers for Rio/Hydraulic with the improvements assumed so staff can get a sense of what is going to happen on those major roadways. It is a little difficult for staff to get accurate numbers on the four-tenths of a mile of Greenbrier Drive. Staff can work towards making those numbers as good as possible. Staff has a plan that shows where the road alignment would go through Whitewood Park. Mr. Bowerman asked how many acres are involved in the right-of-way. Mr. Benish said staff would have to get with VDOT and their design plans. Since VDOT is planning a public hearing in the next couple of months, the plans should be available. Mrs. Humphris said she remembers a committee she and Mr. Bowerman were on at which time they discussed the impact this proposed road would have on Whitewood, and when the decision was made that this site would be used for a park and not a school. This was in 1990 and they were clearly thinking of a two lane road, at the most a three lane road. She is now learning that from as long ago as 1988 and 1989 VDOT already had plans to put a four or five lane road through there that evidently none of the Board or staff knew about until the President of Townwood discovered in July, 1996. She does not understand how these things happen that the locality is the last to know. This leads her to a question based on the minutes of the Planning Commission of November 26. At the meeting Mr. Cilimberg was asked who has the final say in whether the road gets built or not. He responded that in his opinion even if the Board were to agree with the Commission's recommendation and advise VDOT that the County did not want any further money to be spent on this project, it would still be VDOT's decision as to whether or not this is a project they feel is necessary for the Secondary Road system. Mr. Cilimberg said VDOT always has to sign off on that Six Year Plan. When he made that comment it was because he remembered VDOT's position on the Moorm~n's River bridge project. Mr. Mills said he believes VDOT would like to' see the project go to public hearing and see the outcome from that hearing. Mr. Benish said he thinks the connection provides a valuable function. He thinks the question that needs to be addressed is whether it has to have the i~mpact it does as a four lane highway. It may seem to be the logical connestion that ties some communities together and possibly help some other neighborhoods by better distributing traffic in the area. There is no way to deny that the project will impact the Park. The project was planned before the park. Staff did try to take that into consideration when they were designing the improvements to the park. This is part of the CATS improvements generally referred to as Base Case improvements which is intended to address some of the concerns of moving local traffic around, and that ties into the necessity of the Western Bypass, and how traffic is distributed and managed in the overlying northern corridor. Mr. Bowerman asked if the graphic of the park shows Greenbrier Extended as a two lane road. Mr. Benish replied "no". Mr. Cilimberg asked the width shown. Mr. Benish responded approximately 60 feet. Mr. Cilimberg said 60 feet is a four lane undivided highway with a sidewalk. Mr. Benish said the CATS Plan showed Greenbrier as a two lane road, but during design work with VDOT, there was discussion of four lanes. This project was actually in the Six Year Plan on an earlier track, but it was reprioritized to allow work on Hydraulic and Rio Roads. January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) 000045 Mr. Citimberg said it is important to mention the traffic design year or projected traffic that the road would be designed to meet. Staff has asked VDOT for that information which will be used in developing the plans since they are based on design year traffic. He believes that will be critical in thinking about what this road will carry in traffic and how it is going to determine design needs. In Comprehensive Plan and CATS Plan discussions, staff has talked about accepting lower levels of service in urban areas which means not building as many lanes, allowing a littler more congestion or a lower level of service, i.e., designed to a level of service "D" versus a level of 'service "C". Staff has also looked at roads like this as a primary connecting pedestrian and bicycle route, and putting more emphasis on that kind of design. He thinks it is important to understand what the projected traffic being used in the design work because it may be the two or three lanes at a level of service "D" kind of function with bicycle lanes and sidewalk are more in line with what the County wants to do, and it also fits the idea of this being residential. Mr. Bowerman said if the Board had an understanding of the trip genera- tion in the year 2015 and could look at Four Seasons, Hydraulic Road, Rio Road, Whitewood Road, Commonwealth Drive and Greenbrier Drive without the extension in terms of the impact on those neighborhoods with the traffic counts, and look at the level of service and then look at it again with this connection, it would have some basis to make a rational judgement as to whether it should or should not be included, and what kind of design the Board really wants. Mrs. Humphris asked what was the CATS recommendation for the level of service. Mr. Benish said the CATS Committee did not feel comfortable with a level of service "D" in a designated development area, and did not feel comfortable with identifying certain roads for a certain level of service. They did identify, as a recommendation, the need to further evaluate that as a study step prior to updating the next CATS Plan and then work on making those specific type of recommendations. Mr. Bowerman asked if this discussion was designed around traffic calming. Mr. Benish said the CATS Committee was interested in thinking of a holistic approach to the County's road system. They were looking at the impact of roads to neighborhoods, and how welt'the roads could accommodate pedestrians, other vehicles, buses and bicycles. On certain roads the Committee left at a level of service "C" and in other cases recommended that a level of service evaluation would require an improvement. Mrs. Humphris asked when the numbers would become available to County staff. Mr. Mills said VDOT's Richmond office had some of the same concerns mentioned by Board members. The figure he saw showed approximately 6,500 automobiles in the year 2015 using Greenbrier Drive. Without a delicate traffic model it is difficult to determine, because it is not known what will happen to a road that is not even built. Mr. Tucker asked what is the width of the existing Townwood Drive coming in from the intersection, and what was is planned. Mr. Cilimberg said it is now two lanes, but the right-of-way provided for Townwood was adequate for a wider road. That was part of the design discussions with VDOT staff; how the widening or construction of the full Greenbrier on the Townwood section fit into the right-of-way and how it would potentially affect the adjacent trailer park on the east side. Mrs. Humphris said it is her understanding that at the October Planning Commission meeting mention was made of an aerial photograph that was available and when citizens asked to see the photograph they were told it would be provided. She asked Mr. Mills to look into that and contact Mary Morris in Minoz Ridge Subdivision about getting that photograph to them. Mrs. Humphris commented that there were some members from the neighbor- hood present who wanted to speak at this time. Mr. Eric Strucko, a resident of Garden Court, asked the Board to support the Commission's recommendation by removing Greenbrier Drive from the priority list and removing it from the Comprehensive Plan. The neighborhood group atter.ded several of the Commission meetings and they were successful and constructive in their work with them by discussing this two square mile region as a sustainable community that fulfills many of the goals in the sustain- ability plan and the Comprehensive Plan. This map does not represent a community that has a residential core with a commercial and industrial development along the periphery. He is suspect of a lot of the traffic figures. He wonders how many of those numbers are vehicle trips to and from homes. He questions how deep those traffic numbers penetrate into the resicLential core. He is not sure what those numbers represent. Any model that shows traffic figures would have to take into consideration these kinds of circumstances. This new road would bring 35 to 40 mph traffic and would put the balance off kilter and possibly cause ramifications this Board would not want. The obvious affect is creating a circumstance that would make it undesirable for people to live in this two square mile area. One of the goals 000046 January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) outlined by the Sustainability Council and the Comprehensive Plan is to encourage residential development settlement within densely populated areas along the urban ring and discourage people from moving into the rural areas and fostering some sort of sprawl. This balance exists in this area. The Whitewood Park serves as the only green space within this community. Putting a road in the community would substantially diminish some of the greenspace in the area and have a detrimental affect on the quality of life. The only accurate thing he can see on the map is the closeness of this road to the homes. The increased traffic through the area would make living conditions unsafe and undesirable. The residents not only want to save the greenspace, but also create a community that is desirable to live in. If this project goes forward, he believes it would send a message to the residents of the County that this Board may consider putting a road through a densely populated residential area which could have questionable ramifications on the quality of life. Mrs. Humphris commented that the road was planned before the neighbor- hood was built which has to be kept in mind. She then asked Mr. Mills when VDOT's public hearing is scheduled on the Greenbrier Drive design. Mr. Mills said it is sometime in March. Mr. Tucker suggested this Board hold its public hearing on the Six Year Plan on either February 12 or February 19. In response to Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Mills said VDOT needs an adopted Six Year Plan from this Board by March 10, 1997. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board could act on the Six Year Plan with an indication that no final decision will be made on the Greenbrier project until after VDOT's public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said there have been two projects (Route 631/708 intersection and the Route 678/250 relocation) in the Secondary Plan since 1990 that actually got approved in multiple Six Year Plan priority lists and after the plans came forward, the Board decided to remove them from the Plan. The Board can take an action on the priority list and put a foot note to that particular project. He thinks it is clearly understood the Board has the final say on where it stands on that project based on the design plans, and it can be removed. Mrs. Thomas said Board's continued opposition to not wanting an inter- change on the proposed Bypass in that vicinity was largely to save that neighborhood from the impact of the tremendous amount of traffic. The traffic count showed that an interchange would not help the traffic on Hydraulic Road; in fact it would bring more traffic into that neighborhood. She thinks the Board should not bring more traffic into one of the County's most densely populated areas. Mr. Martin said the Board's decision to not allow a school on the Whitewood Park property and to maintain a lot of the greenspace also took traffic out of that neighborhood. Mr. Mills said no money is reflected in the FY 1996-97 budget for this project even though it is still in the Plan. Actually the Board has some time to make a decision on the project. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner said he remembers, from discussions 20 years ago, that the concept of Greenbrier was to provide a direct link from Route 743 to Route 29 and then on to McIntire Extended to get traffic into the City. Greenbrier presently does not go through; it is almost physically impossible because of the terrain. It seems to him that with the four laning of Hydrau- lic, this through road is no longer necessary. The County has all the necessary connections to Route 29, and he does not think a two or four lane road would not help the traffic pattern. There are already two destinations to Route 29; Hydraulic Road and Rio Road. Mrs. Humphris asked if the estimated cost figures are in current dollars. Mr. Benish replied "yes". Mrs. Humphris said the latest cost for the Meadow Creek Parkway is $31.0 million. She asked that the Plan be changed to reflect this current cost. She made this same request last year. Mrs. Humphris next referred to Georgetown Road and asked if certain improvements can be done sooner rather than waiting for other improvements on Georgetown, i.e., cross walks, etc. Mr. Benish said in regards to the street lighting request, there is a plan to street light from the Albemarle High School complex intersection at Lambs Road down to Commonwealth Drive. That was funded in 1989 or 1990, but there were some substantial delays with VDOT and mainly with Virginia Power who actually designs the lighting. Engineering is working on that and he will find out the status. One of the recent things delaying this is the County's policy for advertising and notifying the public about lighting projects. Engineering and the County Attorney's office is working on revising the lighting policy and once that is done, staff will go to public hearing and hopefully get the whole section of street lighted. In terms of the pedestrian crossing VDOT is looking into restripping that whole section from Georgetown Road to Hydraulic Road where it turns into a divided roadway. He will check with them as part of that project about the possibil- ity of getting cross walks done either prior to or as part of the project. January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page t3} 000047 Mrs. Humphris then asked Mr. Mills to provide a status update on restricting heavy truck traffic on Georgetown Road. Motion was then offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to set the public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan, as presented by the Planning Commission, for February 19, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 15b. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Mills said a report on the Route 614 bridge improvements public hearing will be coming to the Board shortly. Even though no County construc- tion funds are involved, VDOT would like a recommendation or resolution of support from the Board. Mr. Mills said the Primary Road Preallocation Hearing in Culpeper has tentatively been scheduled for March 14, 1997. Mr. Mills commented that the proposed Avon Street/Route 20 connector road has left and right turn lanes off Route 20 and off Avon Street. Mr. Marshall said his concern is that the road is so narrow with the increasing amount of traffic from school buses making those turns. He believes the sharp curve will have to be taken out. He drives that road early day. Mr. Mills said the curve meets all minimum sight distances for an intersection as to be constructed under the Avon Street connector. Mr. Tucker asked if the improve- ments can be made simultaneously with the connector road project. Mr. Mills said he did not know. Mr. Mills reviewed the letter he forwarded to the Board in response to issues raised at the December 4, 1996, meeting (Item 14.10 on the consent agenda). Mr. Mills introduced Millicent Hotbert, an engineering trainee, in the VDOT office. Mrs. Humphris asked that a set of the Western Bypass design plans be available in the County Office Building. She thinks this is the most appro- priate place for the plans to be located. Mr. Perkins mentioned that he had received copies of letters from citizens concerning the Route 614 bridge being a one lane bridge. He believes that may be a safety issue. Mr. Mills said VDOT will recommend the minimum acceptable width, but because of safety issues, the bridge has to be two lanes. Agenda Item No. 16. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service to consider limited service to existing structures on Tax Map 58, Parcels 6B & 6C, Lochallen Land Trust. Mr. Cilimberg said the applicant, Lochallen Land Trust, requests jurisdictional area designation for limited service (sewer) to existing structures. The request is for service to nine rental units (13 bedrooms), of which six units are located in one building and three units are located in a second building. The two buildings located on Tax Map 58 Parcels 6B & 6C are between Route 250 West (Ivy Road) and Route 853 (Allendale Drive), just south of Glenaire Subdivision. These parcels are 1.035 acres and .574 acres respectively. The parcels are not within a designated development area, and are located within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. In a letter dated November 18, 1996, the applicant stated that the two apartment units have been located on this property for approximately 30 years and that the septic fields serving these two units during that time have failed. The applicant further stated that these systems are presently incapable of serving even one rental unit. There is insufficient land on the existing parcels to locate new septic fields. Attempts have been made to locate a septic field to serve these units on adjacent properties; however, either the adjacent property owners are unwilling to grant an easement or there is insufficient land area available on the adjacent properties to locate a new septic field. Also, the applicant has explored the possibility of installing an alternative type system on the existing parcels; however, again, January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000048 adequate land area is not available. The owner is currently using the pump and haul method to remove the waste. In a conversation with Gary Rice of the Thomas Jefferson Health District, the information regarding the condition of the septic fields and the unfeasibility of providing an alternative system was confirmed. Also, the Thomas Jefferson Health District has indicated that the best alternative to serve the property is a connection to the'Crozet intercep- tor. A connection to the Crozet interceptor would require a duplex pump station with approximately 1,000 feet of force main and another 1,000 feet of gravity line. The applicant has stated that this would be a private system and cteanouts would be used in lieu of manholes to discourage any additional connections to the system. The applicant has indicated that all the necessary easements can be obtained. Mr. Cilimberg said with the applicant's septic system backing up through the distribution box, the request for jurisdictional area designation seems to meet the health and safety requirement. The subject request is located approximately 2,000 feet from the Crozet interceptor, therefore, the request does not satisfy the adjacent existing line requirement. The Board recently allowed limited service connections to the Crozet interceptor for non-residen- tial properties located in the Rural Area based on extreme circumstances. On July 12, 1995, the Board approved a request for Cafe-No-Problem, which is located east of the Crozet area at the intersections of Route 240 and 250, to connect to the Crozet interceptor. Also, on December 6, 1995, the Board granted permission to VDOT to connect to the Crozet interceptor. Mr. Cilimberg said this is a unique and potentially precedent-setting request. A connection to the Crozet sewer for a residential property deserves particularly careful consideration in that, while not fully meeting the Comprehensive Plan intent for such service in the Rural Area and connection to the Crozet interceptor, ~it does address an existing waste disposal problem and apparent health and safety problem within the Rivanna River watershed. Staff has also consulted with David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager, for his opinion regarding this matter. He will be visiting the site to further assess the situation. The applicant has actively sought alternative solutions to provide a replacement system for the apartment units without success. The Health District has indicated that the best alternative to serve the property is a connection to the Crozet interceptor. Also, staff believes that the effect on the intent of the Comprehensive Plan of an amendment to the jurisdictional area map to allow public sewer service limited to that necessary to address this problem is not compromised since no additional development will result from such change. For these reasons, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider amending the jurisdictional area map to allow for limited service (sewer) to existing structures for two apartment units located on Tax Map 58, Parcels 6B & 6C. In the meantime, staff will seek a full report from Mr. Hirschman, regarding this matter before the public hearing. Mrs. Thomas asked who pays for the cost of the line, the pump station and for connection. Mr. Cilimberg replied the costs are totally the responsi- bility of the applicant. Mrs. Thomas said as a citizen several years ago, she was opposed to the Crozet interceptor because she did not think this body would have the politi- cal will to limit hook ons. These are nice rental units and are of the sort needed in the County. They would probably have to be replaced somewhere else, if they were not here. She thinks the Board should go to public hearing. She thinks this issue brings up the realization that regardless of the Board's requirements, the Health Department is always going to prefer hook up to the Crozet interceptor. She thinks maybe the Board should stop asking them because they have no interest in the County's land use protection of the Rivanna Reservoir. The Health Department does not like septic systems and fields because they know that if they are not maintained, the systems will fail. She also thinks when the staff looks at the times the Board has allowed connection, it should also look at the times the Board did not allow a connection. She thinks this Board should greatly increase its septic field regulations particularly like the Chesapeake Bay Act requires people to pump out their septic tanks, because the County is going to have an increasing number of failed septic fields. Mr. Cilimberg said staff tries to get the Health Department to comment on whether all of the options have been exhausted. The Health Department actually identified various options of which the applicant determined whether they could work on the property or any adjacent property. This also is a nonconforming use. None of the options worked. The County does not have a lot of situations of multiple units on such small acreage in the rural area. Mrs. Humphris said in its letter the Health Department states "This Department would like to express its support for consideration ..." She asked if that is as far as the Health Department goes. She would like to know the degrees of the Health Department consideration/participation. The letter does not state there are no other options. Mr. Cilimberg said he cannot speak to the language the Health Department used, but staff had a lot of verbal January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) discussions with them. He will ask a representative to come to the public hearing so they can tell the Board what they told staff verbally. He does not know how far the Health Department feel they can go in saying the applicant should connect to the Crozet interceptor because they are aware of the Board's policy. Mr. Cilimberg commented that there are also some alternative systems that do not qualify under the County's Zoning Ordinance. The Health Depart- ment has been careful about recommending any other systems in the watershed that would be discharge-type systems of any type. Mr. Tucker said these units were there prior to the Zoning Ordinance, building permits, etc. Although there may be another request, he does not think there are a lot of these type situations in the County. Mrs. Thomas said every time the Board makes an exception and allow a connection, somebody is keeping count, even though each time has been a special situation. Mr. Tucker said he thinks the staff has tried to be specific and identify the differences because the Board does not see "willy nilty" requests coming in just because the person may want to connect. Mr. Cilimberg said when requests come in, the first question staff asks the applicant is whether he/she has exhausted all options. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 10:55 a.m.) Mrs. Humphris asked if the County has enabling legislation to require pumping of septic systems on a regular basis. Mr. Davis said under the Chesapeake Bay authority there is specific enabling authority to require pumping once every five years. It would probably require the Board to put the County in a management area status for that purpose. Mrs. Humphris said it is something the Board should start thinking about because prevention is worth a lot. She thinks the Board should be looking at something. Mrs. Humphris asked how much it will cost the owner to construct the 1,000 feet of force main and t,000 feet gravity line, the pump station, connections, etc. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, representing the applicant, said he does not know what the hook ups cost; the pump station, force main and gravity station is approximately $30,000. He also does not know what the easements costs are going to be. Those will be negotiated between the management company he represent and the landowner. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 10:58 a.m.) Mr. Gloeckner said currently the pump and haul system cost $2000 per month° In 15 months the owner will pay for the system. This situation is rather unique because of the small area that the units are located on. In the mean time, adjacent to them and downhill, someone has built a pond and just looking at the geology and lay of the land, it seems that the water table is close to the surface. That whole side of the hill is bleeding without the septic fields in operation because of the pump and haul. There is definitely a health problem. The situation is also unique in that the pump station and force main insures that nobody can connect onto the system. The system is strictly sized for this facility. At this time, motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set the public hearing for February 12, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded'vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall', Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said a joint meeting of the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, City Council and Board of Supervisors has been set for Thursday, February 13, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., to discuss the various solid waste options set out in the consultant's report. (Mr. Martin said he would not be in town on that day.) Mrs. Thomas asked staff to expedite a special use permit request for St. Paul's Episcopal Church located in Ivy. The Church has purchased an old Victorian, architectural-style house that sits next to it. The Church would like to use the house for offices. The Church has talked to the neighbors. Their hurry is that they want to proceed with roof repairs because the building is going to deteriorate in a major way, if they do not get the repairs started. She asked if Board members had any concerns they let her know and she will inform the Church. Board members concurred with fast tracking this item. Mr. Martin said Section 15.1-491.9 of the Code of Virginia gives the Board the authority to require developers to include affordable housing in certain developments. He asked if the County is moving in that direction. would like staff to provide the Board with information on the legislation. He Mr. Cilimberg said the Housing Committee has been looking at that legislation and will be coming forward with some recommendations. Mr. Tucker January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) ooooso suggested the staff follow-up on the legislation and bring it forward to the Board. Mr. Davis said this legislation has been on the books for some time. Mr. Martin said he thinks if there are any large subdivisions on the horizon or if one comes up, the staff should fast track this, otherwise it can come through the normal channels. day. ing. ) Mrs. Humphris announced that February 6, 1997, is VACo's legislative (Mr. Marshall, Mrs. Thomas and Mrs. Humphris said they would be attend- Mrs. Humphris said there will be a press conference held by meals tax proponents on January 6, 1997, at 4:00 p.m., on the Third Floor. Board members are invited to attend. Mrs. Humphris said Mr. Tucker wrote a letter to Patsy Napier of VDOT about protection of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir in the Alternative Ten Western Bypass design. There have been a lot of concerns raised recently about the lack of suitable planning. Mrs. Humphris said the Moormans River has still not been named a Tier 3 River. Apparently, all of the required property owners were not notified. Mrs. Humphris said a letter was sent to Mayor Kay Slaughter with the Board's request that City Council support Meadow Creek Parkway Phase II as a primary road improvement, and also consider extending Route 53 through the City along the currently proposed Phase I and Phase II of the project as it connects to Route 29 North. There has been no response to the letter. Mr. Tucker said he received a telephone call from Patsy Napier. She said VDOT is receptive to making some changes in the areas that were brought to her attention. She is waiting for a letter from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the County's Water Resources Manager regarding specific suggestions and recommendations. Agenda Item No. 18. Executive Session: Legal and Personnel Matters. At 11:13 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters concerning reversion and to discuss pending litigation of a tax matter, and under subsection {1) to discuss a personnel matter concerning a County board, and appointments to County boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Certify Executive Session. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:57 p.m. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bower- man, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exemFted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered in the Executive Session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Mrs. Humphris said, in executive session, the Board discussed a letter (copy on file) Mr. Richard Cranwell, the County's reversion attorney, received from Mr. Carter Glass, the City's reversion attorney. She asked Mr. Davis to summarize the letter. Mr. Davis said the City is interested in pursuing/amending a section of the State Code that deals with voluntary settlement agreements among local governments. This authority currently exists in State law and allows locali- ties to enter into agreements in lieu of many different types of boundary line scenarios including reversion, and allows local governments to make agreed settlements. What is clear in this letter is that two of the items the City has indicated they wish to negotiate are not appropriate items under existing law for settlement agreements and those two items deal with matters concerning Approved by Board ~te ~Z.'/0'~7 Initials~~' January 2, 1997 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) 000051 education and political redistricting of magisterial districts. The City would like the Board to support this legislative amendment which would allow those types of items to become parts of settlement agreements. Mrs. Humphris said the Board has tried to maintain its policy of keeping the reversion discussion before the public and only dealing with those things in executive session when it is necessary. The Board maintains its position that the two areas addressed in this letter and in the proposed legislation are non-negotiable. The Board feels the proposed legislation would permit an infringement on local government sovereignty; it is not good public policy to put these things into the hands of a court; they are up to elected representa- tives. The Board feels magisterial redistricting is a County responsibility and it should remain so. The Board feels the operation of school programs is a function of the School Board, not the State. Mrs. Humphris said if the City decides to revert, the Board will be happy to discuss terms and conditions with City Council. With regard to schools, it will always be Albemarle County's intent to provide the highest level of education to all of the students no matter where they live. If reversion takes place, the citizens of Ehe City should be assured the County will provide a high level of programs that are suitable to all of the students. In terms of redistricting, the Board will also do that in a fair manner. This Board is willing to discuss with City Council terms and conditions, if they make up their minds that they want to revert. Mrs. Thomas said this legislation is proposed with the wording "that it increases our flexibility", but in fact it actually removes the decision making power from the people who have been elected to make those decisions. The County's School Board is responsible for developing a school system and will be responsible for all the children. There is no way it can be told or agree to ahead of time the continuation of some programs that may or may not be affected. She feels sure the School Board will look carefully at all the programs that are being affected. Mrs. Humphris said this proposed legislation would take away some of the School Board's and local government's ability to make decisions. Agenda Item No. 20. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:04 p.m.