The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-02-21February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors was held on February 21, at 7:00 p.m., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman; Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier; Jr., Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris; Mr. Charles S. Martin; Mr. Walter F. Perkins, and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Mr. Larry Davis; Chief of Planning and Community Development, Mr. David Benish; and Senior Deputy Clerk, Ms. Laurel A. Bentley. Agenda Item No. 1. The Chairman, Ms. Thomas, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. _______________ 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. Ms. Humphris made a motion to approve Consent Agenda Items 5.1 through 5.4 with the following corrections: the location of the property in Consent Agenda Item 5.2 should be changed from three miles west of Route 29 to 1.3 miles east of Route 29; Consent Agenda Item 5.3 should indicate that the Glenorchy Subdivision will be included in its entirety except for one parcel, as noted in the public hearing, for addition to the jurisdictional area boundaries for the County Service Authority; and to accept for information Consent Agenda Items 5.6 and 5.7; as well as to adopt a resolution relating to Item 5.6 similar to Madison County’s resolution. She said Consent Agenda Item 5.5 will be voted on separately. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. (Note: Conversation concerning the various items are shown as part of that item.) Roll was called and the motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Martin. _______________ Item No. 5.1. Resolution of Intent to amend regulations in the Zoning Ordinance relating to home occupations. The executive summary states that personal computers, fax machines and modern telecommuni- cations services provide easy access to the world from one’s home. The cottage industries that used to comprise the field of home occupations are no longer limited to piano teachers, dressmakers and one- chair barbershops. Today, an individual may conduct one or more businesses from the home, some- times in addition to holding a regular job outside the home. The County receives between 300 and 400 home occupation applications each year, and the number is likely to continue to increase in the future. The current home occupation regulations have become substantively inadequate to deal not only with the wide range of home occupations, but also the land use impacts resulting from those home occupations. For example, the current home occupation regulations do not identify the range of occupa- tions that may be conducted as home occupations. Moreover, some of the substantive requirements in the current regulations lack the desired degree of specificity to allow their easy implementation. While these substantive regulations are being considered, it is suggested that the procedural requirements for home occupations be reviewed and amended where necessary as well. Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance relating to home occupations. (Ms. Thomas said telecommuting is a growing area of interest, and it is mentioned often by the MPO. There are also recommendations by the Governor’s Transportation Commission on telecommuting opportunities. She would be happy to share these things with staff members if they don’t already have copies. She stated that this is an updating type of situation that needs to be taken into account. Mr. Dorrier inquired if there would be a committee appointed to work on this issue. Ms. Thomas answered, “no.” The matter will be handled by the Planning staff. Mr. Dorrier stated that hopefully the staff members will interview people with home occupations. Ms. Humphris commented that the staff knows a lot of people with home occupations. The reason for doing this is because of all the changes that have come about with telecommuting and the fact that people are being encouraged not to get into their cars and go places if they don’t have to do so. This is one good way to do it, but it brings into play some other concerns. February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) Mr. Dorrier said he would like to see people with home occupations brought into the process in the early stages. Ms. Humphris mentioned that currently the County has over 400 home occupation permits. The staff works with the holders of these permits all the time as things change. Mr. Tucker remarked that the staff receives requests for between 300 and 400 home occupation permits per year. He then asked Ms. McCulley if she has an idea of the total home occupations in the County. Ms. McCulley concurred with Mr. Tucker that between 300 and 400 home occupation permits are issued per year, and it is a steady number. When zoning began in 1969 there were not as many, but there have been tens of thousands of these permits issued over the years.) By the above-recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: RESOLUTION OF INTENT WHEREAS, Section 5.2, Home Occupations, of the Zoning Ordinance establishes regulations pertaining to home occupations; and WHEREAS, it is desired to amend Section 5.2 to assure that home occupations will have minimum land use impacts so that the character of the neighborhoods in which they are situated is preserved and they do not become a detriment to adjacent properties; and WHEREAS, it is also desired to amend Section 5.2 and any other related regulations of the Zoning Ordinance to revise the procedures for applying for, reviewing, issuing and revoking authorizations for home occupations. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 5.2 and any other related regulations of the Zoning Ordinance as described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. _______________ Item No. 5.2. Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 & 30A (Baker- Butler Elementary School). The executive summary states that the applicant, the Albemarle County School Board, is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water and sewer service to a 53 acre site (Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A) which is the location for the new Baker-Butler Elementary School. The property is located on the west side of Proffit Road, approximately 3 miles west of Route 29 (Attachment A). The subject property is located in the Hollymead Community Development Area. The western portion of Parcel 30 is already in the Jurisdictional Area for water and sewer service (Attachment B). The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas: “General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109).” “Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125). ” “Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125).” As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing on March 21, 2001 to consider water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A. (Ms. Humphris questioned the sentence in the executive summary which mentioned that the location of the property was approximately three miles west of Route 29, and she wondered if the statement should indicate that the property is east of Route 29. Mr. Benish concurred that Ms. Humphris is correct. He also mentioned that the statement should indicate that the property is 1.3 miles east of Route 29 instead of three miles west of Route 29.) By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing for March 21, 2001 to consider water and sewer service to Tax Map 46, Parcels 30 and 30A. _______________ Item No. 5.3. Request to set a public hearing to amend the jurisdictional area boundaries of the February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) Albemarle County Service Authority for water service to Tax Map 78B, Block P, Parcel 4, located in Glenorchy Subdivision. The executive summary states that the applicant is requesting Jurisdictional Area designation for water service to a parcel (Tax Map 78, Block B, Parcel 4) in the Glenorchy subdivision which is located on the north side of Route 250 East in Urban Area Three (Pantops), just west of the I-64 Interchange. The applicant is requesting water service due to a failing well on- site. There is limited opportunity for locating a new well on the property. The subject property is located in the Urban Area Neighborhood Three. The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the Development Areas: “General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p. 109).” “Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 125).” “Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.125).” All of the lots within the Glenorchy subdivision are located within the designated Development Area, with the exception of a portion of one parcel (Tax Map 78B, Parcel 1). As a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacity should be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with public utility policy of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff recommends proceeding to public hearing on March 21, 2001 to consider water service to Tax Map 78B, Block B Parcel 4. Since Glenorchy is located within the designated Development Area the provision of both water and sewer service to all of the lots would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan public utility policy. The Board may want to consider amending the Jurisdictional Area boundary to include all lots in Glenorchy that are within the Urban Area Neighborhood Three boundary for water and sewer service. (Ms. Humphris said the staff had suggested that the Board members might want to consider amending the jurisdictional boundary lines to cover all the lots in Glenorchy that are within the urban area Neighborhood Three boundary for water and sewer service. She asked if the staff wants the Supervisors to make this decision now. Mr. Benish responded that it would be preferable if the Board members make the decision at this time. Ms. Humphris wondered if this would cover everything except for Tax Map 78B, Parcel 1. Mr. Benish answered affirmatively. Mr. Tucker said it would be easier if the Board makes a separate motion for this matter. He added that the staff understands what the Board intends if this is approved.) By the above-recorded vote, the Board set the public hearing for March 21, 2001 to consider water service to all the lots in Glenorchy Subdivision except Tax Map 78B, Parcel 1. _______________ Item No. 5.4. Appropriation: DMV Child Safety Grant Inspection Team OP01-57-57157, $6,700.00 (Form #20041). The Police Department has entered into a regional partnership regarding child safety issues. The partnership includes State Farm, The Institute of Highway Safety, Drive Smart Virginia, The University of Virginia Health Systems, Martha Jefferson Hospital and area public safety agencies. State Farm has taken a national leadership role in educating the public and public safety/health officials in the dramatic increase in the number of children being seriously injured or killed in motor vehicle crashes across the country. Many of these injuries or deaths may have been prevented with proper safety restraints. Our Police Department plays a “key” role in the partnership. Through our traffic enforcement and educational efforts, we can focus attention on this problem. Our Community Policing Division attends numerous neighborhood events throughout the year. These events afford us an excellent opportunity to promote traffic safety education. Our officers are often asked to demonstrate the correct methods to install child safety seats or answer questions in general pertaining to safety restraint systems. As public safety officials and partners in this regional effort, it is important that our officers know the proper methods to install child safety seats. The Child Safety Grant provides funding for: (a) training of our Traffic and Neighborhood Resources Officers in vehicle occupant protection systems; (b) our public service educational campaign; (c) replacement equipment – reflective traffic cones and portable signs; and (d) a portable awning, which will be used by the partnership for major community events. February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) The actual grant is for $6,000.00. These are all federal flow-through funds. The local match, including $700 presented in the appropriation request, is provided as in-kind personnel activities and equipment usage that will be funded from current operations. Chief Miller will be present at the meeting to answer any questions the Board may have regarding this grant. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation 20041 in the amount of $6,700.00. (Ms. Humphris stated that she has told Chief Miller about the ad she saw in the newspaper pertaining to the child safety seats. This makes it much more palatable than the way it was originally presented to the Board. She pointed out that Chief Miller is in the audience. Mr. Tucker said he had asked Chief Miller to be present in case there were questions from Board members about this program.) By the above shown vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution of Appropriation: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 2000/01 NUMBER: 20041 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: DMV GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORYDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 1 1532 31013 800100 EQUIPMENT $6,700.00 TOTAL$6,700.00 REVENUE COST CENTER/CATEGORYDESCRIPTIONAMOUNT 2 1532 33000 330011 EDERAL DMV GRANT $6,000.00 2 1532 51000 512004 GENERAL FUND TRANSFER700.00 TOTAL$6,700.00 _______________ Item No. 5.5. Resolution to Deny SDP-2000-119. (Mr. Martin said the proposed resolution seems to misrepresent what really happened when it states that, “ . . . . the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County hereby denies Home Depot’s application . . . . ” He said he does not think this Board denied the application. He stated that the Board denied Home Depot’s request for modification to the Planning Commission’s decision on a three to three tie vote. He remarked that the resolution looks as though the Board unanimously denied the request. Mr. Davis explained that there are two different actions required. One was the action on the critical slopes waiver which the Board denied on a three to three vote. A separate action related to the appeal of the site plan to the Board of Supervisors given the action that the critical slopes waiver had been denied. This resolution sets forth the denial of the site plan waiver which is an action the Board needs to take tonight. Mr. Martin remarked that he does not think the resolution adequately shows that this was a three to three split vote. Mr. Davis agreed, but since there is a denial of the critical slopes waiver, there is no way the Board can approve the site plan. Mr. Martin then wondered why the resolution is needed, if this is the case. Mr. Davis noted that the resolution is needed because the Board has to take an action. Mr. Martin said that the Board’s action would probably be a three to three vote, so he would like to pull this item for a separate vote. Mr. Perkins asked what the Board will be voting for, if all of the members vote in favor of the resolution. Mr. Davis stated that the Board will be setting forth the reason why the site plan has to be denied. He reiterated that given the fact that the critical slopes waiver has been denied, there is no way the Board can approve the site plan. Next, Mr. Martin wondered about the three Board members who wanted to approve the critical slopes waiver. He asked if the same action should not be indicated for the resolution by these three Supervisors, since the critical slopes waiver was not really denied. Mr. Davis again said the waiver was denied on a three to three vote. Mr. Perkins suggested that the three to three vote be referenced in the resolution which means that the appeal failed. Mr. Martin said the Board didn’t deny anything. He stated that it was the appeal that died. Mr. Davis emphasized that the waiver was denied because there was a motion to approve it which failed. Mr. Martin argued that there was no motion to deny so the Board didn’t deny anything. Mr. Davis explained that pursuant to the rules of procedure a three to three vote is a denial. Mr. Martin said he thought a three to three vote maintains the status quo, which means this Board let the Planning Commission’s decision stand, but didn’t actually deny or approve anything. Mr. Dorrier concurred with Mr. Martin’s comments. Mr. Dorrier went on to say there was an appeal to this Board to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision, February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) and it reached a stalemate with the supervisors. Mr. Davis commented that if there had been a motion to deny the item, he would agree, but since the motion was for approval which failed on a three to three vote, the waiver was denied by this Board. He said this action upheld the decision by the Planning Commission. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the Planning Commission is not mentioned in the resolution. Mr. Davis noted that the Planning Commission is mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the resolution, which he read to the Board. Mr. Tucker inquired if Mr. Davis can state that the motion failed on a three to three vote which is actually what happened. Mr. Davis said this would be no different, since it is just semantics. Mr. Martin stated that it may just be semantics, but he feels as though there was a semantics problem involved when the Board came out of closed session and voted to send this back for both sides to review to see if there could be a further compromise. He noted that what three of the Board members thought they were doing was totally different from what the other three thought was happening. Ms. Thomas asked if Mr. Martin would be satisfied if the words “by way of a tie vote” were added after the word “denied” in the fifth clause of the resolution. Mr. Martin said he would like to take a vote on the issue because it would make the situation clearer. He went on to explain that the Board members’ actions were very clear because they tied with a three to three vote on a motion to deny the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Bowerman remarked that this would defeat the resolution. Mr. Dorrier suggested that the staff bring the resolution back to the Board at the end of this meeting after some rewording is done. Mr. Davis stated that he has no idea what type of rewording is necessary other than to specify the tie vote on the critical slopes waiver. Mr. Perkins said this would satisfy him. Mr. Davis explained that he could add after the words “on appeal” in the fifth clause the words “by a three to three vote.” Mr. Perkins questioned if the words “by a three to three vote” should be added after the words “critical slopes waiver.” Mr. Davis suggested that these words be added only on the first line of the fifth clause after the word “denied.” Mr. Martin commented that he thinks it should be clearer that the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision of denial. Ms. Thomas noted that she thinks this is how it is already stated. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the applicant is the only person who can appeal. Mr. Dorrier suggested that the first paragraph could include language indicating that the applicant was appealing the decision of the Planning Commission and was seeking approval of a preliminary site plan. He noted that the appeal is what brought the matter to this Board. Next, Mr. Davis suggested that the first line of the resolution could include the words, “WHEREAS, Home Depot sought on appeal from the Planning Commission . . . . ” He said the remainder of the sentence will be the same. Ms. Thomas mentioned that the fifth “WHEREAS” clause will include the words “on appeal” denied by a three to three vote . . . . ” Mr. Dorrier said this new language satisfies him. Mr. Martin stated that the language in the resolution seems disconnected. Mr. Dorrier pointed out that the word “appeal” is shown in the first and fifth clauses. Ms. Thomas asked if the Board members preferred a separate motion for the resolution changes or would approval of the Consent Agenda suffice. Mr. Martin requested a separate motion for approval of the resolution.) Mr. Bowerman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to adopt the proposed resolution to deny SDP-2000-119 as amended. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS:Mr. Martin. RESOLUTION DENYING SDP 00-119 WHEREAS, Home Depot sought on appeal from the Planning Commission approval of a preliminary site plan to allow the construction of improvements on approximately 15.9 acres identified as Tax Map 45, Parcels 110, 110A, 111, 111A and 111B (the “property”), located on the east side of Route 29 North approximately 1/2 mile north of the Rio Road intersection; and February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) WHEREAS, the preliminary site plan shows a building of approximately 130,184 square feet, parking areas with over 500 parking spaces, travel ways and landscaping; and WHEREAS, the property is within the Highway Commercial (HC) zoning district, which allows the use proposed by Home Depot as a matter of right; and WHEREAS, the design of the project shown on the site plan requires that critical slopes (slopes of 25% or greater) on the property comprising approximately 2.7 acres be disturbed, and the disturbance of such slopes is prohibited under Zoning Ordinance § 4.2 unless a waiver is granted pursuant to Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.5; and WHEREAS, on February 7, 2001, the Board of Supervisors, on appeal, denied by a three to three vote Home Depot’s request for a critical slopes waiver which had previously been denied by the Planning Commission on November 28, 2000. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby denies Home Depot’s application for SDP 00-119, sets forth the deficiencies in the preliminary site plan that caused the disapproval, and generally identifies the modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the preliminary site plan: 1.Deficiencies causing disapproval: SDP 00-119 is denied because the preliminary site plan proposes to eliminate critical slopes on the property comprising approximately 2.7 acres of the property. The preliminary site plan depicts the critical slopes being eliminated, and the building, the parking lot, and other impervious surfaces being constructed over the former critical slopes. As such, the preliminary site plan does not satisfy the requirements of: (A)Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.3.1, which requires that structures and improvements be located on building sites, and building sites may not include critical slopes (Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.1); (B)Zoning Ordinance § 4.2.3.2, which prohibits structures, improvements and earth disturbing activity to establish a structure or improvement, on critical slopes. (C)Numerous deficiencies of the preliminary site plan (reviewed contingent upon the critical slopes waiver) were identified and addressed by 24 conditions which would have been required to be met prior to final site plan approval. Those deficiencies and conditions are not set forth herein because the site plan now requires comprehensive revisions to address the deficiencies set forth in (A) and (B) above. 2.Modifications or corrections that will permit approval of the preliminary site plan: SDP 00-119 should be modified so as to depict development of the property without disturbing critical slopes on the property prohibited from being disturbed by Zoning Ordinance § 4.2. In addition, the revised site plan shall meet all other applicable Zoning Ordinance requirements. _______________ Item No. 5.6. Letter dated January 30, 2001 from Stephen L. Utz, County Administrator, Madison County Board of Supervisors, , was received for information. re: Shenandoah National Park Resolution The letter states that the Madison County Board of Supervisors approved on December 12, 2000 in regards to the Shenandoah National Park Service putting unidentified photos on line for the public to see and identify. They are asking that Albemarle County agree and do whatever it can to make this happen. (Ms. Thomas asked if Board members supported the proposed resolution. Mr. Perkins said he feels the Board should adopt a resolution. He referred to the fire in the Shenandoah National Park last spring when, within a matter of hours, there were pictures, etc., on the Park’s website. It has taken Park officials a long time to display old photographs, artifacts and belongings of family members from the early 1900s. People have expressed an interest in these things, and he thinks the Park officials need some public pressure to move ahead with the project.) By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution: Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has in its possession many photographs taken in the early 1900s of family-members and homesteads of citizens in surrounding counties; and Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park also has in its possession artifacts and many of the former belongings of those family-members; and Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has demonstrated an interest in showing those photographs, belongings and artifacts to interested parties by its willingness to circulate photocopies of some of the photographs and escort a committee of representatives through the warehouse to view the artifacts and belongings; and Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park is engaged in cataloging and archiving those items and images; and February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has recognized that time is of the essence in this process due to the aging, infirmity and impending passing of individuals who might possibly identify these items and images; and Whereas, the Shenandoah National Park has been asked repeatedly for at least a period of 40 years to grant access to those items and images, and access in most cases has been denied, due to concerns over adulteration and further disorganization of those items and images; and Whereas, the technologies for a new avenue of access in the form of digital photography, scanning and dissemination via the World Wide Web and internet are widely used by citizens as well as the Shenandoah National Park; and Whereas, it is the historical interest of the United States that this knowledge be made available to all Americans; Now Therefore, Be It Resolved, that members of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby respectfully request that the Shenandoah National Park exercise all of its available academic and technical resources, including accepting the services of students of instructional and digital technology and volunteers to promptly create a website upon which pictures of all of the aforementioned images and artifacts are displayed; and Further Resolved that the Shenandoah National Park grant the widest available access by the aforementioned individuals as well as others, with the least amount of adulteration and expense, in order to accomplish the previously mutually agreed to objectives of identification. _______________ Item No. 5.7. Copy of letter to W. Brank McCaskill, from John Shepherd, Manager of Zoning Administration, re: Official Determination of Development Rights and Parcels - Tax Map 72, Parcel 51 (property of W. Brank McCaskill & Elizabeth T & William Brand McCaskill, Jr., or Cynthia Londree , was received for information. McCaskill) - Section 10.3.1. _______________ Agenda Item No. 6. Public hearing on the Six Year Secondary Rd Plan for 2001-2007. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 2001.) Mr. Benish said on January 3, 2001, the Board of Supervisors held a work session on the Six Year Secondary Road Plan priority list, and that report has been attached to this staff report (on file in the Clerk's office). He recalled that the Board identified several projects at the work session for staff’s review which included the Hillsdale Road Connector and the Proffit Road interim improvements as well as the overall improvements to Proffit Road. Board members requested information on the Catterton Road paving project which has been provided as well as some alternate recommendations to that road seg-ment. He added that staff has met with VDoT and railroad representatives relative to the Old Ivy Road project to ascertain the cost of a bridge improvement to the railroad overpass only which was the recom-mendation of the Planning Commission, and this information has been provided. The staff has also provided a Planning Commission recommendation pertaining to including the Barracks Road project for shoulder improvements for bicycle access. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to act on these plans tonight, there may be some changes that would have to be made to Attachment II and there are some decisions necessary on some of the above noted projects -- Catterton Road and Old Ivy Road in particular. Action by this Board is not necessary tonight. He stated that VDoT’s Resident Engineer, Mr. Jim Bryan, is present to answer questions. There were no questions for staff. At this time Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. She noted that 14 people had signed the sheet to speak, although anyone else who wishes to make comments will have a chance to do so after the first 14 people have spoken. She explained that there is a three minute time limit for each speaker. She noted that no applause is allowed nor disrespect of speakers. If speakers want to show that they are representing a number of people, they can ask those people to stand. Mr. Steve Blaine, representing Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Saunders, indicated that his clients are in favor of preserving Catterton Road as a rural country lane, and they urge Board members to delete Catterton Road from the Six Year Road Plan. His clients own property on the section of Catterton Road that is slated for improvement. He then called attention to Attachment V which includes a tax map showing the realm of properties abutting Catterton Road. The Saunders own almost all of the road frontage on the western side of Catterton Road with the exception of the Gibson property which is the darkened portion on the map and the last parcel on the last segment of 35B2. Mr. Saunders had planned to be at the public hearing when it was scheduled for February 14, 2001. However, due to a conflict he was unable to be present. He remarked that for the last few years he has had the pleasure of getting to know some of the residents on Catterton Road, and what has impressed him with those who share the view of the Saunders, is their adamant passions and commitment for preserving the rural character of the County. This is the core of their feelings for Catterton Road. The road contributes and is part of the rural character that is such a rare and beautiful part of this community. He referred to Venable Minor who worked hard to promote conservation easements in the community, and he mentioned Ginger Ashcom and John Martin who also want to keep the rural character of the road. His clients have had the opportu-nity to travel around the February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) world, and they realize that this community has rare places such as the Catterton Road area, and it is worth preserving because of its uniqueness. He added that some of these folks have lived on a country road most of their lives such as Dr. Reynolds Cowles, and they seem to be able to conduct their lives without any trouble with the road being in the current condition. He said rural activities that are appropriate for this area such as horse boarding, grazing, cattle and farming seem to be conducted without any real impediment with the road remaining as it is. He again urged the Board to remove Catterton Road from the Six Year Road Plan. Dr. Reynolds Cowles stated that he and his wife live at the end of the current pavement. He pointed out his farm and showed the area in front of his property that will be paved if the road goes forward, and he urged the Board of Supervisors to remove Catterton Road from the Six Year Plan. This road is very much a country lane, and he would like to keep it that way. He also owns property which has recently been put in a Virginia Outdoor Foundation Conservation easement. The Minor property has been put in a similar easement, and there are other properties that will be going into conservation easements to perpetuate the rural nature of this area. He stated that anyone who has traveled much beyond this area knows that they are being surrounded by subdivisions. He indicated that pavement breeds subdivisions, and he does not think there is any argument of that in this County whether it is Scottsville, Earlysville, Free Union or Crozet. This road is commonly used by many elderly people who walk there on a daily basis in good weather. They park at the bridge or at the end of his property and walk the road because it is not heavily traveled, it is a pretty lane, and it is not congested with high speed traffic. He said everybody is guilty of speeding up when they hit a paved section. There is one big reason to pave this property and that is so the Gibsons won’t be victims to the dust on the corner, and he sympathizes with their feelings. However, there are other alternative products that are being put forth with plant materials to control the dust. He would hate to see a hasty decision made to pave the road when there are other alternatives that are being used in Loudoun County and other counties currently. He emphasized that he wants to keep this as a country road. Ms. Ginger Ashcom remarked that she has lived on Catterton Road for over 20 years. She added that it is a gorgeous road, and a lot of other residents in the County, besides the ones who live there, love to be on it. The traffic flow on the road involves local property owners and not necessarily “cut through” traffic. She then called attention to a map showing a paved road from Boonesville to Free Union as well as from Boonesville to Earlysville, which she thought was an indication that it is not necessary to pave Catterton Road. She noted that there is a dirt road on one end of Catterton Road and a narrow paved road on the other end. She pointed out the areas on the map of people who are opposed to the paving who live on the road, as well as those who live off the road, and she said 62 percent of the people do not want Catterton Road paved. There are five houses on the part of the road to be improved, and of those five houses, three are opposed and two are for the paving project. She said one of the two who want it paved does not even own road frontage. She commented that over $300,000 is a lot of money to put into a road that goes nowhere just to stop dust, when another product can be used to accomplish the same thing. She said VDoT representatives have indicated that they will not improve the road, if the Board of Supervisors does not advise them to do so. She also pointed out that this is in the middle of a future possible watershed for Albemarle County. She asked if the Supervisors really want to improve a road and increase traffic that goes right through the heart of a future watershed, since it will cause future develop-ment in the area. There is a letter in the Board members’ packets from Willie Smith, Director of Transpor-tation for Albemarle County Schools, indicating that the road is safe and that it is one of the better dirt roads in the County, and the Planning Commission has recommended that little or nothing be done to the road. She suggested that this money could probably be used elsewhere in the County to benefit the entire County and not possibly hurt this resource area. She asked the Supervisors to remove Catterton Road from the Six Year Plan. Ms. Martha McClay stated that she and her husband built a home on the northwestern end of Catterton Road, and her home is on the part of the road that would not be paved. One of the reasons they chose to live there is because of the rural nature. The road has daily traffic of people walking, horse back riders, bikers, farm equipment, school buses and vehicular comings and goings of those people who live there. She said in recent years there has been concern expressed over the safety of the road. It is narrow in places, although not dangerously so, and it has a few sharp curves and hills. However, she noted that the road is well maintained by VDoT and rarely has problems with long standing ice and snow in the winter because of its southern exposure. She mentioned that the Director of Transportation for Albemarle County Schools, Mr. Willie Smith, has stated in a memo to Juandiego Wade of the Planning Department, dated January 18, 2001, that in terms of unpaved roads, Catterton Road is one of the better roads in the County. She remarked that, as on all gravel roads, the speed limit is 25 miles per hour. Traffic traveling this speed has little difficulty avoiding mishaps upon meeting a school bus, hiker, tractor or pedestrian in the road. With the conditions as they are there, Catterton Road meets the needs of its residents. There are those who suggest that the road would be safer if the middle portion was paved. This merits consideration, in all fairness, and she mentioned that the southeastern end is currently paved. She said residents have wondered what would change if the middle section was widened and paved. The curves and hilly portion near the Ashcoms and Gibsons would still exist, but it might afford better visibility, although clearing of some land by the Ashcoms has improved visibility in that portion. She pointed out that the speed of traffic would increase and would quite likely continue on the portion that would remain unpaved. Safe driving speeds would likely become a confusing issue to motorists, and present new dangers to pedestrians, horseback riders, farm machinery and others. She asked if this is an improve-ment to the residents of Catterton Road, and she believes it is not. She noted that the Board of Super-visors has the difficult job of making decisions for future residents of Albemarle County, and she wondered what type of environment is desired for the children and the residents on Catterton Road. Some decisions that this Board will make will be irreversible, since trees do not grow in a few years nor can fields and woodlands be reclaimed. They are some of the chief assets of Albemarle County, and she asked how these precious things can be protected for the February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) inhabitants of the County. Even though Catterton Road is a small part of the picture, every decision made sets the stage for the next one. She suggested that improvements be made on roads that truly need them and not on a road that is not a major connector. Mr. Venable Minor commented that he lives on Ruxton Farm on Catterton Road, and he thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak at this meeting. He said everybody shares the same concerns about safety on the County roads, and Catterton Road is no exception. Catterton Road is safe because it is traveled by local residents who know the road, which currently has a limited traffic flow. It is safe because almost daily there are joggers, hikers, horseback riders, and farm tractors and equipment going up and down the road. Catterton Road is named after the Catterton family whose land has been in the Catterton family since an original land grant, and it remained so until the death of Captain Catterton several years ago. The point of living there is that there is some history associated with the area. He and his wife, Susie, cooperated with Albemarle County and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority when they moved and restored the original Catterton house, which is a circa 1826 home, from the boundaries of Buck Mountain Creek and brought it to their Ruxton Farm on Catterton Road. They, along with Dr. and Mrs. Cowles, have put property under conservation easements through the efforts of the Piedmont Environmental Council and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation. It is their desire to maintain forever the rural character of this area. He referred to a conservation easement map which shows in this area alone that 9,500 acres have been put under conservation easement which is just in the northwestern section of Albemarle County. He said over 29,000 acres are under conservation easement in Albemarle County, and five or six other families along Catterton Road are considering such easements. He asked that the rural atmosphere not be changed by changing the character and landscape of Catterton Road. He said to do so will likely create more traffic and higher speeds. He also pointed out that paving this portion of Catterton Road would mean traveling three different road surfaces within a one and a quarter mile stretch of road. Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, voiced opposition to the paving of rural roads in Albemarle County unless they are a part of a major transportation corridor. Instead, Ms. Hobbs suggested strengthening septic system laws and well regulations, which would be one of the major ways to preserve land in the rural areas. (See statement to the Board of Supervisors from the League of Women Voters received on February 21, 2001.) Ms. Jackie Morris, a resident of Catterton Road, asked the Board’s support for improving Catterton Road by paving the dirt portion of the road. She considers this portion of road as unsafe to travel. There are four school buses which travel the road twice a day 180 days a year, and her children ride on two of them. There are mail carriers traveling the road six days a week and farm vehicles and tractors that carry hay and feed for livestock every day. She then mentioned some of the problems that travelers face on Catterton Road. There are numerous accidents that happen on one particular curve on this portion of road, and the drivers were not charged because the officers felt the road conditions contributed to the cause of the accident. She remarked that most of the victims were residents or owned land on the road, but their vehicles were a total loss or had expensive damage, and others just had to be towed away. She added that in December two school buses were stuck on a particular curve and had to have assistance to continue their route, and there were children on the bus at the time. She reported that just a few weeks ago a school bus carrying children met a vehicle with a driver who had his arm out the window leading a horse while driving down the road. The driver cursed and yelled at the school bus driver and told him to stop the bus, and the children on the bus witnessed this show of road behavior. She noted that her own children are the fourth generation of her husband’s family who have lived and farmed on Catterton Road, and her children want to live there when they are grown. She stated that everybody wants to do better things for their children and they want to do all they can for them to live safely and happy. She emphasized that whether five or twenty-five vehicles travel this road, Catterton Road is a public road to be used for public transportation. It is not a private road to be used for pleasure and to be used by an elite group people. She feels the need for safe travel on Catterton Road is the most important reason to improve and pave this portion of road. She added that it is not who or what a person is, but paving the road would represent safety for families, neighbors and all who travel Catterton Road. Mr. Mike Morris stated that he has lived on Catterton Road most of his life, and he thinks the road definitely needs to be paved. It is an unsafe road for school buses. He drives a school bus for Albemarle County, and two buses got stuck on the road during the last snow storm because the road was so slick they couldn’t get through it. He does not see how paving the road will affect the traffic, because the road doesn’t go anywhere. He pays his taxes, and he thinks a better road is needed because it is not a safe road. Mr. George Morris remarked that he had lived at the intersection of Catterton Road and Routes 671 and 665 for over 30 years. He has now moved, but he still travels Catterton Road quite frequently. He stated that anytime funds are available to hard surface a road, it enhances the safety of the citizens a great deal. He pointed out that there are places on the road where there is not enough room for two vehicles to pass each other without one of them stopping. This is especially true with large vehicles, and school buses fit into this category. Mr. Tim Naylor told Board members that he lives on a road just off Catterton Road, and he believes it would be an improvement to widen the road. There is not a morning when he travels the road that he does not meet a school bus, and either the bus gets in the ditch, or he gets in the ditch, so the other can pass. Sometimes he is in a four-wheel drive vehicle and sometimes he is not. The road needs some improvement whatever the Board decides. There are washboard dents in the road, as well as potholes and the safety of the residents is the main concern. Ms. Shirley Naylor remarked that she grew up on Catterton Road and rode the school bus from the February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 10) first grade through the twelfth grade. The bus was stuck quite often in an area of the road with two steep hills. She has a niece who rides a school bus now. She pointed out that because the road is not paved, the snow lays, and the road gets very slick. Hard surface road can be cleared. The road is unsafe, and there are times when it is very muddy. Traffic meets school buses, trash trucks and UPS trucks, and there is no room to get out of their way. The vehicles will have to stop or back up, and they are either in mud or dust. There are also potholes and ruts. She can remember when there were five families on the road, but now she doesn’t even know the neighbors. She and her family have no choice but to travel this road every day to get to and from work. Mr. Jeff Werner, representing the Piedmont Environmental (PEC), supported protecting the character of the County’s Rural Area by not unnecessarily increasing non-permeable surfaces in the Rural Area. (See statement to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, dated February 21, 2001.) No one else came forward to speak, so Ms. Thomas closed the public hearing. She reminded Board members that a decision does not have to be made tonight, if they would like more information on the issues. Mr. Perkins stated that there needs to be some clarification on how the roads are funded. He concurred that the County does not have to pave roads, but if a certain amount of the money is not used in a certain way, then the County is penalized. He would like to get Mr. Bryan involved in this discussion. Mr. Perkins then referred to a statement that gravel roads absorb water. They absorb some water, and that is why they get muddy, but if they absorbed all of it, they could only be used for about six months of the year. He has asked Mr. Bryan for some figures on this issue. He also mentioned that runoff on gravel roads is 74 percent whereas with a blacktop road it is 97 percent. When gravel is put on a road, it is not kept there very long because the action of the vehicles pulverizes the gravel and then the rain washes it off as silt. There will probably be a lot more silt with a gravel road than a paved one. He added that there are a lot of other safety and health issues on both sides of the issue. He referred to another road in Ms. Thomas’ district where some of the same issues were discussed. However, he said this is a different situation because that was a dead-end road. He stated that not only are the people who live on Catterton Road involved, but there are also a lot of other people who use the road to get from Boonesville to Earlysville or other places. He commented that some suggestions and alternatives are available, and he would like for Mr. Bryan to discuss some of them. Mr. Bryan stated that five options were shown in the staff report, but there are really only four, because the Phase Project did not make much sense to him. These options were assessed based on certain values such as the purpose of the road, cost, customer focus and safety. Catterton Road is not unlike most gravel roads around the County, because it is narrow, it has poor sight lines, as well as dust, and it has the natural instability that comes from its narrowness. He emphasized that all of these things were assessed, and VDoT believes that the best way to achieve all the goals is to pave it to the standard 18 foot lane with a two foot shoulder. Mr. Perkins referred to a picture, and he asked what would be done there in the paving process. Mr. Bryan responded that VDoT starts with the center line and then goes out nine feet on each side. The total easement is 40 feet from end to end. Mr. Perkins asked again about what would happen to this particular section of road that was shown in the picture. Mr. Bryan answered that the road would be widened to the appropriate width. Mr. Perkins inquired if the fences would remain where they are currently located. Mr. Bryan replied that they probably would not. Mr. Perkins next asked if the fences would be replaced to the same standard that they are now. He also wondered if the fences would be moved to allow for the 40 foot easement. Mr. Bryan answered affirmatively. Mr. Perkins inquired if some of the trees that are involved would be lost. Mr. Bryan responded that some of them would have to be taken down. Mr. Dorrier wondered why one end of the road will remain unpaved. Mr. Bryan replied that it is because of the different phases of the project. Mr. Benish mentioned that the section of road to which Mr. Dorrier referred has already been before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, and they chose not to include this section for paving. Mr. Perkins asked if that section of the road has worked its way up through the process. Mr. Benish said the request had been made, and it had worked its way through to become a new project on the list, but the decision was made not to include it. Mr. Perkins recalled that there were some deficiencies in construction easements. Mr. Benish answered that the full rights-of-way had not been acquired at that time, but some projects on the list do not have the full rights-of-way at the time of approval. They are entered into the list and they move forward to construction once the full rights- of-way are acquired. He noted, though, that there is a very long list of projects on the priority list. Mr. Martin noted that the County’s policy has been not to purchase rights-of-way until the process reaches a certain point. Mr. Benish concurred that this has been the case since the late 1980s. He stated that basically donations of rights-of-way are relied upon for the process by which the projects move forward. Mr. Dorrier referred to the comments made by some of the speakers that when vehicles meet at certain points on the road, someone has to pull off into the ditch. He wondered if this hazard will be eliminated, if the road is not paved. Mr. Bryan recalled that the staff recommended consideration of Option Number Four which is no build/spot improvements and Option Number Five which is no build/treat with “Roadbind.” He commented that under Option Number Four, it states that curves only would be improved and there would be no paving or widening. The curves would actually be widened to sight lines, especially on the inside, but the rest of the road will essentially remain the same. Mr. Dorrier asked if there are deep ditches in the area of the road where people have to pull off to make room for other vehicles. Mr. Bryan answered, “no.” If VDoT does not widen the road, ditching will not take place, because the road is too February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) narrow. He stated that by ditching it, the stability of the road is increased. Ms. Thomas inquired if Mr. Bryan thinks VDoT will allow Option Number Four which notes that approval is required by the Central Office as an exception to policy. Mr. Bryan replied that it is a growth issue. The factors involved with approval of this option relate to future growth of the community around the area and usage trips per day. If the Board recommends this option, he feels the chances of approval are good. Ms. Thomas asked Mr. Bryan to comment about Option Number Five. Mr. Bryan noted that Option Number Five involves “Roadbind.” He just talked to Loudoun County officials today, and they have approximately 23 miles of it in their county. The cost is not nearly as high as he had expected, and it averages approximately $2,900 per mile. The down side is that the “Roadbind” already has holes in it, so they have to evaluate the situation. They will have an official evaluation in approximately eight months. Some people are eager to use it, but he is concerned because it is experimental, and he wondered how it will be repaired after it is in use for awhile. The major disadvantage of Option Number Five is that the future is uncertain. He also mentioned the problem of the material hardening on vehicles unless they are washed immediately. It is similar to tar. Mr. Perkins called attention to Option Number Four which states that this option would be funded by taking funds from another approved secondary road project. He noted that Option Number Five indicates that it would be funded with Maintenance funds. He wondered if there is a guarantee that the County could get these funds for this project. Mr. Bryan responded that the Maintenance funds are higher than normal, but they are not that significant. He then referred to taking funds from another secondary road project. The estimate of the paving project is approximately $300,000. If Option Number Four is recommended, it would be about one-third of this amount, which would be around $120,000. He emphasized, though, that this option will not be dealing with the dust problem. Mr. Benish explained that if secondary funds are used, they would have to come from another project, and the implications of this would have to be considered as far as the timing for other projects. Ms. Thomas stated that if paving is done, there is a designated amount of money for paving. However, this amount of funding is not for doing any type of work on the road. It is only for paving. She said if the road is not paved, then the money will have to be found somewhere else within the secondary road funds in order to proceed with an option. She explained that “Roadbinding” or something similar is a maintenance matter so it is a separate set of monies that usually does not appear in the County’s Six Year Road Plan. She stated that VDoT distributes its maintenance funds without the County officials having anything to do with it. Mr. Martin commented that at this time he is not making a recommendation for paving or not paving the road, but the biggest problem he has with the whole issue is the opposite from Ms. Hobbs’ statement. Ms. Hobbs made the statement that people move to a road and then demand that it be upgraded to a paved road. If this was the case with this situation, he would agree 100 percent. He said, though, in many cases it is the opposite that is true. This situation involves people who have lived on the road and who walked the streets petitioning their neighbors years and years ago to get the road paved. They were told that it will be done, but it will take a long time. He remarked that it has taken even longer than anticipated, but these people have lived on the road and waited their turn, and now new people have moved onto the road who are saying they don’t want it paved. Another concern is that whatever is done on this road will set a precedent, and in his district there are a lot of paved roads. For years the calls he received more than any others were from people wanting their roads paved. They would explain to him that they live on a dirt road in a rural area, they don’t get quick fire protection, they haven’t seen a police officer in years, and they don’t have children in school. They asked what their taxes were being used for and why can’t the County get their road paved. He would explain the process after looking to see if they were already included on the list. He remarked that County officials have always done things a certain way, and because of this, it was easy to tell constituents that this is the way things are being done. He is not the kind of person who has to stick to his own way, but if the Supervisors decide to take a vote of people who have lived there since Catterton Road first came onto the list as well as people who have moved there since then, it sets a precedent. As every dirt road on the list moves forward, these types of votes will have to be taken, and these public hearings will have to be held. He is not sure he wants to do that every time a road moves forward for paving. It is more than just this road and whether or not the majority of people on this road now want it paved or don’t want it paved. There are people who have lived here and have had expectations. They have watched the list and have seen their project moving up all these years. However, other people who have moved in since then are saying it can’t be done. The other issue involves having this same thing happen throughout the County in most of the other districts. Mr. Perkins stated that he has the same concerns. He noted that the staff report states that if a road improvement project has been on the priority list for many years, the Board of Supervisors has indicated that there must be compelling information to remove it from the list. This situation needs to have a lot of consideration because of actions in the future. There seems to be some connection between conservation easements and gravel roads, and he referred to a map which appeared to show this to be true. He then named the properties with conservation easements on Route 810, and he indicated that he does not think it has to be a gravel road to be a country road. Route 810 is a typical road in Albemarle County, and it goes from Crozet to Route 33 in Greene County. He emphasized that he does not think by black topping a road, it destroys the rural character of the area. Ms. Humphris pointed out that she does not travel this road often, but she has made trips out there February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) to see who is using it and how people treat it. She has told the other Board members before that she has never seen anybody speeding along the road nor have there been any problems with vehicles passing. She commented that everybody is polite, and they stop, move over and do whatever is necessary to take care of the situation. She added that it is an especially beautiful stretch of road, and the circumstances here are very unusual. There are six property owners along this particular section of Catterton Road, and four of them do not want the road paved, and two of them do. She is going to make her position very simple because everything has already been said, and the Board has dealt with these types of situations for years. She truly believes this is a road that should not be paved, because it is beautiful, it is bucolic, and it is a place where people go to be on this particular type of road. She added that she hopes County officials are very serious about trying to keep the rural areas rural, and this is a major opportunity to do so. She said people are attracted to paved roads, but there are a lot of people who like to live on gravel roads just as there are a lot of people who never want to live on a gravel road. She emphasized that this road is for people who want to live on an unpaved road in a rural area that will stay that way. She said it is extremely significant that this road is in the middle of an area that might well be a future major water supply. For these reasons and all the rest that people have indicated, she will not support paving the one mile section of Catterton Road. Mr. Perkins disagreed. He commented that if County officials are interested in protecting the watershed area, they will have to pave the road. The property has been donated, and VDoT already has the rights-of-way, but now the new owners have changed their minds. Ms. Humphris said they want to live on a gravel road. Mr. Perkins responded that this is not necessarily true. Mr. Bowerman commented that if the road is paved, it will be different. He pointed out that it will not have the same curvature, nor the same rural character, because there are certain standards that go with paving. Mr. Perkins remarked that he has looked at the road very closely, particularly in the last week or so. He mentioned that Route 682 was paved three or four years ago, and even though there have been some guardrails installed, it is still very much a rural road. Mr. Bowerman responded that the situation was not the same with Route 682. It would be different if a road could be paved in place to stay within the basic ditch line as well as the current width. This would stop the deterioration of it, there would be less maintenance involved, and it would still maintain the character of the roadway. He mentioned, though, that this portion of the road in question has a number of very mature trees which are going to be removed if it is paved under the state’s standards. Mr. Perkins said perhaps Mr. Bryan could explain why the state has these standards. Mr. Bowerman stated that he understands why the standards are in place. Ms. Humphris pointed out that County officials have lived with these standards for a long time. She stated that one of the things that has to be remembered is that of the six adjacent homeowners, there are three of them who signed originally and gave away their easements thinking that they were dealing with a pave in place situation. It was only after they found out about VDoT’s standards that they realized what they had done, and changed their minds. She commented that it is a shame if the road had to be paved that there aren’t other options, but there are not. Mr. Bowerman said if the road could be paved in place and the spot improvements done, it would be perfect, in his opinion. Ms. Humphris stated that there are consequences if the County officials do not do what VDoT wants them to do, but in this case, to do what VDoT is recommending would be significant. She added that she thinks the road is better left alone. Mr. Bowerman mentioned Mr. Martin’s comments that the Board members have to be mindful of the fact that there has been a policy which has removed debate on many of these issues. He said it can be changed, but there has been a clear understanding with the public about the policy. He commented that if the Board members get into the position of looking at each road individually, it will become a very mired process, which is not to say this is not the Supervisors’ job. It is important to recognize that Mr. Martin’s comments are correct, and for many years the policy has provided County officials with the opportunity for some consistency. Ms. Humphris stated that Mr. Bowerman’s remarks are true, but she does not think the Supervisors should make this sacrifice in order to justify the Supervisors having to do more difficult decision making perhaps in the future. Over these years County officials have become more and more aware of what is happening in the rural areas and how important it is to protect them. She recalled that the first years she was on this Board these types of decisions were being made by the book, and there was hardly any discussion about the effect they would have on the rural areas. She said, though, County officials have been in a learning process. Mr. Perkins asked if other Board members feel that people living in the rural areas deserve to drive their cars on paved roads. Ms. Humphris mentioned that four of the six people living on this section of Catterton Road are asking for the opportunity to travel on a gravel road. Mr. Perkins said fifty years ago every secondary road in the County was a gravel road, so the County has come a long way. Ms. Humphris responded that she doesn’t know if the County has come a long way or not. If the roads were still gravel there wouldn’t be the problem of preventing sprawl. The more roads that are paved, the more sprawl problem will be created. Mr. Perkins noted that people moved to Catterton Road while it was still a gravel road, and he wondered how many more people are going to move there. It is already built out on the upper end of the road. Mr. Dorrier emphasized that this decision should not be made lightly. He pointed out that the whole process of getting a gravel road paved has been one of the collection of rights-of-way as well as satisfying February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) the most people. The roads that are paved are the ones where people have worked the hardest to get the rights-of-way and then they come to this Board and ask for the paving project. It is not necessarily the ones that may need paving the most, although there has to be a certain amount of safety involved to get into the process. Catterton Road is number sixty in a list of eighty-eight projects, and paving, if approved, will be started in August of this year. It is a one mile stretch of road, and it looks as though the residents are fairly united in not wanting a paved road. They agree, though, that it should be fixed to a certain extent to make it safer. This situation should be handled in a democratic manner, and there have been residents who have come before this Board and changed their minds and say they don’t want the road paved. He noted that the County has eighty projects, and it is looking for money to pave roads in Albemarle County, but here is one project where the people don’t want the road paved. Because of this, he thinks there are other roads that are ahead in priority and deserve to be funded. He agreed with Ms. Humphris that this road is in a rural area which is not going to be highly built up in the future. There are other needs for road paving which would probably take priority over this project since one section of the road will be left unpaved anyway. Mr. Perkins pointed out that even though Catterton Road is listed as number sixty on the list, that is not the priority for gravel roads. Mr. Dorrier stated that he supports spending some money to make it safer and straighter. However, if the majority of the people living there don’t want it paved, then it shouldn’t be paved. Mr. Perkins remarked that he met with Mr. Bryan for the purpose of trying to find a compromise, and the five options shown in the staff report are what can be done, but there has not really been a compromise. He stated that pictures of the road show that there are places the road can be paved very much as it is. The width is already there, and it is not crooked in those particular places, but there are other places on the road that are bad. He added that the state has a standard that has to be met, and there are reasons for this. Ms. Thomas commented that the state is also willing to consider doing some unusual things to make improvements or to examine the new maintenance product when Loudoun County has finished its test. This product may not be the right thing, and she would not suggest its being used in Albemarle County before Loudoun County gets through with its evaluation. She remarked that she was on Catterton Road again today, and she met a school bus. She stopped, and the school bus driver went by, and both of them waved. This is what is usually done on unpaved roads in the County. She stated that because of where the road is located, and because of the feeling of the people who don’t want it paved, she leans toward not paving it. However, she is also aware that some people have been living with the dust for a long time and feel that the road should be paved. She grew up in a small town with a lot of unpaved roads, and no one ever complained about having a road paved, until one day there was no way for people to ride their horses across town anymore. She noted that there is a decreasing number of these types of roads in the County. She remarked that cars can be driven anywhere now, but there is no safe place to ride horses. She said although there are miles and miles of unpaved roads in the County, there are not actually that many roads left where people can safely do the type of activities a lot of people enjoy doing on country roads. She supports not paving Catterton Road. She also supports consideration of the County’s policy so people are not misled when they are told the policy is one thing, and then it is arbitrarily changed. She next mentioned Wyant Road where a majority of the people wanted it paved. This was different because it was a dead end road, and votes could be counted from every single person who used the road. She does not think the Supervisors are changing each others’ minds tonight, and the staff would like some guidance on several other projects. She then referred to the Hillsdale Connector Road. Staff would like guidance as to whether or not it should be number thirty-nine on the list. She explained that the purpose of bringing up this matter was to make sure City officials didn’t use the fact of the County not having it on its list or having it low on the list as any sort of excuse for them not to move ahead with it, since almost all of the road is in the City. Mr. Benish commented that the Hillsdale Connector is in the County’s regional plan and has been in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for a number of years, so he believes the City is aware of its priority. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Benish to see that the spellings of Greenbrier and Catterton are corrected on the priority list. Mr. Martin stated that he is glad Route 649 (Proffit Road) is number nine on the list, and he hopes the next few months can be spent trying to move it up to number three. He explained that improvements need to be made from Route 29 to the new Baker-Butler School by the time the school opens. He appreciates the effort that has gone into moving the project forward, but he requested that there be a more forceful effort made in the future. Mr. Benish responded that this is the highest priority for any project that has not been under a planning process. The project has not been under VDoT’s scoping process, but it is the next project that may need to have engineering and design work done so it can go to bid. Mr. Bowerman said the road is ready to go, and when funds are available, priorities can change. He stated that if the engineering work is done up front, and improvement needs are apparent, the project can move forward when funds become available. Mr. Benish explained that the next step is to move the process along so plans will be approved and public hearings held. He noted that the staff tried the same thing with Airport Road, but it is now two years behind even though staff members tried to expedite the process. However, he stated that there were other complications partly because FAA money is involved. He reiterated that the next step is how to take this project and advance it from the design work. The project is as high on the list as possible without bumping other projects that are currently in the middle of their engineering process. February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Next, Ms. Humphris referred to Old Ivy Road. This was discussed the last time it came before the Board of Supervisors, and it was decided that the staff’s plan is the best direction to follow which was not to deal with the bridge, but only with the road itself. Ms. Humphris then mentioned Barracks/Garth Road, and she recalled that in the last CATS Study there was a great deal of resistance to changing the character of the road. She said it looks as though anything that is done will change the character, so she suggested that the project be put aside. Mr. Benish stated that there may be other ways to try to address bicycle access in other strategic locations, but he feels if the road is upgraded over a significant length, it would make a big impact. He said bike lanes or even paved shoulders are going to add four to eight feet, at least, depending on the design that VDoT develops. Ms. Thomas said it is a great place for an independent bike lane, but it is a nightmare to get the project approved by all the landowners. Mr. Benish noted that there may be the possibility to share the road and use off road trails, although, it would take a lot of effort. He also pointed out that beyond Foxfield, it would be very difficult, and it would have a significant impact on the roadway. Ms. Humphris called attention to the cost history of Route 656 (Georgetown Road). She said it was interesting that between 1994-1995 and 1998-99, the cost increased from $500,000 to $900,000. She added that it increased again in 2000-2001 to $2,000,000 and in 2001-2002, it is $3,200,000. The County started out with $500,000 for spot improvement upgrades to put in sidewalks and bike lanes on Georgetown Road and it ends up being a $3,200,000 cost. The project won’t be done this year, but it is hard to say what the cost will be when the project is completed. Ms. Thomas asked if the issues discussed today could be embodied in a motion, so staff would have some guidance as to the direction to follow with these road projects. Mr. Benish clarified the Board’s action by stating that Catterton Road will be deleted as an unpaved road project. Mr. Perkins stated that he would like some clarification as far as what will be done on Catterton Road. Mr. Dorrier remarked that he favors Option Number Four which is no build/spot improvements. He said, though, he is not sure if this includes all of the safety problems with the road. Mr. Bryan answered that VDoT will negotiate exactly the type of spot improvements desired. The improvements will definitely be prioritized as far as what is the safest down to aesthetics. Mr. Bowerman inquired if VDoT would use pavement for a spot improvement because of a particular problem. Mr. Bryan answered “yes.” He added that the phasing option relates to this type of situation, but the more he analyzed the option, the more ridiculous it seemed. Mr. Bowerman commented that there are some places where water runs across the road or there are particular slope problems or maintenance problems that can be repaired permanently. Ms. Humphris suggested that perhaps staff can bring back to the Board the actual meaning of Option Number Four. Mr. Bryan said he would recommend that VDoT representatives get together with staff and prioritize the spot improvements. Mr. Benish stated that the Board’s direction was to convert Catterton Road to a spot improvement project, and it would have to be entered into the priority list and VDoT’s construction plan in that manner. Mr. Martin commented that he thinks it is important to see the affect this action will have on the schedule. Mr. Benish said it will definitely put the project past this next year which will give time for the experiment results of the road bindings. He thinks the net effect of converting it to a construction project will be that it will push the project back which will allow Board members time to consider it again next year. He added that it will be eight months before the findings from Loudoun County are available which won’t be very long before this plan will be reviewed. Ms. Humphris referred to Mr. Bryan’s comments that there are other products available, and she suggested that research be done on what they are and where they are being used. Mr. Benish noted that Old Ivy Road is in the plan so it needs no action tonight. The other direction for the staff is to try to advance the Proffit Road project as quickly as possible. He went on to say Barracks/Garth Road will not be included on the list, but it will be considered in the future. Ms. Thomas recalled that there was a question as far as whether the Hillsdale Connector project is high enough on the list. Mr. Bowerman referred to Mr. Benish’s remarks that the City knows the priority of the Hillsdale Connector even though it is number thirty-nine on the list. Mr. Benish replied that he believes the City is aware of the County’s intent to construct the project. The priority list mentions a number of projects that don’t have the chance to enter into the VDoT’s construction program due to their relative priority. The priority list indicates the intent to construct the roadway, and the CIP reflects the intent to February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) support the project. He had thought the project was already listed in the CATS Study as a possible project, but he could be wrong. Ms. Humphris remarked that the project was included in the CATS Study, but it did not go all the way to Hydraulic Road. Mr. Benish said the CATS Study only referred to the County’s portion. Mr. Bowerman commented that whatever action that needs to be taken should be done to make it a high priority item. Mr. Benish stated that this priority does not put it high enough to receive secondary funds. However, for the County’s planning purposes, it probably will not need secondary funds because the amount of construction in the County is so limited, and it has been accounted for in the CIP. Ms. Humphris called attention to the Meadow Creek Parkway project. The information shows the road going from Route 250 to Rio Road. She inquired if it should be shown from Melbourne Road to Rio Road. Mr. Benish answered affirmatively. He stated that Ms. Humprhis is referring to the County’s portion, but he believes Route 250 is shown because it reflects the whole project. Ms. Humphris stated that the list should only reflect the County’s portion. Ms. Thomas asked for a correction of the “VDoT” initials because they were mistakenly shown as VDTO. Ms. Thomas inquired if staff members understand the direction from the Board so they can return with the requested information. Mr. Benish answered, “yes.” Ms. Thomas clarified the situation about Catterton Road for interested persons in the audience. The divided feeling of the Board is to remove it from being a paved project and do spot improvements. She said before a vote is taken, the Board will get some more information from the staff as far as the type of spot improvements that will take place. Mr. Perkins pointed out that the people here tonight, as well as this Board, need to lobby the General Assembly about getting VDoT’s standards changed so gravel roads will not have to meet today’s standards. Ms. Thomas stated that the MPO asked the Governor’s Commission on Transportation for its support with this item, but it didn’t appear anywhere in the Commission’s final recommendation. Mr. Martin noted that the General Assembly approved a “pave in place” regulation exactly like the County wanted, but VDoT ignored the General Assembly. Ms. Thomas said Mr. Bryan believes he has found one such road in Albemarle County, and she asked him to comment about it. Mr. Bryan remarked that while he was riding with Mr. Dorrier around some of the County roads, he noticed that Route 712, going toward Pine Knot, meets the standards for paving in place. Mr. Dorrier stated that Teddy Roosevelt’s home is on this road. Mr. Bryan commented that once the road is paved, it should enhance tourism. Ms. Thomas asked if Route 712 appears in the Six Year Road Plan. Mr. Benish said it is on the plan, and he explained that it was a recent request that came in last year. Ms. Thomas stated that by next year, the Board may want to move this project forward, because of the tourism connection. _______________ Agenda Item No. 7. SP-2000-60. Church of Our Savior (Sign #95). Public hearing on a request to expand church activities to an adjoining property & bring an existing church into conformity . TM 62A1, P A- 3, & TM 61, P 144 contain 4.5 acs. Located at 2412 Huntington Rd & 1165 E Rio Rd, respectively. Znd R- 2. Rio Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on February 5 and February 12, 2001.) Mr. Benish summarized the staff report for SP-2000-60, Church of Our Savior. The request is to use an adjacent home for supervised Christian education activities, and the church currently does not have a special permit. He explained that inclusion of the house will expand the church use thus requiring a special use permit to make the non-conforming use conforming and to permit the use within the new building. He indicated that the property is located on Huntington Road near the intersection of Rio Road East. He remarked that it is zoned R-2 Residential, and it is designated for Neighborhood Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed the proposal for conformity with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. He remarked that the Planning Commission has recommended approval with conditions that have been provided in the February 6, 2001 action letter from the Commission. He next called attention to condition #1 which calls for fencing to be located on the north side of the property adjacent to a residential area. This fencing has already been installed, and the location has been agreed to by the adjacent property owners. Ms. Thomas inquired if the fence definitely is already in existence. Mr. Benish answered that he went to the site today, and he understands that the church and adjacent property owners agreed to the location of the fence, so it was installed. The church currently owns the property. There were no questions for Mr. Benish from Board members, so Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing. Representatives from the church were present, but no one came forward to speak. Ms. Thomas then closed the public hearing. At this time, Mr. Bowerman commented that the Planning Commission has examined this request closely, and the church has cooperated with staff. The conditions the Commission has recommended for February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) approval of SP-2000-60, Church of Our Savior, meet the requirements of the issuance of the special permit, and he moved approval. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS:None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. A privacy fence shall be provided between the house located at 2412 Huntington Road and the residential property located at 2414 Huntington Road; 2. The existing driveway entrance to the home at 2412 Huntington Road shall be blocked off and the access between the church and the house shall be improved to allow for emergency vehicle access to the satisfaction of Fire and Rescue; 3. The parcels containing the existing church and the house at 2412 Huntington Road shall be combined to satisfy zoning requirements for parking; 4. The items listed above (1, 2, and 3) shall be performed and a zoning clearance must be issued prior to church use of the building; 5. Day care use shall be prohibited unless approved through a special use permit amendment; and 6. Church development shall be limited to the improvements shown on the plan entitled, “Alterations and additions to the Church of Our Savior”, dated 1/13/87, prepared by M. Jack Rinehart, Jr., and to the addition of the residence located at 2412 Huntington Road. The thrift store located at 1147 Rio Road is not included in the special use permit. _______________ Agenda Item No. 8. SP-2000-63. Grace Episcopal Church (Sign #65). Public hearing on a request to allow 4,145 sq ft expansion of an existing 3,653 sq ft church. TM 065, Ps 52, 52A, & 85A, contains a total of 11.19 acs. Located at 5609 Gordonsville Rd (Rt 231) just N of intersec of Rt 600. Znd RA. A site plan waiver has also been requested. (Property also located w/in an EC Dist & the Southwest Mountains Historic Dist.) Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in The Daily Progress on February February 5 and February 12, 2001.) Mr. Benish noted that Grace Episcopal Church has requested a special permit to construct a 2,457 square foot expansion to its existing parish hall. The expansion would be used for a fellowship hall and Sunday School classrooms. According to the applicant, the current facility is not large enough to hold these activities. He added that an increased church membership is not anticipated, so no additional parking is required. This is a non-conforming use, and a special use permit is required to bring the church into conformity and to allow for this expansion. The church is located along an entrance corridor and is in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The property is listed on the National Register for historic places, and the structure is also considered to be contributing to the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District. The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is recommending favorably on the special permit, and its comments are included in the staff report. The Planning Commission is recommending approval subject to the conditions as outlined in the action letter from the Commission dated February 1, 2001. There were no questions for staff. Ms. Thomas asked if the applicant would like to speak. Ms. Marcia Joseph, representing the applicant, thanked the staff for helping in this long process. She did not think the site plan waiver needs discussion, since the Planning Commission has already considered it. The congregation is not expanding, and nothing will be done to the church building. The seating in the church will remain the same. Ms. Thomas opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would like to speak. Ms. Thomas next closed the public hearing, since no one from the public wished to speak. At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to approve SP-2000-63, Grace Episcopal Church, with the three conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission. Ms. Humphris seconded the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS:None. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below:) 1. Church development shall be limited to the improvements as shown on the attached site plan entitled, “Grace Episcopal Church”, prepared by Roudabush, Gale & Associates, Inc., and dated 1/29/00; 2. The church shall commence construction, if at all, within five (5) years after the date of approval of the special use permit by the Board of Supervisors. If construction is not commenced within the five-year period, the special use permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted hereunder shall terminate. All Health Department requirements at the time of the issuance of building permits shall be satisfied before the Zoning Administrator will issue a certificate of occupancy; and 3.A landscape conservation plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) to the issuance of a building permit. The landscape conservation plan shall include a plan to minimize the clearing of trees to those required for the installation of the improvements, and shall identify those threes that shall be preserved. _______________ Agenda Item No. 9. Appointments. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to appoint Mr. Richard C. Collins as the joint City/County appointee to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority, with said terms to run from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2002. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS:None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes: October 18, November 1, November 8(A), December 6 and December 14, 2000; January 3, January 10(A), January 10(N), and January 17, 2001. Mr. Martin recommended approval of the minutes of the Board of Supervisors of October 18, 2000, pages 17 to the end, as well as the minutes of January 10, 2001, page one to the end. Mr. Perkins offered a motion for approval of the Board of Supervisors minutes of December 6, 2000, pages 1-20 and January 3, 2001, pages 25 (Item # 21) to the end with the correction of one typographical error. Mr. Bowerman moved approval of the Board of Supervisors minutes of November 1, 2000, pages 1-15 (end Item #10), and the minutes of January 17, 2001. Ms. Humphris seconded the motions. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:Mr. Dorrier, Ms. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS:None. _______________ Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the Board. Mr. Perkins stated that he is puzzled by why there was so much emphasis put on the 12 principles of the Neighborhood Models when the Church of Our Savior application was discussed. He does not believe that these principles fit an application such as this. He has already talked to Mr. Davis about the situation. Mr. Perkins stated that he is not opposed to the 12 principles, but staff should use some discretion as to where they apply. He questioned whether previous Board of Supervisors’ minutes are complete since he believes the Board directed Mr. Tucker to give Planning staff guidance as to where they should and should not apply the 12 principles. He was shocked to see them in such a minor special use permit for a church. The Board is getting very close to a discussion on the adoption of the principles, but there are times when they will work, and there are other times when they will not. He does not believe they apply to SP-2000-60, and he wondered why Planning staff concerned themselves with these principles. Mr. Tucker responded that by adopting the principles, staff was left to decide how to deal with them. He added that the Commission had some concerns about them too. Staff members are attempting to provide more information to the Board. He emphasized that staff members do not use the principles to recommend either approval or denial of a request. He pointed out that most of these items may not be worded exactly the way the principles are, but they are already found in the Comprehensive Plan. They have gone through the Neighborhood Model and have been placed with regard to the principles themselves. It is not the staff’s intent that the principles would apply to churches, etc. Mr. Dorrier said he thought the principles dealt with new construction, and this was not the case with the church's request. Mr. Benish stated that this particular use was for a new activity within an existing structure, and staff tried to make it clear that it was shown only for informational purposes. He added that the format used was to cite the Comprehensive Plan recommendations that parallel the existing Neighborhood Model, so only the ones that are already in a slightly different or less detailed component of the Comprehensive Plan are evaluated. He referred to Page Two of the staff report where the existing Comprehensive Plan standards are actually cited, and indicated that the Neighborhood Model principle is shown. The staff will be going through this process anyway, since it is already in the Comprehensive Plan, but they do not evaluate the Neighborhood Model in greater detail. Ms. Humphris said she did not recognize the name of the person who did the report and wondered if it was a new employee. She said, if so, she felt the person was just following instructions. Mr. Benish concurred that the staff person was new. The evaluation was completed early in the process, but the fact that the existing Comprehensive Plan Model has been met needed to be documented. February 21, 2001 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) Mr. Tucker informed Board members that the March 7, 2001 work session will begin by discussing the process to be followed with regard to DISC recommendations. __________ Ms. Humphris referred to the visibility test for the ECC tower. She said she drove through the area twice, and each time she was amazed at the visibility of telephone poles and the huge array of wires along the road. These wires made the tower seem insignificant. She also drove on Old Ivy Road, and there was only one place where the balloon was visible. Mr. Bowerman asked about the size of the six public safety towers. Mr. Tucker responded that the dishes at ECC and Klockner are six feet in size, and other dishes will be eight feet. Mr. Bowerman asked if the size of the towers are related to the distances involved. Mr. Tucker answered, “yes.” Ms. Thomas stated that she noticed the importance of pine trees in front of the ECC tower and how much the terrain lends itself to having similar plantings. The Building Committee has suggested deciduous trees, but the existing pine trees are very helpful in shielding the tower. __________ Ms. Humphris next mentioned the “EARL” meeting on Monday, which relates to traffic on Earlysville Road. She sent an e-mail to, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Martin and Mr. Bowerman since they have constituents living in the Earlysville area who wanted to come to the meeting on Monday night. The Board had asked staff to compile information on this issue, but she has not gotten a reply. Mr. Benish apologized and assured Ms. Humphris that Mr. Juandiego Wade, from the Planning office, is working on the matter. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Wade contacted all the industry truckers in the area, and has been assured that they will try to avoid the area. He said Mr. Wade has also drafted a letter responding to the “EARL” Committee. Ms. Humphris remarked that Board members requested that the information also be given to “EARL” members. Mr. Perkins commented that this matter was discussed in the December 6, 2000 minutes and suggested that staff distribute copies of the minutes to the “EARL” members. Mr. Benish noted that Mr. Wade has been in contact with a representative of “EARL.” There was, however, no written communication made. He stated that Mr. Wade really felt as though he was communicating well with the representative. __________ Ms. Thomas noted that a decision needs to be made about the Chairman of the Jail Authority. Mr. Davis responded that the decision was made to let the current Chairman remain in the position until he is replaced. Ms. Thomas inquired if this matter requires Board action. Mr. Tucker answered, “no.” __________ Ms. Thomas announced that Board members may be asked to meet with a representative from the SPCA. She recently met with an SPCA representative who mentioned that the SPCA is supposed to be paid a certain amount per day for each dog that is euthanized. Very few dogs are currently being euthanized and the representative was concerned that the $40,000 in the County budget for the SPCA this year is in jeopardy. Ms. Thomas said she assured the representative that Board members intend for the money to go to the SPCA, whatever the situation. Mr. Tucker concurred. He said the SPCA’s latest capital request is what will be evaluated. Mr. Davis noted that Ms. Roxanne White is meeting with Ms. Linda Peacock, and the SPCA representative, next week on this issue. _______________ Agenda Item No. 12. Adjourn. At 9:05 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Board, the Chairman adjourned the meeting. ________________________________________ Chairman Approved by Board Date 04/18/2001 Initials LAB