Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1993-09-01
oooo September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 1, 1993, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr. (arrived at 9:20 a.m.), Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, George R. St. John, and, County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humph- ris, secon4e4 by Mr. Martin, to approve items 5.1 and 5.2, to pull items 5.3 and 5.4, and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for informa- tion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bowerman. None. Mr. Bain. Item 5.1. Resolution requesting acceptance of roads in Mill Creek Section 5 into the State Secondary System of Highways. Request having been received from the County Engineering Department, the following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Mill Creek Section 5 described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 1, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are 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 streets meet 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 roads in Mill Creek Section 5 as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 1, 1993, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Re- quirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) 2) 3) Stoney Creek Drive from the edge of pavement of State Route 742 0.35 mi. to Station 28+40, recorded 7/19/90 in Deed Book 1110, pages 424-440, with a 50 foot right-of-way; Shady Grove Court from edge of pavement of Stoney Creek Drive 0.37 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 7/19/90 in Deed Book 1110, pages 424-440, with a 50 foot right-of-way; Homestead Lane from edge of pavement of Shady Grove Court 0.15 mi. to end of cul-de-sac, recorded 7/19/90 September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 2) 0000 $ in Deed Book 1110, pages 424-440, with a 50 foot right-of-way; Total mileage 0.87 mi. Note: Other drainage and sight easements recorded in Deed Book 1127, pages 346-3.50; Deed Book 1130, pages 421-422; Deed Book 1267, pages 214-225; Deed BOok 1271, pages 596- 600; Deed Book 1279, pages 79-82; Deed Book 1233, pages 498- 500; Deed Book 1332, pages 276-278; Deed Book 1239, pages 70-72. Item 5.2. Resolution requesting acceptance of roads in Mill Creek Phase I into the State Secondary System of Highways. Request having been received from Hunter Craig, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc., the following resolution was adopted by the vote set out above: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Mill Creek Phase I described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 1, 1993, fully incorporated herein by reference, are 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'streets meet 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 roads in Mill Creek Phase I as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated September 1, 1993, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to 4,633.1-229, 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 easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the record- ed plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The roads described on Additions Form SR-5(A) are: 1) 2) Southern Parkway from edge of pavement of State Route 742 0.53 mile to Station 28+38 recorded on 7/19/88 in Deed Book 1003, pages 608-610, with a 90 foot right- of-way Gristmill Drive from end of state maintenance 0.04 mile to edge of pavement of Southern Parkway recorded 2/10/89 in Deed Book 1034, pages 751-753, with a 50 foot right-of-way Total mileage 0.57 mile Note: Additional right-of-way and easements recorded in Deed Book 921, pages 517-520; Deed Book 1102, pages 722-730; Deed Book 1336, pages 658-672. Item 5.3. Approval of Industrial Access Agreement between VDoT and County/between County and Developer for Industrial Access Funds for Mill Creek Industrial Park. Mr. Bowerman asked that this item be discussed later in the meeting. Item 5.4. Approval of Resolution authorizing the Director of Engineer- ing to execute on behalf of the County all Land Use Permits and related documents of VDOT. Mr. Bowerman asked that this item be discussed later in the meeting. Item 5.5. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 27 and August 3, 1993, received for information. September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 00002~ (page 3) Item 5.6. Letter dated August 13, 1993, from the Honorable John W. Warner, United States Senate, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: EPA's regula- tions for Subtitle D landfills requiring local governments to obtain financial assurance, received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: May 13(A) and May 13(N), 1992, and August 4, 1993. Mr. Perkins had read his portion of the August 4, 1993 minutes, pages 41 (Item 5.3) to end, and found them to be in order with the exception of some typographical errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Martin, to approve the minutes of August 4, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 7a. Other Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins mentioned the bridge work that is being done at the Mechums River site. He said the traffic pattern will probably change when school starts, but yesterday morning there was a backup of traffic on Route 240. He stated that the green light only lasts long enough for 12 or 13 cars to get through it at one time, and there were approximately 40 to 50 cars waiting on Route 240. He noted, though, that this situation was not as bad this morning. He also said there is hardly any backup of traffic on Route 250 in either direction. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he had gone through the intersection to which Mr. Perkins referred at 11:00 a.m. yesterday. He said that he would check on the signalization to see if the problem can be remedied. He asked Mr. Perkins if he had understood him to say that the situation was not as bad this morning. Mr. Perkins answered that he did not think the intersection had as much of a backup of traffic today, but he had gone another way, and probably a lot of other people had done the same thing. Mr. Tucker stated that yesterday he was at that intersection at 5:30 p.m., which is the peak hour of the day for traffic, and he noticed that traffic was backed up on Route 250. Mr. Perkins asked if it was possible for the signal to be set for different lengths of time in the mornings and afternoons. Mr. Roosevelt said he would check to see if this was possible. He added that anytime there are construction projects in progress, traffic will be backed up at times. Mr. Perkins then asked how long it will take to complete this project. Mr. Roosevelt replied that this is a 60-day project. Next, Mr. Perkins mentioned Route 810 near the curve close to Austin Critzer's home. He said that, coming from the White Hall direction, there is a straight stretch before a sharp curve. He noted that there have been a number of accidents in that area, where vehicles have'hit the guard rail and bushes, etc. He wondered if it would be possible to cut grooves across the lane coming from White Hall to Crozet, as a warning signal to motorists that they need to slow down. He said that signs are posted, but apparently they are not working. Mr. Roosevelt replied that he has not seen such grooves used locally. Mr. Perkins said there are a number of places in Virginia where grooves in the pavement have been used to slow down vehicles. He mentioned that there is a road in Rockingham County where he has seen this method used. Mr. Roosevelt responded that grooves are sometimes put in pavement for traction. Mr. Perkins said the grooves are similar to the ones cut to hold reflectors where center lines are located. The grooves create more of a noise, than anything else. Mr. Roosevelt said he will call the VDoT engineer in Harrisonburg and find out the details about the grooves. Mrs. Humphris told Mr. Roosevelt that she wanted to thank whoever was responsible for the Barracks Road project. It was done very quickly. Mr. Roosevelt remarked that the contractor will have to come back in approximately a month to change the traffic signal at the Barracks Road project. Mrs. Humphris said the Barracks Road project has worked very well. She noted that she only got three calls during the whole project, and she thinks this is great. Agenda Item No. 10. Discussion: Relocation of Veterans Memorial. Mr. Tucker said the County has received a request from the American Legion Post 74, Disabled American Veterans Chapter 33 and the Veterans of Foreign Wars 1827, for assistance in finding a permanent home for the com- munity's Veterans Memorial presently located at the east end of the Charlot- tesville Downtown Mall. Due to construction at that location, the memorial must be relocated. The combined veterans groups have been working with County September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000027 (Page 4) staff, and the donor of the fountain located in front of the County Office Building, to find a location for this memorial. Board members have received a memorandum from Mr. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, as well as a rendering of the relocation by Ms. Peggy Van Yahres, of Van Yahres Tree Company. Ms. Van Yahres has also made a sketch of how the memorial will look from Preston Avenue and McIntire Road. The staff is recommending approval of relocating the memorial onto the front lawn of the County Office Building. There are representatives present from the various veterans groups to answer questions. Mr. Ed Travis stated that he lives at 724 Locust Avenue. He is the Past Commander of the Charlottesville/Albemarle American Legion Post 74, and Chef Passe of American Legion Voiture 1184 of the 40/8. He. then introduced representatives of the various Veterans organizations who are requesting the memorial be placed in front of the County Office Building. The Veterans Memorial honors men and womenof the City of Charlottesville and Albemarle County who served in the Armed Forces during World Wars I and II, the Korean Conflict, the Vietnam Conflict, as well as all other past conflicts. This is a proper location for the Veterans Memorial. The members of the organizations have approved the site that was selected, as well as the landscaping designed by Ms. Van Yahres. The Board's action today is important to the veterans because they wish to have the memorial in place by November 11, 1993, so that dedication ceremonies can be conducted that day. He respectfully asked for the Board's approval of this request. Ms. Van Yahres said the meetings with members of the veterans organiza- tions, Mr. Mullaney and the donor of the fountain in front of the County Office Building followed a good process. The solution seems to have made everyone happy, and she hopes that the Board can approve this request. She noted that the Memorial Committee's first concern was that a permanent home be found for the memorial, and, secondly, that the memorial be visible from the main roads surrounding the site. The fountain donor's concern was that the memorial fit into the design and not stand out awkwardly or interfere with the view of the fountain. Ms. Van Yahres said she thinks that a compromise was worked out for everyone. A niche was created for the memorial, and she showed the Board members pictures of the proposed site, so that the Supervisors would have an idea of how the memorial would look in front of the County Office Building. She explained that the memorial has been backed by trees, it has been put between two walls, and the land has been sculpted to make a place for it, instead of just placing the memorial somewhere on the lawn. She noted that the memorial will be placed left of the fountain, and the U. S. flag and the Virginia flag will be moved to a more appropriate spot in relation to the memorial. This location provides an area where memorial ceremonies can be held a couple of times a year. She explained that the site is far enough away from the street so that the traffic will not bother the ceremonies, and there is plenty of room under the trees for the people to sit. She hopes this proposal is pleasing to the Supervisors and that they will accept the plan. (Mr. Bain arrived at 9:20 a.m.). Mrs. Humphris commented that she believes it is appropriate, and she appreciates the group's suggestion, that the Veterans Memorial be moved on the County Office Building property. She mentioned that the location is central, it represents people from the City and the County, and it provides an excel- lent location for the ceremonies. She thinks it is wonderful that the fountain donor has not only approved Of the site, but has cooperated to help make the project possible. She then made a motion for approval of the relocation of the Veterans Memorial onto the front lawn of the County Office Building. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Update on Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Study - Sandy Rives. Mr. Sandy Rives thanked the Board for allowing him the opportunity to give the Supervisors an update on the situation with the Shenandoah National Park Related Lands Study. The purpose of the study was to undertake a resource inventory and analysis of the land within the 1926 authorized boundary of the Shenandoah National Park, and to identify those lands with direct ecological relationship to the existing Park. The study, for the first time, has assembled all of the existing and available resource information about the Park and its surrounding communities in Albemarle and Rockingham Counties into a single location. He said the study results were used to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) data base. The study area for the project is defined by the 1926 congressionally authorized boundary. He pointed out the existing Shenandoah National Park on a map, and noted that the Park consists of 195,000 acres. He then noted the authorized boundary on the map which, was drawn in 1926, and he said this is the area in which Shenandoah National Park can accept land by donation. Shenandoah National Park is one of three national parks in the country which has no authority to purchase land nor condemn it. Shenandoah National Park only has authority to accept land by donation. This was an important aspect of the study, and was one of the major aspects which came out during six series of public meetings. The major September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 000028 (Page 5) concern among constituents in Albemarle and Rockingham Counties is that Shenandoah National Park personnel use this study to go to the United States Congress to try to change the authorized boundary or to change the way in which the Park can accept land and change it to condemnation. He noted that the Park is on record, with a letter from the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the Park Service and others, stating that this is not the purpose of the study, and it is sOmething that will not be sought. He remarked that these guidelines have worked well for the Park, and this authority will not be changed. Park officials believe that the land can be added to the Park by donation, and this is the best way for the Park to continue its usefulness. Mr. Perkins asked Mr. Rives to point out Albemarle County's location in relation to the park. Mr. Rives pointed out this area, and he said that currently there are approximately 18,000 acres of the Shenandoah National Park within Albemarle County. He noted another location which included 65,000 acres, and he pointed out the Town of Crozet, the Moormans River area and Afton Mountain. There is an enormous amount of area within that authorized boundary, which could be accepted into the Park. He added, however, that it would not make sense for the Park officials to accept an isolated parcel of land which would cause a tremendous amount of difficulty to protect and manage. Mr. Rives went on to say that the Shenandoah National Park undertook this study to establish the specific criteria in which land could be accepted by donation. The other way would have been to go back to Congress to try and reduce the large, authorized boundary. The communities would really not like to be included within the Park's boundary, and some communities view the Park as a major deterrent. He believes this is mainly psychological, but most people would rather not be in that area. Another reason for the study was to have the opportunity for better cooperation between the citizens of these counties and the Park. He reiterated that when this study was undertaken, the biggest fear was that the Park would seek the condemnation authority. He said the results of the study have been received from the University of Virginia, and multiple copies of this document are now being printed for the public. This data will be added to the Park's GIS data base so that the information can be used by Park officials. Mr. Rives said the information can be made available to the County governments. The University of Virginia collected 80 types of information in each one of the counties. He then discussed the general types of information that was collected. He recalled that at one of the public meetings a state- ment was made that Shenandoah National Park was only concerned about bears, trees, fishes and birds, and Park officials were not concerned about communi- ties or the environment of people who farm. He said that, because of this statement, Park officials requested the University of Virginia to provide data relating to the 1986 existing farms. He then pointed out existing farmlands. Mr. Marshall asked how farms are classified. Mr. Rives responded that information on farms was taken from the soil and water conservation data which showed individuals who had registered themselves as owning farms. (Mr. Bowerman left at 9:37 p.m.). Mr. Marshall wondered if pasture land was included in the data. Mr. Rives answered affirmatively. Mr. Perkins inquired if cleared land was included with the farm data. Mr. Rives responded that he did not know if this was the case, and he reiterated that the farm data was taken from the soil and water conservation information. He assumed the farm classification came from people who have registered their property with the soil and water conservation services, or have requested such services on their particular property. He believes land classified as a farm usually has 250 acres or more, but sometimes smaller properties can be classified in the same manner. Mr. Rives noted that people in the public meetings indicated they were interested in the land use around the Shenandoah National Park, and they also thought Park officials were against hunting. Mr. Rives said Park officials are in favor of hunting, because they believe that it is a way to control for the large animal species. He then showed the Supervisors a map which indicat- ed large areas for suitable hunting of black bear and deer. The University of Virginia's study showed that approximately 70 percent of the land is suitable for hunting, and he noted that Park officials are concerned about the reduc- tion of private hunting lands along the boundary of the Park. It is believed that when Shenandoah National Park becomes more isolated, and there is less hunting along the boundary, the Park's deer population will get larger and present a problem. He stated that there is a major problem associated with white tail deer, and it is beginning to be an East Coast phenomenon. If more private lands continue to be closed to hunters, there will be a deer popula- tion problem in the Park. (Mr. Bowerman came back at 9:39 a.m.). Mr. Rives went on to say that the University of Virginia's report tried to be responsive to the citizens at the public meetings when this data was collected. Mr. Rives said the study made recommendations relative to areas which still contain important values for which the Park was created, such as plant and animal communities, scenic resources, water resources, recreational resources and mountain land. It was felt these areas would be important if they were received from private land owners, County organizations, State governments or by acceptance from the Federal government as a donation, and they are areas which Park officials would like to see the existing use continued. Park officials do not plan to accept land Unless it is suitable for the Park. It is felt that the land which Shenandoah National Park accepts September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 00002~ (Page 6) should be important as an addition to the Park, and it should have merit. When land is acquired for the Park, it should be significant, and it should be for the good of the Park. Land should not be accepted just for the sake of acquiring property. He added that a map was prepared for the study which related to secondary conservation areas. These areas are felt to be important to the Park for a number of primary reasons, and they are lands which should be preserved in their existing use, but it is felt that they should not be added to the Park as a donation. Park officials would like to see either the Federal government, the County government or the local landowner make a decision based upon the study, to protect the value that is currently there. Mr. Rives said there was also an area identified in the study as being of local use. This would relate to those areas identified as no longer containing any of the important values for which the Park was created in 1926, and they would be deleted from the authorized boundary after the study is completed in all nine counties. It is a complicated process, and the lines are not clear-cut, but the final map shows the overlapping values of primary, secondary and local use. He noted, however, that in Albemarle County the lines are not as clear cut as they are in Rockingham County. He pointed out that in Rockingham County, most of the land within the authorized boundary is already in the Park, and there is only a small area of some 10,000 acres which is not already owned by the Park. It is apparent in Rockingham County, that there are only approximately 2,000 acres which should remain in the authorized boundary. In Albemarle County, however, it is a difficult decision, and he is not able to tell the Supervisors where a new authorized boundary might be developed. He thinks the primary conservation map gives a better idea of where the Park would like to receive a donation, if one were offered. He remarked that all of the study data has not yet been received, but Park officials will continue to work with the data, and the Supervisors, as well as the County Planning Department. Mr. Rives said the question is repeatedly being asked as to how the study will be done for the remaining seven counties. There is enough money available to conduct the study for one more county next year. Park officials would like to complete the study for all of the counties quickly. He ex- plained that by doing this study county by county is a slow process, and by the year 2000, Albemarle County's study will have to be done again, because things will have changed by that time. He went on to say that good data has been received from the University study, and it is usable to the County and Park officials. Mr. Tucker mentioned the primary area which would be the most amenable to the Park, and he asked if the idea had been addressed of phasing such areas, so that the acquisition of this land could be done by gradual stages. He could see where quite a bit of land could be donated to the Park which would not be contiguous to the existing Park boundary. He realizes this is a long range plan, and it will take many years for any expansion of the Park due to donation. He then mentioned that if the Park acquired a large area of land, but there was a distinct separation from the Park, it would almost appear to be two parks. Mr. Rives responded that Mr. Tucker's suggestion has been discussed, but habitat is contiguous to existing parcels of land. He pointed out a parcel of land on the map, and he said if it was accepted, it is the feeling that the chances of three or four landowners all wanting to donate land to the Park is optimistic. Since the beginning, the Park has only received 5,000 acres in donations, which is approximately 100 acres a year. He then described a best case scenario where five or six people got together and left a particular parcel of land in their wills, which would all combine to become part of the Park. This particular scenario is not likely to happen. It is difficult for the existing Park to be protected, and it would be worse if there was an isolated parcel of land. He is not saying it could not happen, but it is quite unlikely. Mr. Perkins suggested that County staff work with the Park Service in keeping a good record of what is actually happening in areas close to the Park. Mr. Bain asked if an isolated parcel could be acquired by donation, if the property did not require much manpower, or would the Park officials simply not accept the property. Mr. Rives replied that, at this point, Park offi- cials are following the policy of the 1983 General Management Plan, which indicates that unless the property is against the existing ownership, it will not be accepted. As a result of this study, Mr. Rives said if someone was going to donate an enormous amount of acreage, such as 1,000 acres, and if it seemed to have some connection to the Park, the Park officials would have to go to public meetings and seek public involvement and agreement that it was worth accepting to the Park. Some parcels have been offered that are not against the Park property, and they have not been accepted. Sometimes the cost of adding these lands, especially if they are extremely isolated, is more than the Park can handle. The Park has been offered some parcels as trade whereby the Park would accept them and use them as the money value for something else. He added that with the current and previous Park Superinten- dent, this has not been done. Generally people who donate land to a national park want the land to be park land, and they do not want to see the land exchanged. If Shenandoah National Park receives land free and clear this would be possible, but Park officials feel that it is a violation of the trust of the people who have given the land to the Park. A lot of this is hypo- thetical, because at this point, he cannot recall any large donation which is being considered that is not against the existing Park boundary. Mr. Bain said this would not prevent the same landowners from donating land to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, and the land could be held until such time that September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~) (Page 7) ~ the Park was ready to acquire it. Mr. Rives said two or three weeks ago in Madison County, there was a 700 acre parcel which was offered to Shenandoah National Park, but Park officials did not feel this property merited being added to the Park. The property was very isolated, although it did touch the Park, but Park officials felt the property Would cause a lot of trouble administratively. Park officials recommended the land be given to the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fishery so that it could continue to be used for hunting for bear. He noted that the property was against the existing ownership of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fishery, so he felt that everyone was a winner. The Department wanted the property, and the Park officials did not, and the owner was glad to see it reserved. Mr. Bowerman wondered if it is likely, as a result of these studies, that the authorized boundary of the Park will be decreased. Mr. Rives replied that there is enough initiative in the other counties, besides Albemarle County, and there is enough push on the part of the representatives in Congress, as well as the two senators, that the possibility exists after the study is completed, the authorized boundary might be reduced. As a result of the recent redistricting, Shenandoah National Park has four congressmen, and before there was only one. This has changed the formula. He mentioned that individuals in communities feel threatened by the authorized boundary, and they would like to see the boundary reduced to some level that makes sense to them. He pointed out that there is a portion of the authorized boundary within the community of Crozet, and in the valley there are portions of Stanley, Shenandoah and Waynesboro within the authorized boundary. Most of the people who are concerned about it are the individuals who were moved out of the Park in 1935 by the Commonwealth of Virginia. The way the Park was created by that condemnation was unfortunate, and it has led to a lot of ill feelings in those communities. He thinks these individuals, even in the next generation, are going to want the Park boundary reduced. He pointed out that donations still average only 100 acres a year. Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Rives for the presentation. Agenda Item No.. 9. Request to Prohibit Alcohol in County Parks and Recreation areas. Mr. Tucker explained that the current policy permits the use of alcohol- ic beverages in the County parks only with private shelter and center reserva- tions. Staff has been discussing the possibility of prohibiting alcoholic beverages in the parks for several years. Staff feels that it is time to stop sending mixed messages to the County citizens by allowing the use of alcohol in the parks, while the County Police Department and other groups are discour- aging drinking. Staff recommends the Board adopt a resolution to prohibit the use of alcoholic beverages in the County Parks and recreational facilities, effective January 1, 1994. The reason for this date is the staff would like to have time to take this request to the City of Charlottesville and suggest that City Council adopt a similar resolution. If the Council members are not receptive to such a resolution for their park system, it is hoped that they will approve an alcoholic beverage ban for the Darden Towe Memorial Park, which is owned jointly by the County and the City. (Mr. St. John left at 9:59 a.m.) Mr. Bowerman asked if this would require an amendment t© the County Code. Mr. Tucker replied that this is a policy issue, and a Code amendment is not necessary. Mr. Bain wondered what has been the City's response, at staff level, at this point. Mr. Tucker said this matter has been discussed by County staff for two years, but City staff has not been receptive to this change. County staff, however, felt that it was the appropriate time to move forward with this issue and that is why this initiative has been taken. Mr. Marshall inquired if beer could be served at a private party at Darden Towe Memorial Park, if the resolution to ban alcoholic beverages in the County parks is approved by this Board, but City Council not adopt such a resolution. Mr. Tucker answered, "yes." The County would need the City's concurrence, since the Darden Towe Memorial Park is a joint operation. Mr. Perkins noted that Darden Towe Memorial Park is located in the County. Mr. Tucker agreed, but the park is still owned jointly by the County and City. Mr. Bowerman said he concurs with the staff's logic about the mixed messages that are being sent to tke County citizens. He is supportive of this resolution, because he thinks it is something that can benefit the community. If the Supervisors adopt this resolution, he would like to see City Council seriously consider doing the same thing. Mr. Tucker said he could draft a letter for the Chairman's signature to send to the Mayor of Charlottesville to make him officially aware of this issue. If Council members are not receptive for the City's entire park system, then perhaps they will give strong consideration to such a resolution for the Darden Towe Memorial Park. {Mr. St. John returned at 10:02 a.m.). Mr. Bowerman said there have been disturbances reported to the police in some of the County parks where alcohol has played a role, although it does not happen on a regular basis. This would be a way to, at least, eliminate the 0000 3 . September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) ...... ?_~%~?~.~2~.~%~ problems associated with alcohol. Mrs. Humphris agreed. Mr. Marshall said that he will support the resolution. At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered motion, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a resolution banning the use of alcoholic beverages at all County Parks and Recreation facilities, effective January 1, 1994. Mr. Bain mentioned that this resolution would be inclusive of all of the County parks unless the City should not concur with the alcohol ban at the Darden Towe Memorial Park. Mr. Tucker agreed. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:. AYES: Mrs. ~umphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None A RESOLUTION BANNIN~ THE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IN ALL COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS WHEREAS, it has been County policy in the past to allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages only in conjunction with private reservations of County Parks and Recreation Department centers and picnic shelters; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors desires to totally eliminate the consumption of alcoholic beverages in all County Parks and Recreation areas. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervi- sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall no longer allow the consumption of alcoholic beverages in County owned Parks and Recreation areas effective January 1, 1994; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County of Albemarle re- quests the City of Charlottesville to consider a similar action for City Parks and Recreation areas; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if the City of Charlottesville does not wish to institute a similar action, the County of Albe- marle requests that the City concur to allow the County to ban the consumption of alcoholic beverages at Darden Towe Memorial Park. Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: Boar's Head Inn Sports Major Site Plan Amendment (Tax Map 59D(2), Section 1, Parcel 2). Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, gave the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office explaining that this is a proposal to locate a 100 foot by 60 foot tent near the existing Boar's Head Inn pool. This tent is to be used for parties, weddings and the like. The property (described above) is located south of Wellington Drive and west of the Sports Club adjacent to an existing pond and directly west of the pool. The applicant is requesting that permanent location be identified for a temporary tent struc- ture. Mr. Keeler said the tent was allowed for several years, approximately eight times a year. It was originally placed near the Amvest Building. For the last year and a half the tent has been located next to the pond near Ed=nam Drive. The applicant now wishes to use the tent approximately 25 times a year near the Sports Club. Mr. Keeler said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 20, 1993, by a vote of 6/1, approved the site plan subject to the following conditions: The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Note on the plan "The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system or other speaker shall be limited to sixty-five (65) decibels at the nearest residential property line. This site shall comply with all other sections of 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordi- nance;'' Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans; Department of Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Inspections Department approval of surface treatment of the handicapped parking space; September 1, 1993 (Regular D~Y Meeting)' 0000,~ (Page 9) e. Staff review and approval of pedestrian walkways connecting the tent area to "Area G", shuttle bus drop-off and route and temporary "No Parking" sign locations; fo Note on the plan "This is a temporary structure as defined by BOCA Code"; Fire Official approval of emergency accessways and fire lanes. 2. Administrative approval of final site plan. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until: a. Fire Official final approval. Mr. Bain asked if there has been approval of previous tent locations. Mr. Keeler replied, "no". He assumes the use was so infrequent that prior Zoning Administrators determined that no amendments to the site plan was needed. This matter became an issue earlier in the year because Boar's Head had contracted for 25 events. Ms. McCulley, the Zoning Administrator, viewed that request as being of such duration of occasions that there was a need for a site plan amendment. Mr. Bowerman then called on the representatives of Boar's Head for their presentation. Mr. Leonard Sandridge, Executive Vice President of the University of Virginia, stated that Mr. Hovey Dabney, Chairman of the Board of the Universi- ty Foundation, which is the parent organization, was also present. Mr. Sandridge indicated that he (Mr. Sandridge) is present in his capacity as a member of the Board of Boar's Head Enterprises and the parent organization of the University Foundation. He thinks the Supervisors will find that, as far as the concerns which are being expressed, everything possible has been done to comply with the wishes of the neighborhood. It is important to the University that its guests have an environment at Boar's Head which is pleasant for them, and the neighbors' environment is also important to the University. The Supervisors will see that responses have been made to the concerns and he thinks they will reach the same conclusion as the Planning Commission. He thinks this issue could set a precedent, and it can certainly affect tents which are used for other purposes in the County, ranging from funerals to County Fairs. Mr. Sandridge then asked Sandy Greenwood, General Manager of Boar's Head, to address some of issues. Ms. Greenwood said that Boar's Head Inn has been a part of this communi- ty for over 30 years. She said representatives of the Inn have tried to be sensitive and responsive when issues have been raised, and have tried to resolve them amicably whenever possible. Three neighborhoods have been built around the Boar's Head Inn property. She added that quite a while ago, she was approached by some of the neighbors concerning the location of the tent. They indicated that they did not want the tent at the gateway to their neighborhood. Even though funds had been invested to prepare that site, consideration was given to relocating the tent. This was a direct result of Boar's Head representatives attending the annual Ednam Forest Homeowners' meeting. Even though it would be much more difficult operationally and would require additional funding to prepare another site, Boar's Head representa- tives went forth with this proposal in response to the'neighbors' concerns. Concerns were also raised about parking. Boar's Head will be able to comply with the County's parking requirements. Operational changes have been made which will help with the parking situation, as well as accommodate the guests' needs. She then outlined the steps that Boar's Head representatives are taking to meet the sound decibel requirements. Mr. Bain said the Supervisors do not have a listing of the events that will take'place at the tent, but there is a letter from the Jaycees which indicate they have scheduled a three-week event. He asked how such an event would benefit the Boar's Head operation since most people coming to this event will not be guests of the Boar's Head Inn complex. Ms. Greenwood responded that the tent has been utilized on many occasions for charity functions, which she described. She went on to say that the Jaycees use the tent for their Halloween "Boo" House. Even though Boar's Head Inn does not benefit finan- cially from these events, it is felt that they are good for the community. She noted that not all of the events include a band. She said the tent houses regular dinners, receptions and other activities. Mr. Bain asked if it is a problem for these events to have no music. Ms. Greenwood answered that there could be a problem if wedding parties were not allowed to have music. Mr. Bain noted that weddings are not for the benefit of the Boar's Head complex, because they do not bring in outside people. Ms. Greenwood said that weddings are usually contracted with Boar's Head Inn to provide food and beverage, etc. She said weddings are part of Boar's Head catering service. Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone else representing Boar's Head Inn wanted to speak. No one else came forward. Mr. Bowerman then recognized Ms. Marianne Nolan, an Ednam Forest resident, who was representing her neighborhood organization. ..... 00003:3 September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Ms. Nolan replied that Dr. Luke COmbs would be the first speaker. Dr. Combs stated that he lives at 108 Ednam Place. He is representing 191 petitioners of Ednam Forest, Ednam Village and Farmington. The petition requests the Board of Supervisors to rescind the modification, of Section 5.1.16 (c), approved by the Planning Commission on July 20, 1993. The residents believe that the night time maximum allowable sound pressure level of 65 decibels is too high, and will compromise the residents' ability to enjoy their homes and yards. Not only will sounds of 65 decibels be quite prominent on the residents' properties, they will also interfere with normal activities, such as talking with families or guests on their porches, or listening to soft music in their homes. They are concerned about the poten- tial effects of the enjoyment of their homes and their property valuation. He asked the Board to conduct a professional sound survey and to research relevant scientific and legislative documents in support of setting acceptable limits for both day time and night time noise levels. He then forwarded the petition to the Clerk. Ms. Nolan then introduced Dr. John Casali, currently a Professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (VPI) and Director of the Auditory Systems Laboratory. She said Dr. Casali has conducted experiments concerning noise control and hearing protection relative to warning signals design, etc., and effects of noise on sound ordinances. She noted that Dr. Casali founded and developed the Auditory Systems Laboratory which is unique among U.S. academic institutions. Dr. Caseli has written over 110 publications in the human factors, engineering and acoustics literature. Dr. Casali, as a consultant, has served on over 30 organizations and companies nationally. Most of these efforts have been in acoustics and hearing protection, and this is the capacity in which he is serving for this occasion. He is at this meeting to explain the implications of modifying the County Code to allow a sound level of 65 decibels. Dr. Casali commented that he would like to offer his opinion as to why the level of 65 decibels might be problematic, and he explained that his opinion is based on two rationales. One rationale relates to the precedent that might be set, and, secondly, he would like to talk about the negative subjective reaction from other communities. He showed slides which provided an overview of day time and night time noise levels which are allowable in cities across the United States. He called attention to the night time levels, and said there were no levels which appeared to be in the range of 65 decibels. He noted that there were no Virginia communities shown. He did have a copy of an ordinance from Richmond, Virginia, with maximum noise levels of 65 decibels in the day time and 55 decibels at night. He pointed out that the most typical noise levels for residential communities is 55 decibels during the day and 50 decibels during night hours. He talked about subjective reactions to noise and the annoyance it creates. He mentioned such problems as interference with speech communication, as well as affecting a person's ability to read, concentrate and sleep. Dr. Casali commented that sudden unexpected noises exhibit startled responses and affects a person's attention. Based on EPA data, it is predicted that 38 percent of the people would be annoyed at 65 decibels, but the annoyance rate drops significantly when the noise level is 55 decibels. He stated that the EPA addressed this issue significantly in the mid and late 1970's. He can provide a model noise control ordinance which can be used as a skeleton, as well as a number of texts which apply to this issue. Dr. Casali then mentioned a few things that he sees in the proposed amendment which need to be addressed. First, it is only appropriate to use the word, "decibels," in a way that predicts the human ear's response to a noise. This is important to enforcement issues. Secondly, it appears that the regulation relates to a constant 65 DBA day and night. It is suggested by the EPA that the period of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. be used as the night time hours, and there is usually a lower level of noise specified for these hours. It is also important to the enforcement issue to specify the measurement instrument which is to be used and how it should be calibrated. He noted that two people with whom he has spoken in the Ednam area have mentioned the noise problem and the type of sources which are occurring, and the issue of low frequency sound bass music continues to be mentioned. He went on to say that bass sounds create a severe problem because they bend around and transmit through barriers, and they travel long distances. One of the countermeasures which is suggested is to orient the amplification and loud speakers away from the community. This can be expected to help with some range of sounds and high frequency, but it would not help much with bass sounds. Acoustic curtains have also been recommended, and they might help some. However, it might be a structural nightmare to try to put these curtains on the roof of a tent, and if the roof top is not covered, the sound will travel in that direction. He commented that trees and bushes can provide some help, but unless they are very tall and thick, they do not provide a good noise barrier, either. He strongly suggests to any community, when setting a sound level in an ordinance, that a comprehensive background study be done at the adjoining, nearest property line to determine the ambient levels and what is feasible. This type of survey is critical to the adjoining community. He is available to answer Board members' questions. Mr. Bain asked how the bass issue should be addressed, as opposed to high frequency noises. Dr. Casali replied that when A-weighted measurements are taken, the measurement de-emphasizes the bass noises. A C-weighted measurement would be much higher in value as far as a bass noise is concerned. Bass noises are a problem, and it takes considerable sealing to contain the September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting)r O000~4 sound. This is expensive, and bass sounds are prohibited in a lot of places. This problem not only affects residential communities, but it also affects industrial noises. In many cases, there are full enclosure around industrial machinery. Fortunately, the human ear is not as responsive to all bass noises, but it is sensitive to the constant bumping of music. He referred to high fidelity stereos which are currently put into cars, and even with the windows closed, and the cars are located some distance away, the bass noises are transmitted through the structure of the car and across the distance. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Casali to give Board members an example of a 40 decibel A-weighted sound and a 65 decibel A-weighted sound. Dr. Casali showed a slide which he said covered the gambit of sound intensities to which people are sensitive from zero level to 180. He pointed out that the noise from a personal computer is approximately 50 decibels. People usually adapt to a constant noise in an office atmosphere. He added that a conversation at approximately three or four feet would be approximately 60 or 65 decibels. A vacuum cleaner noise level would be at 70 to 75 decibels. The noise range shown on the slide depicts the annoyance range, and when the noise range is increased, the annoyance increases. He noted, however, that there is no risk to human hearing with this noise range. Mr. Bowerman asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak about this appeal. No one came forward. Mr. Bowerman then noted that he is a member of the Boar's Head Sports Club, but he does not feel that this, in any way, will influence his decision on this matter. Mr. Bain asked Ms. McCulley how she would view situations where tents are used at fairs, etc., in comparison to the Boar's Head request. He noted that a tent at a fair would only be used a few days a year, and it is approved by a special permit, as opposed to a commercial proposition which could be used for six or seven months out of the year. Ms. McCulley answered that she could find no prior Zoning Administra- tor's determination on such a situation. The staff looked at other situa- tions where there have been requests for tents, but they are not good compari- sons, in terms of duration of the events. She then recalled a situation which she thought might be equivalent to the Boar's Head request. A permanent tent pad was approved during the site plan review for the Glenmore Subdivision to be used for similar events at the clubhouse. Such events occur typically within an inn or a clubhouse, where there is a structure associated with the event. The generation of noise is within this structure and to a certain extent the structure can attenuate the noise. The only difference between an inn or clubhouse and a tent would be that a tent would allow for more frequent events to have a difference of visual impact because the event can be held outdoors. It is commonplace to have events outdoors. It is a separate matter, however, as to how the County should treat tents in the future. As far as the Boar's Head situation is concerned, she really had to rely on comparing it to Glenmore and other events which are held outdoors, and she did not see a significant negative land use impact difference in the two. Mr. Bain inquired if Ms. McCulley had made the ruling on Glenmore. Ms. McCulley replied that she is unsure if it was phrased in the manner of an official determination, because there was not a request for such a determina- tion. She believes that situation came up after the Boar's Head issue. She noted that Glenmore already had approval for a tent in its site plan, and construction associated with this tent pad had already begun. Mr. Martin asked if Glenmore's approval for sound was 65 decibels. Ms. McCulley replied that Glenmore's sound level was approved for 40 decibels. Mr. Marshall wondered if approval was given for 45 decibels of sound for the outdoor theater project. Mrs. Humphris answered that approval was given to the outdoor theater for 40 decibels. Ms. McCulley agreed. She does not have the approval letter with her, but she does not believe there was a modifica- tion. Mr. Marshall inquired if the same level of sound would have to be approved for the outdoor theater project, if the sound limitation of 65 decibels is approved for Boar's Head. Ms. McCulley responded, "no." She said sound limitations for Glenmore have already been approved. She mentioned, however, that Glenmore representatives could come back before this Board to try to relieve themselves of this sound restriction. Mr. Marshall wondered if it would be setting a precedent, if the sound level of 65 decibels is approved for Boar's Head. Ms. McCulley answered that this situation would set a precedent only if representatives with a similar situation should come before this Board with the same request. She added, however, that this is certainly something to consider. Mr. Marshall commented that both of these situations relate to outside activities, and he wanted to know if there are any differences between the two. Mr. Martin remarked that it would be hard for the Board to approve a lower sound range for a new tent request, if the Boar's Head tent is approved for 65 decibels. Mr. Marshall asked if it is the opinion of the other Board members that they are only dealing with this one tent. Ms. McCulley responded that the appeal before this Board today, only relates to the tent at Boar's Head. She noted that any action this Board takes could set a precedent. Mr. Bowerman asked Dr. Casali how loud could the decibel reading be inside a tent where it is attenuated to a 40 decibel reading at a property oooo3 i September 1, 1993 (Regular. Day Meeting) (Page 12) line five or six hundred feet:aWay,, if music was playing inside the tent. Dr. Casali said a measuremen~ w0u~d haV~t~.~i~ taken, because there are a lot of things which would affect the sound. If there is a totally unobstructed field, each time the distance is doubled away from the source, approximately six decibels are lost. For instance, if the sound was at 80 decibels at 500 feet away and a person moved to 1,000 feet, then the decibel reading would decrease to approximately 74 decibels. If the distance is doubled again and a person went to 2,000 feet, the reading would decrease to approximately 68 decibels. This is a general principle which could be used, if someone wanted to look at the distances and figure out this calculation. He remarked that it is dangerous to do this, because this calculation relates to perfect condi- tions in an unobstructed field. He noted that this is not the case with Ednam Forest, and he pointed out there are houses on the crest of the hill in that neighborhood. It is possible that these houses would get a much louder sound level than the predictions would show using this calculation. He went on to say that 40 decibels at a property line is something which may be applicable of the ambient noise level, and it is something that needs to be checked. Mr. Bowerman inquired if Dr. Casali had previously indicated that 40 decibels of sound would probably be common conversation at a distance of approximately three feet. Dr. Casali responded that the slides had indicated that conversation at approximately three feet would be at a 60 decibel reading. Mr. Bain stated that he had read the Planning Commission minutes, and it was clear that the Commissioners were concerned about the noise level. He asked if there was something that the Commissioners had considered that helped them overcome this concern about the noise. Mr. Keeler informed the Supervi- sors that Dr. Casali had not appeared before the Commission. Mr. Bain commented that he is concerned about the health, safety and welfare aspect of the Commission's amendment to waive the normal decibel reading and raise the sound limitation to 65 decibels. He would like some more scientific informa- tion. This information could come from Dr. Casali or the University of Virginia. If he had to make a decision today, he would oppose the amendment and reverse the Commission's action. He is not sure enough information has been received by this Board to make such a decision. The Board has just received Dr. Casali's information, but he pointed out that Dr. Casali is here at the request of some of the appellants. He went on to say that this situation is significant, because there is a commercial enterprise that has been in this community for years, and there are also residents who have been in that vicinity before the Sports Club was built. He does not see the Glenmore project as necessarily being the same thing because it is not an inn or sports club. He said that Glenmore is a residential community with 700 or 800 homes, where fairly stringent limits were imposed in terms of what could be done there. He feels that more information is needed for guidance in the future so that this Board will operate from some logic and scientific data. He reiterated that he Wants to know more about this situation before he votes to approve the proposal. He emphasized that he cannot vote in favor of it today. Mrs. Humphris commented that what she read in the Planning Commission's meeting bothered her, because it appears that the staff is recommending the 65 decibels sound limit be allowed because the Boar's Head could not comply with the sound limitation of 40 decibels. If 40 decibels is the County's standard, it is not right to relax the standards just because the applicant cannot comply. There has to be some overriding reason to allow such a change. She pointed out, however, that she sees the overriding consideration in this situation as the residents. Based on her understanding of a 65 decibels sound limit, these people will have to put up with the sound, and their quality of life will definitely be diminished. The people who live around the Boar's Head Inn bought their homes, and most of them have lived there for a long time. These people have a right to enjoy the quality of life that their homes provide without this intrusion. She believes the noise is a tremendous polluter, and she, at this time, cannot see any reason to relax the County's standard. She recalled Mr. Bowerman's question as to how loud 65 decibels would be, and Dr. Casali's reply that it would be similar to normal conversa- tion between people who were standing three to four feet apart. If this is the case, it would be the same thing if she and Mr. Bowerman were having this same conversation in somebody's home, while the residents of that home were trying to sleep, read or enjoy quiet music, etc. These activities would be difficult, if two people were trying to converse at this level. She feels that based on what happened recently with the outdoor theater and with this situation, work is obviously needed on the Noise Ordinance. More criteria and specifics are needed, such as the information which the consultant today has been able to provide. She concurred with Mr. Bain that unless somebody is able to show her something else, other than the written material which is currently in front of the Board and what has been said from the Boar's Head representatives, she sees no reason to allow a change in the sound level. Mr. Martin agreed that it appears the Commission made its decision based on Boar's Head's needs, and he also agreed with some parts of the information from the Homeowners' Association which indicated that they were in agreement with the sound level change. If this Board had been presented with informa- tion that the people who live around Boar's Head were in agreement with the sound level change, the Supervisors would be under a different assumption than they are now. He does not agree with Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Bain that more expert information is needed, because this issue can rely on common sense. This Board is making a decision where residential and commercial properties (Page 13) are existing in the same are~; ~a~d'the~:"~'~e'~si°n Will have to be based on those particular issues. He cQmm~ted that~ cQmpromises will. have to be made in order to keep residential' ahd"c0mme~6~a~ properties together in the same general area, and the property owners need to be reasonably comfortable with each other. The Supervisors can consider compromises, or they can base their decision on which sound level they favor, in this particular instance. He is not sure where he stands, at this point, and he would like to hear more interaction, but he reiterated that this is just a common sense issue. Mr. Bowerman concurred with Mr. Martin's statement. Mr. Bowerman went on to say that 40 decibels is a reasonable standard to apply, as long as it is in the Ordinance. In the event that 40 decibels is an unreasonable level in trying to work out a compromise between commercial and residential areas, this situation will need to be approached from a more widespread application, and the Noise Ordinance, itself will have to be examined. He went on to say that whether the level should be 35 or 55 decibels is something this Board will need to determine at a later date, based on additiOnal information. However, he sees no justification to waive the 40 decibel requirement in the Ordinance, based on what he has heard today. These two uses, because of their proximity to each other, must have some relationship to one another in order for them to proceed. It seems to him that 40 decibels is a reasonable level. Mr. St. John remarked that he does not understand Dr. Casali's comments about the ambient noise level, as he had indicated that it is important that the ambient noise be determined. He asked if this means that it is unreason- able to ever impose a limit on a particular use that is below the ambient noise level. If this is true, he does not understand why that is the case. He wondered why the level of noise that is in the Ordinance has to be waived, if it is found that the ambient noise is above that level. It seems to him that this is what everybody is saying. He gave an example of an ambient noise of 60 decibels from one source, such as a timber operation, a mile away. He said there must be some way to determine the annoyance factor from various sounds. He asked if one source is creating an ambient noise of 60 decibels, would it not be more annoying if a dozen more sources were added, although they might not increase the decibel level. He wondered if the amount of noise that reaches a person is increased, even though the decibel level is not increased, would be more annoying. He inquired if this is true, then why is a new use allowed to Produce noise up to the present ambient level. Mr. Perkins responded that if a continuous noise, such as an air condi- tioner or fan is put into operation, even though it has a high decibel reading, a person can sleep with that noise. He added that if this same decibel level is an infrequent noise, it will awaken a person, and it will keep them awake. Mr. St. John said that this is exactly his question. A person can sleep when there is an air conditioner producing 60 decibels of sound. He added, though, that if two people are sitting by a person's bed talking at 60 decibels, it will be more annoying. He asked why would it be permitted for two more people to be talking by the bed, simply because they are not producing any more noise than the air conditioner. Mr. Perkins said he believes the residents are saying they do not want to put up with this noise level 25 times a year,' even though they might be able to stand it a few times. He added that the noise on Route 250 and the railroad in the vicinity around Boar's Head Inn is much higher than 65 decibels. Mr. St. John replied that noise from the tent is considered a new noise, but he does not understand the justification in saying that because other things are producing 60 decibels of noise, then it is permissible for some- thing else to produce noise at that level. Noises are different and he does not understand the rationale that any time there.is a certain level of ambient noise, it is unreasonable to restrict a new type of noise below that level. Dr. Casali responded that when he mentioned ambient noise, he was referring to the fact that it is important to establish the ambient level when setting a noise standard in an ordinance. This means a level should be established for noise which is already going on in the community without the new noise intrusions. If a survey is done to determine the ambient level, and there is an ambient level of 50, then the ordinance cannot be set below the ambient level. Such a regulation would be unreasonable and it is not feasible to enforce. He gave an example of a certain area having a measurement of 50 decibels, but the ordinance regulation was set at 47 decibels, and he said this would be unreasonable. Mr. Marshall asked if anyone knows the ambient noise level in the neighborhoods at the present time. Dr. Casali said if a level of noise intrusion is going to be set for a residential property line, what is feasible for that particular area has to be found. If the sound level is set too low, it cannot be enforced. He then recalled that a question had been asked involving multiple sound sources which are intrusions over and above the ambient level, such as several sound sources of 60 decibels. He noted that sounds do not add together as normal numerical addition. If there were two sounds of 60 decibels, the result will not be 60 and it will not be 120, it will probably be somewhere in the region of 62 decibels. A general principle to use is that if there are two sounds, and they are ten decibels apart or more, and one sound is 60 decibels and the other is 48, the combination of the two will still be approximately 60 decibels. When noises are ten decibels apart, the lower sound does not contribute very much. With multiple sources September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) ~ 000087 of 60 decibels, the noise to increase, as the combina- tion of sound levels Mr. Martin stated that it is important to note that when Dr. Casali is talking about the enforcement of sound regulations, he is not talking about the legality of enforcement, because, legally, sound regulations can be set. Mr. Martin added that Dr. Casali is indicating the sound cannot be measured, because it is more than the ambient level. Mr. St. John remarked that the instrument used to measure sound will measure the loudest noise, and it does not know whether the noise is coming from a tent or a tractor trailer on the road. Dr. Casali explained that the instrument will measure the total noise, and it cannot discriminate against different sources. Mr. St. John noted that this is why it would be unenforceable to have the legal sound limit more than the actual ambient sound. Mr. Marshall asked a second time whether or not the present noise level in the neighborhoods around the Boar's Head area was known. Mr. Bain answered that there is information in the Board members' packets from Ms. Greenwood to the Planning staff which indicates that sound level testing was performed. He said that Ms. Greenwood mentioned in her memorandum that this testing con- firmed earlier testing by the owners which show sound levels of 55 to 75 decibels on the A-weighted scale at the nearest residential property. Mr. Bain pointed out that a June 24 letter to Ann Collins of Johnson, Craven and Gibson, from Mr. Frederick L. Huckstep, Consulting Engineer, gives the location of the test and where the sound placed on the "A" and "C" scales for a one hour period on June 24, 1993, between 8:30 and 9:30 a.m. Mr. Marshall remarked that Boar's Head representatives have a right to locate the tent. Mr. Bain agreed that is correct. However, there has never been a permit involved for anything relating to the tent. Nobody apparently enforced the Ordinance. He said there had been no previous determination in reference to the tent, but Ms. McCulley has now determined that the tent is an accessory structure. Mr. Marshall referred to Ms. McCulley's determination that under the Highway Commercial zoning category, use of the tent was a justifiable. Ms. McCulley replied that is correct. She said the tent is a permitted use, but it is still subject to the regulation. The regulations call for a review of the site plan for technical issues such as parking, access and landscaping, etc. This has never been done. Mr. Bain explained that in making the ruling, it was not Ms. McCulley's function to waive the Ordinance. She was simply saying that the applicant had to meet the regulations. Mr. Marshall commented that the tent is already located at Boar's Head, and the whole matter relates to sound. He questions whether the County can enforce the present Ordinance requirement of 40 decibels, if the sound has been more than that in the past. He does not want the neighbors to be irritated by the noise, and he is sure that the represen- tatives of Boar's Head do not want this to happen, either. However, he is not sure that the Supervisors can solve this issue until the County has a proper Noise Ordinance. He went on to say that the current Ordinance does not do anything for the County or the applicant, In all probability the sound level that is already in the Boar's Head area is higher than the Ordinance presently allows. Mrs. Humphris said the Board is not dealing with the issue to which Mr. Marshall referred. She explained that the Board has to make a decision as to whether to approve a waiver for 65 decibels of sound. She asked if Mr. Marshall thinks the neighbors should have to deal with sound levels of 65 decibels at their property lines. Mr. Marshall said the only issue with which this Board is dealing is whether the Ordinance should be changed. Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Humphris disagreed. They indicated that the issue is whether or not the Board will waive the sound regulation in the Ordinance. Mr. Marshall then repeated his earlier question. He asked Mr. St. John how the regulation could be waived, if the present noise level was higher than the Ordinance allows. Mr. St. John said he does not think the sound level in the past deter- mines the future sound level, when the site plan is in process. Mr. Marshall commented that he is concerned about increasing the sound level decibels, because he believes there will be the same problem with the outdoor theater. Mr. Bain remarked that he is not advocating a decision today. It is obvious that the Ordinance cannot be changed before this matter is reheard. He would like information relating to the sound levels at the property lines. The test should be in process for more than an hour, and there might be justification for differentiating between sound levels for day and night hours. Just because the Commission approved a sound level for 24 hours does not mean that he agrees with it. However, that matter is not before the Board today. The Board needs to make a decision as to whether or not to let the Commission's decision stand. He does not want to change the sound level regulation in the Ordinance without further information. Mr. Marshall agreed that he does not want to change the Ordinance requirements until more information is known. Mr. Bain commented that if the a~ient noise along the residential property lines is 50 or 55 decibels, and this can clearly be verified, then it would be hard to support a 40 decibel requirement. He would like to know more about music sounds. He said residents have indicated they can hear music, even now, from inside the Sports Club before 10:00 p.m., which is affecting them. That issue is not before the Board today, but it is something which should concern each partyl 'in ~er~s"O~nga good neighbor and a good citizen. He is unsure if that concern has been there. This Board cannot answer or solve these issues, but, as far as the matter which is before the Board today, he would like to have more information before he makes a final vote. Mr. St. John asked if the only issue of concern now is the sound level. Mr. Bowerman stated that the Board is considering the waiver from 40 decibels to 65. Mr. Bain reiterated that this is a health and safety issue. Mr. Marshall commented that he is not willing to approve the waiver, because he thinks it will cause a lot of trouble in the future. However, he wants to have this issue examined, but he does not want to put a financial burden on Boar's Head Inn. He wants the Inn to be able to function as it should in that community, but he does not want it to be detrimental to the neighbors. He thinks an agreement can be reached where the functions that are needed can still be carried out, and the sound levels can be controlled to a level that is acceptable to the neighborsl Mr. St. John suggested that, rather than using sound charts, etc., the Supervisors go to the property lines. Boar's Head representatives could turn on the music and reduce the volume to a level that is not annoying to the closest houses. The decibels could be checked when this point is reached, and then that level could be imposed as the required level of sound. Mrs. Humphris said there is a problem with Mr. St. John's suggestion. She thinks everybody has learned through the noise processes that sound is different depending on atmospheric conditions and a lot of other variables that are not controllable. This is the problem because sound is different almost every time it is measured. The Supervisors need to adopt a common sense attitude. First, Boar's Head needs to be a good neighbor to the community because it exists within that neighborhood. Secondly, the Supervi- sors have to believe in doing unto others. She wonders if she would want to put up with this noise level that close to her home, and she knows that 65 decibels would not be satisfactory to her. Therefore, she certainly would not want to impose this sound level on the Boar's Head neighbors. She does not see this as the Supervisors' function to make life miserable for people who live in that neighborhood. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the Board is dealing with two problems. One problem is the issue which is before the Board today and, secondly, there are questions about the Ordinance. The Supervisors should try to separate these two issues and make a decision as to whether this Board will let the Commis- sion's action stand, whether additional information is needed, or if the Supervisors want to modify the Commission's decision. Mr. Bain wondered what would happen if the Commission's action is modified and the noise level approved for 40 decibels. The Boar's Head representatives would probably appeal this action. If the ambient noise exceeds 40 decibels, then there is probably a problem with that part of the Ordinance. He wondered what would happen if the courts become involved. He is sure the questions would be asked in court as to the Ordinance standards and the ambient noise level in the Boar's Head area. He asked Mr. St. John if his (Mr. Bain's) thinking is wrong. He does not want the matter to go to court, but he is not opposed to it, if that is the way it ought to be. However, the Supervisors should be able to determine a noise level that is acceptable to both parties. Mr. St. John said this is a difficult question for him to answer. First, there are few cases relating to noise in Virginia courts. The treatise is not very good, plus the technology has been developing rapidly, and the law has to change with the technology. He has never seen a case anywhere that was decided on the issue of the ambient noise. He emphasized that there is no court decision that says it is unreasonable to impose a limit on any particu- lar use which is below the ambient noise level. It might be unenforceable from a practical standpoint, but to his knowledge there is no case which implies this. He does not know how this County would stand, if it tried to enforce a limit that is below the ambient noise level. He does not know how the case would get to court, if the measuring instrument will not measure anything but the ambient noise. Mr. Bain wondered how much time is available for the Board to gather information in order to make its decision. Mr. St. John answered that this Board can take whatever time, to which the applicant will agree, to study this issue. The statute requires the Board take official action within 60 days following submittal of a request. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Sandridge if he preferred the Board take action today. Mr. Sandridge replied that he wants to do whatever the Board thinks is in the best interest of everyone involved. He had asked for an exception because he was not sure that Boar's Head could comply with the 40 decibel sound level. He had come to this conclusion based on previous engineering tests which showed a noise level of 55 to 62 decibels in that area. The Commission had indicated that 65 decibels was consistent with the County Code. He then referred to the Board's request for an extended period of time to study the issue, and he said the Boar's Head staff has obviously been delayed in scheduling events, while waiting for the results of this meeting. He hopes the Board will allow Boar's Head to continue to operate as it has in the past, 0000 9 September 1, 1993 (Page 16) until Board deliberationS~¢r~';f~n~ed:.,!~'~'~e is unsure as to how much time the Board is requesting, Mr. St. John asked what the Board wants to happen in that length of time. Mr. Bain replied that he ~s unsure. He would like to know the ambient noise levels at the different property lines for the neighborhoods. Mr. Marshall stated that it appears to him that none of the Board members want to increase the sound limit regulation to more than 40 decibels. He wondered, again, if this regulation can be enforced, if the sound level is currently more than 40 decibels in that area. Dr. Combs does not want any more noise in his neighborhood, because there is already more noise than he wants there now. Mr. Marshall asked what can be done, legally, if this Board upholds the 40 decibels sound regulation which is in the current Ordinance. Mr. Perkins remarked that some of the Supervisors are too concerned about the noise levels. It is not a question of the noise levels, but instead, it is whether or not the nc~se is a nuisance. Mrs. Humphris agreed. She went on to say that the issue relates to annoying noises, such as bass noises. Noise cannot be confined, and she noted that the location of the tent is situated in such a manner that the noise goes over the hill. She empha- sized that noise levels at property lines are not the only concern. The concern relates to overall noise. Mr. Martin also agreed with Mr. Perkins. The real issue is whether or not the noise is a nuisance. Since people are complaining, then obviously the noise is a nuisance, because most people do not complain without a reason. These residents impress him as being reasonable people, but this is a situa- tion with commercial and residential property close together. The commercial property was there first, and the residential property came second, so in his opinion the residents agreed to tolerate a certain amount of noise. On the other hand, the noise level has increased beyond what the people were expect- lng when they first'moved there. The two groups need to make some compromises and there seems to have been an attempt to do that. The Boar's Head represen- tatives followed through with what they thought was their part of the bargain, but, all of a sudden, there was no compromise. He thinks the Supervisors need to decide if they should vote for or against the request. He wondered, too, if the Supervisors should try to get Boar's Head Inn and the neighborhoods to renegotiate and figure out a reasonable compromise that they can all deal with using everyone, as opposed to certain individuals from the neighborhoods. He thinks the Board should be encouraging this compromise between the residential and commercial property o%~ers because they both have legitimate concerns. The residents are concerned about the noise and Boar's Head representatives want the ability to continue to do business. It is not clear in this situa- tion as to which one has the most weight. There are pros and cons on both sides. Mr. Marshall asked what would happen if this Board does not take any action. Mr. Bain answered that if this Board does not take any action, then the Planning Commission's approval for 65 decibels of sound will stand. Mr. Martin remarked that the Commission made a decision based on the fact that it appeared the community and Boar's Head representatives were in agreement. He said the Supervisors now know this is not the case. He suggested the Supervisors let the Commission's decision stand, at this time, and give the community and Boar's Head a chance to compromise. If allowing the Commission's decision to stand takes away the motivation to compromise, then this Board could override that decision. He noted that several Board members know the area better than he does, but his goal is to try to get the neighbors and Boar's Head representatives to reach a compromise to which they can agree. Mr. Marshall said he is not willing to accept Mr. Martin's suggestion. He does not want to see the noise level increased from 40 decibels to 65. He is still not sure that the 40 decibels of sound can be enforced. Mr. Bowerman said that is another issue. Mr. Martin called attention to the fact that Boar's Head representatives were willing to move the tent from in front of the Ednam Forest entrance, and the original agreement was the residents would agree to the increased sound level of 65 decibels. He said that perhaps the two groups can agree to a level of 50 or 55 decibels of sound. At this time, Mr. Bain made a motion to reverse condition l(a) of the Planning Commission's decision of July 20, 1993 for SDP-93-019, Boars Head Inn Sports Major Site Plan Amendment, from 65 decibels at the nearest residential property line to 40 decibels. Mrs. Humphris secon~e~ the motion. Mr. Marshall indicated that he wanted to support the motion. He wondered, though, if this motion is approved and the 40 decibel noise level is upheld, whether it be enforced. He does not believe it can be enforced. Mr. St. John replied that legally the noise level regulation can be enforced. His concern is that there is no way of knowing the level that a noise meter will register. Mr. Marshall said his point is that if the meter registers 50 or 60 decibels, then he does not think the 40 decibel regulation can be enforced, because the noise level is higher than the Ordinance regulation. Mr. St. John responded that if it can be proven that 50 or 60 decibels of noise is emanat- ing from the tent, then the 40 decibels regulation can be enforced. He added, September 1, 1993 (ReguI~'Day ~eeting)~ ...... (Page 17) though, that the meter high. This is not a q~esbioD when it is taken to that area.~ ..... vote: AYES: NAYS: 000040 where the noise level is not instead what the meter registers Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. None. (The conditions of approval are set out below:) The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions have been met: Note on the plan "The sound from any radio, recording device, public address system or other speaker shall be limited to forty (40) decibels at the nearest residential property line. This site shall comply with all other sections of 5.1.16 of the Zoning Ordi- nance;'' b0 Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans; Department of Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; do Inspections Department approval of surface treatment of the handicapped parking space; Staff review and approval of pedestrian walkways connecting the tent area to "Area G", shuttle bus drop-off and route and temporary "No Parking" sign locations; fo go Note on the plan "This is a temporary structure as defined by BOCA Code"; Fire Official approval of emergency accessways and fire lanes. 2. Administrative approval of final site plan. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until: a. Fire Official final approval. (The Board recessed at 11:26 a.m. and reconvened at 11:40 a.m.) (At this time, the Board discussed Items 5.3 and 5.4 from the Consent Agenda.) Item 5.3. Approval of Industrial Access Agreement between VDOT and County/between County and Developer for Industrial Access Funds for Mill Creek Industrial Park. Item 5.4. Approval of Resolution authorizing the Director of Engineer- ing to execute on behalf of the County all Land Use Permits and related documents of VDOT. Mr. Tucker said the Board had asked the County Engineer and Resident Highway Engineer to review language for both of these agreements before taking action. This has been done and the only change relative to Item 5.3, was the request from Mr. Roosevelt that the use of VDoT funds be limited to the purchase of asphalt only, and not stone, etc., for that road. Mr. Marshall asked how much would it cost to purchase the asphalt. Mr. Tucker answered that the cost of this asphalt is $27,500. Regarding Item 5.4, Mr. Tucker said a reference to the Industrial Access Agreement was deleted, because VDoT felt it was not necessary. Mr. Tucker then recommended the Board approve Items 5.3 and 5.4. Mr. Perkins offered motion to approve Items 5.3 and 5.4, an Industrial Access Agreement between VDoT and County/between County and Developer for Industrial Access Funds for Mill Creek Industrial Park; and a resolution authorizing the Director of Engineering to execute on behalf of the County all land use permits and related documents of VDoT. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roi1 was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: September 1, 1993 (Regui'a~';Day' Me~ting).'_ AYES: ~rs. Humphris, MeS's~rs'~ MarShaIi,' Mar~in, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. (The following agreements were approved for sxgnature by the Chairman:) ALBEMARLE COUNTY Project 1000-002-246, M501 Industrial Access Mill Creek Industrial Park THIS AGREEMENT, made the 1st day of September, 1993, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY by appropriate resolution requested Industrial Access Funds to assist in providing adequate access to the Mill Creek Industrial Park, located off Route 742; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, subject to certain contingencies, has allocated an amount not to exceed $100,000 from the Industrial Access Fund to assist in providing access to the proposed industrial park, such being designated as Project 1000-002-246, M501; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that such access is to be provided by the construction of 0.23 mile of roadway north of Southern Parkway; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY hereby acknowledges and agrees to the contingencies of this allocation, as set forth in the May 20, 1993, resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which is made a part of this agreement by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: A. The COUNTY will: Acquire the necessary right of way and any required slope or drainage easements for this project at no cost to the DEPARTMENT. Perform, or have performed, all environmental assessments, and, should these assessments require any form of mitigation as a condi- tion of the project,s construction on the proposed right of way, provide said mitigation at no cost to the DEPARTMENT. Cause any utilities in conflict with the construction of this project to be adjusted at no cost to the DEPARTMENT. 3 o Provide the DEPARTMENT with an appropriate bond or other acceptable surety device, in the amount of $27,500 terminating on or after June 20, 1996. Such surety device shall provide for reimbursement to the DEPARTMENT of any expenses incurred by the Industrial Access Fund for this project's construction not justi- fied by the eligible capital outlay of an eligible industry served by the project, as of May 20, 1996. Pursuant to contingency 2c of the Commonwealth Trans- portation Board's resolution dated May 20, 1993, eligibility of the industry or industries, the amount of eligible industrial capital outlay and the extent of the project's eligibility for Industrial Access Funds shall be as determined by the DEPARTMENT. The basis for this determination shall be the application of the DEPARTMENT's policy and its usual practices for administering the Industrial Access Fund, based on documentary evidence submitted by the COUNTY. Reim- bursement, if required, shall be made prior to termi- nation of the surety device, upon demand. This surety may be released at an earlier date upon receipt from the COUNTY of proper documentation regarding an eligi- ble industry entering into a firm contract for the expenditure of at least $275,000 in qualified capital outlay. For any qualifying capital outlay of less than $275,000, the DEPARTMENT shall be reimbursed in the amount of the Industrial Access Funds authorized for this project less ten percent (10%) of the docu- mented eligible capital outlay of the industry. Provide the surety device immediately upon notifica- tion by the DEPARTMENT. 5o Design and prepare plans for Project 1000-002-246, M501, for the purpose of providing suitable access to the aforementioned industrial park. This design shall September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting! (Page 19) 000O42 be in ~acc6~"~th~licable geometric standards of the'DEP~TMENT ~n~ shall be subject to approval by the DEgARTMENT?~'T~g~'~t ~0f such design and plan preparation shall be borne entirely from sources other than the Industrial Access Fund or any other funds administered by the DEPARTMENT. Agree to construct or have its agents construct the project in accordance with the approved plans, except for those items specified in section B.4 of this agreement. Assure that all items of work and materials used in construction comply with applicable DEPARTMENT speci- fications. Provide necessary inspection/construction engineering services as required to assure construction of the project in accordance with approved plans and specifi- cations. Make the project available to inspection by DEPARTMENT personnel during its construction and obtain the DEPARTMENT's concurrence prior to project acceptance. 10. Bear all eligible cost in excess of $27,500 and all ineligible costs. B. The DEPARTMENT will: Review the plans and specifications for Project 1000- 002246, M501 as presented by the COUNTY pursuant to Paragraph A.5 and approve them with whatever modifica- tions, if any, it deems appropriate. Arrange for inspection or allow the COUNTY to provide inspection as required to assure that the project,s construction is performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. 3 o Authorize Industrial Access Funds, not to exceed $27,500, in accordance with and subject to the Indus- trial Access Policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, applicable contingencies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, s resolution of May 20, 1993, and applicable provisions of this agreement, for the cost of eligible base course, paving, guardrail and related engineering activities. Administer a contract for the construction of eligible base course, paving, and guardrail in accordance with the approved plans. 5o Make final inspection with the COUNTY upon completion of the project and, if appropriate, concur in its acceptance. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties of this agreement have hereunto affixed their signatures, the County of Albemarle on the day of , 1993, and the Virginia Department of Transportation on the day of , 1993. ALBEMARLE COUNTY Project 1000-002 246, M501 Industrial Access Mill Creek Industrial Park THIS AGREEMENT, made the 27th day of August, 1993, by and between CRAIG BUILDERS OF ALBEMARLE, INC., hereinafter referred to as the DEVELOPER, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, hereinafter re- ferred to as the COUNTY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY by appropriate resolution requested Industrial Access Funds to assist in providing adequate access to the Mill Creek Industrial Park, located off Route 742; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth Transportation Board, subject to certain contingencies, has allocated an amount not to exceed $100,000 from the Industrial Access Fund to assist in providing access to the proposed industrial park, such being designated as Project 1000-002-246, M501; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that such access is to be provided by the construction of 0.23 mile of roadway north of Southern Parkway; and .... ' 000043 September 1, 1993 (Resular Day Meetins) (Page 20) WHEREAS, the COUNTY ~ agreed to the contin- gencies of this all'oCa~i0n., theT~bE~LOPER acknowledges and agrees to the contingencies '0f'this'alI~cation, as set forth in the May 20, 1993 resolution of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, which is made a part of this agreement by reference. NOW, THEREFORE, WITNESSETH, that for and in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: A. The DEVELOPER will: Acquire the necessary right of way and any required slope or drainage easements for this project at no cost to the COUNTY. Perform, or have performed, all environmental assessments, and, should these assess- ments require any form of mitigation as a condition of the project's construction on the proposed right of way, provide said mitigation at no cost to the COUNTY. Cause any utilities in conflict with the construction of this project to be adjusted at no cost to the COUNTY. Provide the COUNTY with an appropriate bond or other acceptable surety device, in the amount of $27,500 terminating on or after June 20, 1996. Such surety device shall provide for reimbursement to the COUNTY of any expenses incurred by the Industrial Access Fund for this project's construction not justified by the eligible capital outlay of an eligible industry served by the project, as of May 20, 1996. Pursuant to contingency 2c of the Commonwealth Transportation Board's resolution dated May 20, 1993, eligibility of the industry or industries, the amount of eligible industrial capital outlay and the extent of the pro- ject's eligibility for Industrial Access Funds shall be as determined by the VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION, hereinafter referred to as the DEPARTMENT. The basis for this determination shall be the applica- tion of the DEPARTMENT's policy and its usual practic- es for administering the Industrial Access Fund, based on documentary evidence submitted by the DEVELOPER. Reimbursement, if required, shall be made prior to termination of the surety device, upon demand. This surety may be released at an earlier date upon receipt from the DEVELOPER of proper documentation regarding an eligible industry entering into a firm contract for the expenditure of at least $275,000 in qualified capital outlay. For any qualifying capital outlay of less than $275,000, the COUNTY shall be reimbursed in the amount of the Industrial Access Funds authorized for this project less ten percent (10%) of the docu- mented eligible capital outlay of the industry. Provide the surety device to the COUNTY by 1 September 1993. The surety amount may be reduced based upon the actual amount expended by the DEPARTMENT to complete the road. Design and prepare plans for Project 1000-002-246, M501, for the purpose of providing suitable access to the aforementioned industrial park. This design shall be in accordance with applicable geometric standards of the DEPARTMENT and shall be subject to approval by the DEPARTMENT and the COUNTY. The cost of such design and plan preparation shall be borne entirely from sources other than the Industrial Access Fund or any other funds administered by the DEPARTMENT. Agree to construct or have its agents construct the project in accordance with the approved plans, except for those items specified in section B.4 of this agreement. Assure that all items of. work and materials used in construction comply with applicable DEPARTMENT speci- fications. Provide necessary inspection/construction engineerin9 services as required to assure construction of the project in accordance with approved plans and specifi- cations. Make the project available to inspection by DEPARTMENT personnel during its construction and obtain the DEPARTMENT's concurrence prior to project acceptance. September 1, 1993 (Re~ular~Day Me, ting) (Page 21) 10. Bear all eligible co 000044 in excess of $27,500 and all B. The COUNTY will: Review the plans and specifications and submit to the DEPARTMENT for review and approval for Project 1000- 002246, M501 as presented by the DEVELOPER pursuant to Paragraph A.5 and approve them with whatever modifica- tions, if any, it deems appropriate. Arrange for inspection or allow the COUNTY and DEPART- MENT to provide inspection as required to assure that the project's construction is performed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications. Authorize Industrial Access Funds, not to exceed $27,500, in accordance with and subject to the Indus- trial Access Policy of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, applicable contingencies of the Commonwealth Transportation Board,s resolution of May 20, 1993, and applicable provisions of this agreement, for the cost of eligible base course, paving, guardrail and related engineering activities. The DEPARTMENT will on behalf of the COUNTY administer a contract for the construction of eligible base course, paving, and guardrail in accordance with the approved plans. 5o The DEPARTMENT will make final inspection with the COUNTY and DEVELOPER upon completion of the project and, if appropriate, concur in its acceptance. IN WITNESS W~EREOF, the parties of this agreement have hereunto affixed their signatures, Craig Builders of Albemarle, Inc. on the 27th day of August, 1993, and the County of Albemarle on the 1st day of September, 1993. RES 0 LUT I 0N W~EREAS, it becomes necessary from time to time for the County of Albemarle to obtain permits from the Virginia Department of Transportation to install, construct, maintain, and operate certain projects that may include water and sewer utilities or stormwater utilities, entrance connection or tie into a public roadway, ramps and/or sidewalks, landscaping, road name signs and other miscellaneous facilities along, across, over, and upon highway systems of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle may enter~into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation under the Industri- al Access Roads Program, this resolution will serve as surety when required within such an agreement, and WHEREAS, expense, damage or injury may be sustained by the Commonwealth of Virginia growing out of the granting to the County of Albemarle by the Virginia Department of Transportation of said permits for the work or agreements aforesaid; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the County Board of Supervisors, this 1st day of September 1993: Section 1: That per the provisions of Section 1.064 of the Land Use Permit Manual of the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion, the County of Albemarle does hereby grant assurances to the Virginia Department of Transportation that it shall in all re- spects comply with all of the conditions of the permit or permits that have been, or will be, granted to the County of Albemarle and that said jurisdiction does hereby certify that it will carry liability insurance for personal injury and property damage that may arise from the work performed under permit and/or from the operation of the permitted activity as follows: up to one million dollars ($1,000,000) each occurrence to protect, the Commonwealth Transportation Board members and Department s agents or employees; seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) each occurrence to protect the Board, Department or the Commonwealth in the event of suit. Section 2: That the Director of Engineering, be, and hereby is, authorized to execute on behalf of the County of Albemarle all Land Use Permits and related documents of the Virginia Department of Transportation. Section 3: That this resolution shall be a continuing resolution and shall not be revoked unless and until sixty (60) days written notice of any proposed revocation be submitted to the Virginia Department of Transportation. September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) 00004~ (Page 22) ~- Section 4: That the County of Albemarle, if requested by the Virqinia Department of Transportation, shall require its contractors to fd~n'ish to'.th~"vi~glnia Department of Transporta- tion a performance bond, guarantee fee or irrevocable letter of credit in a minimum amount of Ten Thousand dollars ($10,000 to cover the performance of the permitted work. BE IT STILL FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Executive or his designee be, and hereby is, authorized and directed to procure the insurance required by Section 1 above. Agenda Item No 12. ~ .... ~ ~ ~ .... ~ *~- ~ .... ~ ..... ~ ...... (Deleted from the agenda. Agenda Item No. 13. Family/Medical Leave Act Policy. Mr. Tucker said that in February, 1993, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act which requires employers of 50 or more individu- als to provide leave for employees under certain circumstances. Albemarle County already provides a variety of leave programs for employees which the law allows to work in conjunction with these new requirements. One major difference in the new law is that the employer's contribution toward medical insurance must continue even though the leave taken under the Act may be unpaid. Under other unpaid leave, the Board has required the employee to pay for the full cost of the group medical insurance. Mr. Tucker said the proposed policy entitled "Supplemental Leave" is designed to meet the requirements of the Act. While the law would allow this leave to be granted in addition to other types of leave, this could present a serious hardship to certain departments considering the extent of leave any one employee could take. The proposal presented today is to have this new leave requirement work as a supplement to other available leave (i.e., sick leave, annual leave, compensatory time). This will meet the requirements for twelve weeks of leave for designated reasons, but will eliminate the possibil- ity of having the time added to other leave which would be difficult to manage. Mrs. Humphris said she understands that if an employee decides not to return to work after taking medical leave, the County will get reimbursed for the medical insurance expense. She wondered how this would be accomplished. Mr. Tucker replied that if there is any annual leave the employee has not used, it will be deducted from the final payment to the employee. There could be a problem if the employee has used all of his or her annual leave. Mr. Martin moved approval of Policy P-30, Family and Medical Leave Act. Mr. Marshall seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. § P-90 FD~ILY A~ MEDICAL LEAVE ACT (Supplemental Leave) Any eligible employee is entitled, as a matter of legal right, to up to a combined total of twelve (12) work weeks of paid or unpaid leave per year for the following leave situations: 1. The birth and first-year care of a child; 2. The adoption of foster placement of a child; The illness of an employee's spouse, parent, or child and 4. The employee's own illness. Child: Includes those over 18 who are disabled and cannot care for themselves, legal wards, stepchildren and others for whom the employee stands in the place of parent. Eligible Employee: An employee who has been employee at least one year and has worked at least 1250 hours during the 12 months immediately preceding the proposed leave. Family: Immediate family is defined as the employee's or spouse's children, parents, siblings and grandparents. Health Care Provider: A licensed doctor of medicine or osteopathy or any other person determined by the U.S. Secre- tary of Labor to be capable of providing health care ser- vice. 000046 September 1, 1993 (Page 23) ~ ~ Parent: as any Others who have acted in the place of a pa~ent 'to the employee. Serious Medical Condition: A physical or mental illness or an injury requiring inpatient care at a medical facility or continued treatment by a health-care provider. Supplemental Leave: Leave granted under the terms of the Act this or in general, the 12 weeks of leave required by the Act. Any such leave shall be termed Supplemental Leave. To be eligible for leave under this policy, the employee must have at least twelve (12) months of service with Albemarle County and have worked at least 1250 hours during the year preceding the commencement of the leave without pay and the employee must have exhausted all eligible compensated leave (i~e. Annual, Sick or Compensatory.) Parental Leave Upon request, any eligible employee shall be granted a leave of absence without pay for the purpose of caring for a newborn or newly adopted child for a period of up to twelve (12) weeks per year. Employees requesting parental leave must provide reasonable notice of the expected birth or adoption (30 days or more). Upon request, by an eligible employee, this leave may be extended to a maximum of one (1) year. Employee's Own Illness or Illness of Employee's Spouse, Parent or Child If medically necessary, medical leave without pay may be taken on an intermittent or reduced leave schedule until the amount of leave totals twelve (12) weeks. However, if an employee requests intermittent medical leave that is foreseeable based on planned medical treatment, the board reserves the right to require the employee to transfer temporarily to an alternative position with equal pay and benefits which better accommodates'recurring periods of absence or a part-time schedule. The medical certification for the employee's personal illness must identify the nature of the illness, the date the illness began and the projected return-to-work date. For leave to care for a seriously ill child, spouse, or parent, the medical certification must include an estimate of the amount of time the employee is needed to provide care. At the employer's discretion, recertifi- cation may be required. Conqruity of Supplemental Leave with Other Leave Rules and Requla- tions Whenever appropriate, the rules and regulations regarding leave contained in all other sections of County Policy and the remainder of this Manual shall apply, except that 1) eligible employees may elect to be paid from any Annual Leave account balances if a period of Supplemental Leave would otherwise be Leave Without Pay greater than one week (40 hours) and 2) the County shall continue any paid medical insurance benefit during any unpaid period of Supplemental Leave. The County may recover any premiums paid during unpaid Supplemental Leave if the employee fails to return to work, unless the failure to return to work is beyond the employee's control. Any paid leave granted for the purposes of the Act shall be deducted from the 12 weeks (480 hours) of Supple- mental Leave available. Takinq/Schedulinq and Medical Certification of Supplemental Leave Supplemental Leave may be taken intermittently when medically necessary. Supplemental Leave for birth, adoption or foster placement of a child must be scheduled in one continuous period unless otherwise approved by the Principal/Department Head. The employee may be required to give at least 30 days written notice in the event of foreseeable need and make a reasonable effort to schedule Supplemental Leave to minimize disruption of County operations. Those employees on an approved leave of absence, under this policy, will receive the board's health insurance contribution not to exceed twelve (12) weeks per year. Life and hospitalization insurance may be maintained during parental or medical leave for any additional time beyond twelve (12) weeks per year if the full premium for coverage is paid to the County by the employee. All benefits presently contributing towards will remain in effect i.e. annual/sick leave during twelve (12) week period. To the extent that an employee is entitled to compensated leave under other board policies, the employee must take the paid leave first (Annual/Sick/Compensatory). September 1, 1993 (Page 24) Reinstatement An employee returning to work from Supplemental Leave shall be reinstated in the former position held, or one equivalent in pay, benefits and terms of employment, unless the employee is 1) among the 10% highest paid of eligible employees, 2) denial of return is necessary to prevent substantial or grievous economic injury and 3) notice of intent not to reinstate is given either before Supplemental Leave begins or together with a reasonable period to return stated if Supplemental Leave has already begun. Employees on Supplemental Leave without pay are not eligible for any unemployment benefits. Recordkeepinq and Anti-Retaliation The Director of Human Resources shall maintain records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the Act. The Act requires also that no employee be subject to any penalty for seeking rights under the Act or for testifying for or otherwise helping other employees seek rights under the Act. Adoption This section P-90 of the Personnel Manual was adopted and is intended to fully implement the Act, subject to the penal- ties prescribed in the Act. Any variation between this policy and the Family and Medical Leave Act will be determined in favor of the Act. Legal Ref.: Family and Medical Leave Act - Public Law 103-3, 1993 Agenda Item No. 14. Work Session: Planning Commission Recommendations on Housing AdVisory Committee's Report. Mr. Cilimberg said at the July 2, 1993, work session on the Housing Advisory Committee report, the Board was provided a status on all actions, to date, in addition to two specificrecommendations of the Planning Commission. One was a proposed change in accessory apartments in all residential zoning districts which the Board deferred to staff for further review. The second was a proposal to establish a policy on rental housing which was not discussed by the Board at that time. This Rental Assisted Housing Policy and three additional proposals are the subject of this work session. The attached reports (on file) are provided for Board discussion and consideration and include the following Planning Commission recommendations: (Attachment A) - Establish a policy on Rental Assisted Housing that would: encourage and support development of 1600 rental assisted units within ten years; create an incentive system for pri- vate profit & non-profit organizations to provide these units; and, assign the task of development and utilization of the incen- tive program to a Housing Evaluation committee and the Housing coordinator. (Attachment B) - Establish a standing housing commission that would provide advice and recommendations to the Board of Supervi- sors to ensure the long term success of achieving the Comprehen- sive Plan's goal to "promote a variety of safe, sanitary and affordable housing types for County residents of all income groups". The Commission would be appointed by, and answer direct- ly to, the Board of Supervisors and would be supported by the Housing Coordinator. 3 o (Attachment C) - Establish a task force to develop specific strategies and systems to improve the employability of the target- ed population earners in Albemarle County in order to increase the wage earning potential of these individuals. (Attachment D) Establish a committee of builders, contractors and staff to examine the current building code to: Identify opportunities for cost reduction now allowed by the Code; and Identify changes that could further reduce the cost of residential construction. Mr. Cilimberg said if the Board adopts a Rental Housing Policy and intends to establish a Housing Commission, it may want to consider deferring the establishment of the temporary Housing Evaluation Committee until the new Housing Commission and Housing Coordinator can assess this proposal and thus September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000048 avoid creation of another committee at this time. In addition, the Board may want to consider expanding the scope of the Employability Task Force to incorporate, not only the emploYability of our lowest wage earners, but to study this in context of the broader issue of employability, unemployment and underemployment as recently discussed by the Board. (Mr. Tucker left at 11:48 a.m., and he returned at 11:52 a.m.) Mr. Bain called attention to the March 2, 1993 memorandum from David Benish, of the Planning Department, where the Proposed Policy Statement indicated that assisted rental units should be located in scattered sites within designated growth areas and within each magisterial district. He wondered if this is realistic. Mr. Cilimberg answered that to some extent it might be realistic to accommodate these units for a short time. He thinks the matter involving a term of ten to 20 years needs to be addressed in the review of the Comprehensive Plan as far as whether or not there is enough land acquisition available to provide this type of scattered housing. He noted, though, that this matter can be addressed in different ways. One of the national trends is to have different levels of affordable housing within the same developments. Mr. Bain remarked that he knows a situation which has not worked in this area since the beginning, and he would be amazed if such a program is going to work now. It does not seem realistic to him because he has talked to developers, etc., and he believes there would have to be some strong incentives. However, he does not think it should be that way. Mr. Cilimberg noted that there might be an opportunity to earn density credits in one location and use them somewhere else. Mr. Marshall stated that when there is high density development, there are expensive lots, and people are always looking for something cheaper. People want to live in the rural areas, because it is cheaper. There are large numbers of vacancies in apartments, rental housing, duplexes and homes in this community now. There are more vacancies than there have ever been before, but housing is not being utilized for two reasons. Retail jobs are paying poorly, and people cannot afford to pay the rent that property owners have to charge for the property. Since he is involved in similar matters, he is aware of what he has invested in his property. In order to get a return from property, a certain amount of money has to be charged for rent, and people cannot afford the housing that is available to them. Mr. Marshall went on to say that Section 8 does not supply enough money, in many cases, for people to rent a specific unit for their needs. This amount needs to be increased, or it should be subsidized to where people can work at minimum wage and not be penalized to where they cannot afford housing. Mr. Cilimberg responded that he was involved in a discussion about this matter recently. It has been the experience of the property owners that the Section 8 program's fair market rent established for this area is not high enough. Mr. Marshall agreed that this is a big problem. Mr. Cilimberg stated that Section 8 will pay the difference between the individual's 30 percent of income and the actual rental of the unit up to the fair market rent. Mr. Marshall noted that the fair market rent is lower than the property values. He is having to rent property for less than the amount of money that he invested, because there are so many vacancies. This will not always be the case. He stated that when a landowner has $120,000 invested in a piece of property, the landowner will need to get $1,200 a month rent from it to break even. The assessments in the County and City have constantly increased, and when property is bought or sold, it is at that value, and Section 8 nowhere near approaches the assessed values. Either the assessments will have to be decreased, which would be impossible to do, or Section 8 funds will have to be increased. Mr. Cilimberg said during the last year adjustments have been made involving fair market value, but they have not been accepted by the Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He noted that many landlords, particularly those with a lot of property, are concerned about Section 8 tenants. Mr. Bowerman concurred that this is his understanding. He added that a lot of landowners do not want to deal with Section 8 tenants because of their fear of financial loss, if the apartment is destroyed. This is probably an unreasonable expectation, but the proposed committee could devise strategies which could have some sort of guarantees to landlords, who would participate in the Section $ program, to mitigate that particular concern. He added that actually adopting strategies to accomplish the 1,600 units makes sense to him, especially if it involves the private sector. Incentives should be considered for the private sector to get this started. This will involve the Comprehen- sive Plan, but without someone looking actively at the situation, the County will not move from this point. Mr. Marshall said a security deposit guarantee would help the property owners who are concerned about the problem to which Mr. Bowerman referred. From his own experience, however, when there is a large number of units and a Section 8 individual is included with other tenants, the other tenants resent the Section 8 individual and will move. He does not know how this problem can be solved. Mr. Bowerman remarked that the other tenants do not have to know that a person is a Section 8 participant. Mr. Marshall said that is true, but somehow people find out these things within 30 days time. Mr. Bain said he read in the information about the success the Children and Youth Commission (CAYC). He does not equate this to the housing program, September 1, 1993 (Regular Day~'Mee~ing) (Page 26) 000049 because CAYC is involved with the City of Charlottesville and the County. The City has its problems, a~d'~'theC°~tY has different problems with which to deal. There could be some cooperation between the two'entities, but he thinks the proposed committee will have a long term, intense involvement in the County. He wants to see an involvement that transcends the community. He envisions the Committee focusing on housing and informing State and Federal governments that there are things they need to do to help the local communi- ties. These things need to be identified and they can be done. Mr. Marshall remarked that the Committee will need to work closely with the City, particularly when dealing with the Section 8 program. The City and County need to be doing the same thing because they are so closely related. He pointed out that an individual with three children in Albemarle County cannot be given $525 a month while the City of Charlottesville gives its residents in similar circumstances $600. More importantly, there are resi- dents of Nelson, Fluvanna, Greene, Buckingham and other surrounding counties who will move here, if Albemarle County provides such services. As soon as public housing is completed in the City, the people from surrounding counties will move there. He said City officials find that they have not provided housing for the people in the City because of the other people moving there. He pointed out that, by law, these people cannot be excluded. He reiterated that regional cooperation is necessary in this whole endeavor, so that one locality does not experience the entire financial burden of other localities. Mr. Bain noted that City officials have complained that the County is not doing enough, as far as housing is concerned. Mr. Marshall said that it is a valid complaint. He also stated that if decent jobs are provided for people, they would not need so much financial help with housing. Mr. Bain agreed with Mr. Marshall that the surrounding counties are causing a lot of the problems. He noted that a similar situation has been happening with the City and County school systems, because of the special education programs. These programs have attracted people from outside the school districts to move here. He emphasized that this costs the City and County substantially. Mrs. Humphris asked what are the implications for the term "commission" versus "board" or "committee". She wondered if there are any legal implica- tions. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Housing Coalition recommended the title. Mrs. Humphris said she does not understand whether the title of commission means anything different from another title. Mr. Cilimberg said he is unsure if there is a legal reason behind this title. Mr. St. John said he is also unsure if there is a legal difference between the titles, but he would investigate this matter. He then explained that a committee takes no action, and it simply advises the Board of Supervi- sors, but there is no law which indicates that certain titles must have certain functions. Customarily the word "commission" means the group has been given a commission or charge to do something, but it may not have authority over other people, such as a board of directors. He went on to say that a commission has a task to perform. He reiterated that the titles are just names, and there is no law which requires that one or the other of these names be used. Mr. Cilimberg said he believes the Housing Coalition thought of the title of commission as possibly a level of responsibility to the Board of Supervisors equivalent to a planning commission's responsibility. The Coalition views the situation as one whereby the Supervisors are creating another body that has responsibility delegated directly to it, and by that title, it is taking on some level of importance. He then called attention to the recommendation which came from the Planning Commission that the proposed commission would report to the Board of Supervisors, and the Housing Coordina- tor would be a staff person to the commission. He said the commission members would have appointments with certain terms. Mr. St. John asked if the commission would be funded and if it would have to account for the funds that it receives. Mr. Cilimberg responded that this matter was not discussed, but the Housing Coordinator's position will be funded. Mrs. Humphris said the Board needs to know all of these things. Mr. Cilimberg said he does not think the Planning Commission or the County staff can provide this type of information. This is something that will need to be discussed with the County Executive as far as funding will work within the governmental structure. Mrs. Humphris asked if the staff could draft an outline of the powers, duties and compensation. Mr. Tucker said the staff will give this matter some thought, as well as the other issue concerning the title of the proposed group. Mr. Bain said he thinks it makes a lot of sense to tie in education and training with unemployment and underemployment, although he does not think there should be a lot of duplication, as far as subcommittees, committees or citizens groups are concerned. He does not want one g~oup to slow down another group, if a group is already working on unemployment or underemploy- ment. He said this matter needs to move ahead so that it can be tied into the Comprehensive Plan. September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting). (Page 27) 000050 Mr. Bowerman referred~0 the P°iiC~ relative to supporting the develop- ment of 1,600 rental-aSSisted units within ten years. Mrs. Humphris said implementing that program will b~a~6hai'len~e, but it is worth trying, because of the information which will come from the proposed commission. Mr. Bowerman commented that this information will be one of the primary tasks. This group will need to give the Supervisors recommendations as to how it would implement and achieve these 1,600 units. He would like to see some appointments of people who are committed to doing that, and Who will have some defined responsibility and authority. Mr. St. John suggested the Board have the proposed commission look into the feasibility of achieving 1,600 units before a policy is adopted. If a policy is adopted for 1,600 units, and the number is not met, a legal liabili- ty will be involved. The proper order would not be followed, if the goal of 1,600 units is established before the commission is in place to see if that number is feasible. Mr. Martin said the commission could be appointed and the members given a charge to determine the strategies necessary to accomplish 1,600 units. If strategies to achieve these units cannot be found, the commission members could tell the Supervisors what they think is realistic. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Planning Commission meant the 1,600 units as a goal for which the County could strive. It was not meant to be a situation where, if the goal of 1,600 units was not met, the County would have violated its own policy. Mrs. Humphris noted that the wording is confusing in that it indicates a policy should be established to accomplish these goals. She asked if these units will be the policy because the policy is established, or is the Board just establishing a policy which encourages and supports these goals. Mr. Benish explained the Planning Commission wanted the recommendations structured as goals, and the policy was to encourage and support the goals. Mr. Marshall suggested that the word, "goal," be substituted for the word, "policy". Mr. Bain asked when the Housing Coordinator would be hired. Mr. Tucker replied that the advertising for the Housin9 Coordinator position is currently being done. Interviews will be held and a selection probably made sometime this month. Mr. Bowerman asked if the Board is in agreement that the executive staff should bring back a more specific recommendation as to the formation, make-up and responsibilities of this proposed commission and provide a recommended structure, and that the Board is not going to adopt a goal standard for 1,600 units. Mr. Tucker answered that the number of units could be left out, with the understanding that the first responsibility of the proposed commission would be to provide a recommended structure for a goals statement for an achievable number of rental assisted units to be developed. Mr. Bain felt the Housing Committee arrived at this number by looking at the shortfall, but the proposed commission can determine what needs to be done. He said the goal of 1,600 units may never be reached, or, by that time, more units may be needed. Mr. Benish noted that the number of units was based on the market, but the market can change. That is why the number needs to be monitored. Mr. Tucker pointed out that the opportunity will be there, with the update of the Comprehensive Plan, to make amendments to the number of units from time to time. If the goal is not reached, the number of units will be extended or reduced. Mr. Martin commented that it makes sense to him that when someone starts an endeavor, the goal is to achieve what that person started out to do. If 1,600 units are predicted by the Housing Committee as the number of units that are needed, then the County should start out with the goal of achieving the original objective. The objective could be modified, if it is found that the goal is unrealistic. The important thing is to get the commission formed so that information can come back to this Board. Mr. St. John asked if this goal is contingent on the continued federal program for rental assistance that is already in place in the County. Mr. Tucker responded that this goal is over and above that program. Mrs. Humphris noted that she is unsure what the Supervisors are supposed to do with the report. Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the fourth recommendation relating to establishing a committee of builders, contractors and staff to examine the current building code which would identify opportunities for cost reduction now allowed by the Code and to identify changes that could further reduce the cost of residential construction. This recommendation is specific, and he wondered if the Supervisors feel this is worth pursuing. Mr. St. John said there is little County officials can do, as far as recommendation four is concerned. This will take action from the State. Mr. September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) O00051 (Page 28) Cilimberg responded that this particUlar committee can make recommendations through the Board to Richmond. Mr. Bowerman asked how the Supervisors feel about this recommendation. Mr. Martin said he would like to move forward with the recommendation. Mr. Bowerman wondered if this process would interfere with some other activities that are currently underway. Mr. Bain asked if builders were currently involved with activities on a regular basis in the Couhty that could tie in with the recommendation. Mr. Tucker mentioned that there is one committee currently in the County that might be related. Mr. Marshall remarked that most of the complaints he has heard about government housing programs relate to the many steps which a person will have to go through, which slows down the process. The proposed commission could examine this process to see if a liaison position would be helpful in this situation. Mr. Cilimberg said the County Engineer is currently involved with setting up a committee relative to building codes. Mr. Bowerman said that it is a good idea, and he asked for specific recommendations as to how to implement this committee. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the process is already in place, but the committee members have not been appointed. Mr. Bowerman asked for a recommendation on which this Board can act. Mrs. Humphris called attention to the report of the ad hoc Committee on Education and Training which was made up of Dr. Paskel (School Superinten- dent), Karen Morris (Director of Social Services) and Jane Dittmar (President of the Chamber of Commerce). She thought everything was fine until she got to the very last item which said, "Support a County Economic Development program which would increase the job base to create a healthy balance between the population needing jobs and job availability." She asked what is meant by the words, "support a County Economic Development program .... " Mr. Benish said he has been sitting in on the discussions of this Committee. His recollection of the discussions is that the County would consider an economic development planning type of program. The Committee did not have ~ny thoughts as to the specifics of the program. Mrs. Humphris said this statement raises all of the questions that this Board has been dealing with relative to the County's Economic Development Policy. It brings up questions of dollars and resources, and she wondered if the Committee members' statement related to stimulation and recruiting. She believes this Committee has gone into an area with which they should not be dealing. This Board has been talking about education and training, and all of a sudden this Committee mentions an Economic Development Program. Mr. Martin remarked that the Committee clearly stated that it is going to consider underemployment and wages. It does not make sense to get too involved in these types of discussions until the different strategies are outlined. He thinks economic development will have to be part of the equation when housing is considered. The question is not how much a house costs, but instead, it is how much a person can afford to pay for it. Mrs. Humphris noted that the Task Force discussed everything that is involved with an Economic Development Program, and she wanted to make her point relative to the report of this Task Force. She reiterated that she felt as though the Task Force overreached itself in making' this recommendation. She does not think the Task Force should have been treading in that territory, because this Board has a long term goal of working on decisions relative to economic development. She does not believe this should be the charge of the Task Force. There was no further discussion. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:27 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn into executive session under Virginia Code § 2.1-344.A.1, for a discussion of personnel matters, specifically for interviewing candi- dates for appointment to various boards and commissions. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18. Certify Executive Session. At 3:06 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of certification: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETIN~ WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirma- tive recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and September 1, 1993 (Regular .Day Meeting) 0000~2 (Page 29) WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 and 2.1-344.A.7 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that such executive meeting was conducted in conformi- ty with Virginia law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. VOTE: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT DURING VOTE: None. ABSENT DURING MEETING: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Work Session: Road Naming and Addressing Ordi- nance. Mr. Robert B. Brandenburger, Assistant County Executive, said most proposed changes (particularly to the manual) are of an editorial or "house- keeping" nature to provide: consistent usage of language/terms found in other documents such as the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; internal consistency in the ordinance and manual; and particularly consistency between the Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties Ordinance and Manual. Major substantive changes to the ordinance and manual are the focus of the memorandum to the Board. Ordinance: Review of the "Road Name" Ordinance was prompted by existing language of §16.01-6. The effective date for address numbers to be displayed of that section caused concern to the Inspections Department. After discus- sion among several agencies, other potential administrative problems were identified and curative language was developed. Major substantive changes are as follows: A new provision for existing unnamed roads [§16.0t-1(c), paragraph 5]'where the County would be responsible for the road signs when needed. 2o A change to the effective date for numbering requirements of §16.01-6. The County is currently unable to assign numbers outside of major subdivisions until new address notifications have taken place (tentatively scheduled for November, 1993). A change to the second sentence of §16.01-6 to make the provision applicable in the case of named roads, so as to avoid prolonged delay to a property owner seeking an occupancy permit (a number cannot be assigned until a road has been named, see also #1 above). A change to §16.01-7 to clarify that the provision applies to family divisions regarding naming/signing requirements. Manual: Following the review of the ordinance, the manual was reviewed for consistency with the ordinance. Duplicative language/terms were deleted and a general effort was made to shorten and simplify the manual. Major substantive changes are as follows: The Director of Planning and Community Development would be authorized to modify, vary or waive certain standards (Part I, Sections 4 and 5). The permissible number of characters in a road name has been reduced to reduce the overall sign length in order to increase durability (from wind damage) [Part I, Section 4(c)]. A special procedure would be available to the Director of Engi- neering to allow alternatives to the sign post specifications [Part III, Section 3(c)]. Mr. Bowerman asked for an example of a homonym, so that he could understand the effect of it in the ordinance. Mr. Tucker replied that a homonym is a word that sounds the same, but it is spelled differently such as, "their" and "there;" and "here" and "hear." Mr. Martin commented that the Board adopted this ordinance last year, but because of the date for it to become effective, the ordinance will have to 0000S3 September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) be adopted again, in addition to taking it t° a public hearing. Mr. Branden- burger responded that thelordinance has to be amended because of the date, plus other changes. Staff has had~a~dhance to examine the ordinance and found some procedural inconsistencies. Mr. Brandenburger said staff is suggesting the manual not be adopted today, because if the ordinance is changed, it may result in other changes to the manual, since they are related. He said staff is suggesting that the ordinance be approved first, and then if there are no changes, the manual can be adopted by resolution at the same meeting. Mr. Bain then offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to set a public hearing for October 13, 1993, on the Naming of Roads and Numbering of Proper- ties Ordinance, with the proposed changes to Chapter 16.01 of the County Code. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Mr. Tex Weaver, of the Planning staff, distributed an updated outline of the implementation schedule for the naming of roads, etc. He discussed the schedule, as well as some of the problems that have been encountered with the road naming. He noted that staff anticipates signing the final set of maps in late October. There is currently a verification team which was hired by the consultants, and this team will be completing its activities in the County by the third week of September. The team is actually going to every household in the County to make sure that the house location matches the location on the map. He described the program elements. He said that November has been targeted as address notification, subject to the matter being confirmed at a work session later this month. It is projected that the Enhanced 911 program will become operational in late April or early May, 1994. Mr. Bowerman noted that, as far as vandalism and sign installation are concerned, he has discovered that there are screws which can be put into signs, but they Cannot be taken out. Mr. Weaver went on with his presentation, and he recalled that last year the Board's policy was to allow for changes to the ordinance one last time. There should be an opportunity to make those changes immediately following the address notification, provided that the address notification is in effect at the beginning of November. He has a list of contact persons for each peti- tion, and to date there are 33 who have asked for road name changes. He has the address, phone number and name of each of the contact persons, and these persons are aware that these petitions will be processed once the address notification has taken effect. He will be sending a letter out to these individuals apprising them of the exact policy and procedure, once the address notification date is settled. He mentioned that of the 33 requests for road name changes, he believes that one-half or three-quarters of them are serious, and the people will follow through on the petitions. Mr. Perkins asked if these are public or private roads. Mr. Weaver answered that most of them are private roads. Agenda Item No. 16a. Appropriation: Fire Services Program. Mr. Tucker said funds from the State Fire Service Program are received each year to be used for purchase of equipment or training. Albemarle County has always allocated the total amount equally to the seven volunteer fire departments. Since the amount received for FY 1993-94 exceeded the budgeted projection by $312.69, that amount must be appropriated at this time. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930015 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FROM THE STATE FIRE SERVICE PROGRAM EXCEEDED BUDGET PROJECTIONS. APPROPRIATIONS ARE BEING INCREASED TO DISBURSE FUNDS TO VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100032020560702 NORTH GARDEN VFD 1100032020560802 SCOTTSVILLE VFD 1100032020560902 CROZET VFD 1100032020561002 EARLYSVILLE VFD 1100032020561102 EAST RIVANNA VFD 1100032020561202 STONY POINT VFD 1100032020561302 SEMINOLE TRAIL VFD TOTAL AMOUNT $44.67 44.67 44.67 44.67 44.67 44.67 44.67 $312.69 September 1, 1993 (Regular DaY Meeting) 000054 (Page 31) ~ ! i'~i REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240417 FiRE ~E~V~E'~PROG~ $312.69 TOTAL $312.69 Agenda Item No. 16b. Appropriation: Special Education Pre-School Grant. Mr. Tucker said the reappropriation of the remaining fund balance for this 1992-93 grant is needed to operate the summer preschool program this year. Mrs. Humphris asked if this reappropriation is for next year. Mr. Tucker responded that the funds will be used for this year. He explained that there is a balance left from last year, and the balance needs to be reappro- priated for this current year's budget. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930016 FUND: SPECIAL EDUCATION GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PRESCHOOL GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1320561108132105 SALARIES-PRESCHOOL $12,723/53 TOTAL $12,723.53 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2320533000330111 SP. ED. PRESCHOOL GRANT $12,723.53 TOTAL $12,723.53 Agenda Item No. 16c. Appropriation: VEA Mini-Grant for Stony Point Elementary School. Mr. Tucker said a grant in the amount of $200 was received from the Task Force on New Priorities for Stony Point School. This grant will enable children, staff and parents to develop a people-to-people connection with China. In addition, the Stony Point PTO will match funds with the grant for this project. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. FISCAL YEAR: 1993-94 NUMBER: 930018 FI/ND: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VEA MINI GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1221161101601300 RECREATIONAL/INSTR. SUPPLIES TOTAL AMOUNT $200.00 $200.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2200024000240257 VEA MINI-GRANT $200.OO TOTAL $200.00 Agenda Item No. 16d. Appropriation: Transfer of Funds in Instructional Technology. Mr. Tucker said the transfer of funds within the Instructional Technolo- gy budget will better facilitate accounting procedures. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr% Bain, to adopt the following resolution of appropriation approving the request. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. September 1, 1993 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) ~: ..... FISCJLL YEJ~: 1993/94 NUMBER: 930019 ~ID: SCHOOL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: 000055 TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR INSTRUCTIONAL TECHNOLOGY EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1211561320332104 REP/MAINT-EQUIP-DATA PROCESSING 1211561320332111 REP/MAINT-EQUIP-AUDIO VISUAL 1211561320600705 PARTS/MATERIALS-AUDIO VISUAL 1211561320600710 PARTS/MATERIALS-DATA PROCESSING 1211561411332104 REP/MAINT-EQUIP-DATA PROCESSING 1211561411332111 REP/MAINT-EQUIP-AUDIO VISUAL 1211561411600705 PARTS/MATERIALS-AUDIO VISUAL 1211561411600710 PARTS/MATERIALS-DATA PROCESSING 1211562190332104 REP/MAI~-EQUIP-DATA PROCESSING' 1211562190332111 REP/MAINT-EQUIP-AUDIO VISUAL 1211562190600705 PARTS/MATERIALS-AUDIO VISUAL 1211562190600710 PARTS/MATERIALS-DATA PROCESSING TOTAL $12,000.00 700.00 300.00 2,500.00 (58,000.00) (5O0.00) (200.00) (4,000.00) (2,000.00) (200.00) (100.00) (500.00) $0.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Agenda Item No. 19. Appointments. Mr. Martin nominated Ms. Lisa Keyes Glass to the Jordan Development Corporation, with term to begin on September 1, 1993, and to expire on August 13, 1994. Mr. Martin nominated Mr. Lawrence D. Cabot, Jr., to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, with term to begin on September 1, 1993, and to expire on March 31, 1995. Mr. Marshall nominated Mr. Irvin R. Land, Jr., to the JAUNT Board, with term to begin on September 1, 1993, and to expire on September 30, 1997. Mrs. Humphris nominated Mr. David E. Krohn to the Joint Airport Commis- sion, with term to begin December 1, 1993, and to expire on December 1, 1996. Mr. Bain nominated Ms. Thelma E. Whiting to the Children and Youth Commission, with her term to begin on July 1, 1993, and to expire on June 30, 1996. Mr. Bain nominated Mr. Richard T. Spurzem to the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee, with term to begin on July 1, 1993, and to expire on December 31, 1995. Mr. Bain nominated Mr. John Pollock to the Rivanna Solid Waste Citizens Advisory Committee with, term to begin on January 1, 1994, and to expire on December 31, 1995. Mrs. Humphris seconded all of the nominations. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 20. Cancel Board meeting for September 8, 1993. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to cancel the Board meeting for September 8, 1993. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins, Bain and Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. ~ There were no other matters. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:31 p.m.