Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1985-02-13
February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) A .regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on 13, 1985, in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor of the County Office Building, 401 McIntir~ Road, Charlottesville Virginia, at 9:00 a.m. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way (arrived at 12:46 p.m.). Absent: None. Officers Present' Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County y (arrived at 10:50 a.m.); and Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher, Board Chairman, called the meeting to order at 9:04 a.m. Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Mr. Bowie made motion to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Way. Item No. 4.1. Street sign requests. Item No. 4.'la. Glenaire Subdivision. Mr. James Busi, a resident and President of the Glenaire Neighborhood Association having agreed to purchase signs, the Board approved street signs for Glenaire Subdivision by the following resolution: WHEREAS, request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Allendale Drive (State Route 853) at the southwest corner of its intersection with State Route 676. Glenaire Drive (State Route 771) at the southwest corner of its intersection with State Route 676. Allendale Drive (State Route 853) and Glenaire Drive (State Route 771) at the southeast corner of their intersection. Glenaire Drive (State Route 771) and West Drive (State Route 772) at the southwest corner of their intersection. WHEREAS, a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation be and the same hereby is, requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Item No. 4.lb. Brinnington Subdivision. Mrs. Judy Gough, a resident of Brinnington Subdivision, has requested street name signs and agreed to incur the costs of signs and shippin~ The Board of Supervisors approved street signs for Brinnington Subdivision by the following resolution: WHEREAS, request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Brinnington Road (State Route 871) and Ridge Road (State Route 678) at the northwest corner of their intersection. Ridge Road (State Route 678) at the southwest corner of its intersection with State Route 601. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Ececutive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be, and the same hereby is, requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) Item No. 4.2. Letter from Highway Department dated February 5, 1985, accepting Lynnwood Lane into the state secondary system, to wit: "Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Gentlemen: As requested in your resolution dated December 5, 1984, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective February 5, 1985. ADDITION LYNNWOOD LANE SUBDIVISION LENGTH Lynnwood Lane - From Route 657 to North Cul-de-sac 0.07 mi. Sincerely, (SIaNED) Osqar .~. Mab~y Deputy Commissioner" Item No. 4.3. Superintendents' Memo No. 28 dated February 6, 1985 from the Department of Education giving an update on the Governor's recommended changes to the 1984-86 Education Budget. Mr. Bowie said he has a question about this memo because he could not figure ou~ what the impact on the County will be in total dollars. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor if he could answer this question and Mr. Agnor said no. He said the County Executive's office will receive the proposed 198586 school budget next week, and he believes that budget has been prepared on the basis of the Governor's recommended funding. Mr. Fisher said he understood that the Governor recommended funding Basic State Aid at $1,877 per pupil, while the House of Delegates Appro- priations Committee recommended $1,905 and the Senate Finance Committee recommended $1,880. Mr. Bowie said the County must know if it's going to get more money from the General Assembly or not, and he requested further information. Item No. 4.4. Notice from VEPCO dated February 1, i985, giving notice of two hearings. On March 27, 1985, there will be a hearing to discuss the 1985 fuel factor and cogeneration tariff On March 29, 1985, there will be a hearing to discuss an increase in rates. Item No. 4.5. Memo from Judy Gough, listing refunds on business~licenses, real and personal property taxes made by the Finance Department in recent months, dated February 1, 1985, totalling $4,920.11. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this is a normal amount of money to be refunded. Mr. Agnor said the dollar amount is normal, but the number of refunds, 22, is high. Mr. Lindstrom asked..if it had anything to do with the County's new policy for assessing automobiles. Mr. Agnor said the few refunds of personal property taxes were due to assessing either the wrong year or model of the vehicle, and there'were some adjustments because of roil-back taxes on real property. Mr. Lindstrom asked how many people are. requesting adjustments because their cars are just not worth the assessment made by the Department of Finance. Mr. Agnor said there were a fair number of requests, but, for the most part, the people accepted the reassessment. Mr. Lindstrc said he understands that the County had no choice bUt to change the assessment, method, but sometimes the book value and the actual value of the car are different. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes - July 18 (afternoon) August 1 (part) November 7. (night), November 14 and November 29, 1984. ' ' Mrs. Cooke reported that she had read the minutes of July 18, 1984 (afternoon) and found no errors. Mr. Lindstrom said he found no errors in the AugUst 1, 1984 minUtes on pages one through seven, but he requested that the phrase "one step away'' in the second-to-last line of page l0 b~ changed to "leading" away. ~ Mr. Fisher, who had read the November 7 (night) minutes, asked if the Board did not discus~ a request from Fauquier County on proposed legislation concerning Agricultural/ Forestal Districts. A check of the contents of that meeting revealed that no such discussion was held, but the matter did come up for discussion at a later meeting. Mr. Fisher asked that the word ~"hearing" be placed after "pUblic" in the last paragraph of the eighth page. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of November 29 and no errors were found. Mr. Fisher had also read pages 1-11 of the November 14 minutes and found no errors, however asked that the phrases "will be" and "his performance" be inserted in the discussion of the new director of the ¥irginia Association of Counties on page 18 of the November 14 minutes. · Mr. Lindstrom made motion to approve the minutes listed as corrected. the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS' None. ABSENT- Mr. Way. Mrs. Cooke seconded Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters. Item No. 6a. Request concerning Route 674. The Board received a letter on February 1, 1985 from Mrs. Florence Bruce requesting gravel to repair a school bus turning site in her parents' driveway (see minutes of February 6, 1985). The Board requested a report on who held responsibility for the situation. Mr. Agnor said he had asked Mr. Robert Thraves if the school system had any means of providing assistance to people who allow buses to turn in their private driveways, and M. Thraves indicated that a fund exists to provide gravel and maintenance, and that the school system has a crew to do the repairs. Mr. Thraves said the crew would repair Mrs. Bruce's parents' driveway. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board would like to send a letter to Mrs. Bruce. The Board agreed by concensus to have Mr. Agnor sign a letter. Item No. 6b. Request to vacate roads in Crozet - Ellison and Oak Streets. Letter dated January 16, 1985, signed by Christine C. Chapman, with the firm of Paxson, Smith, Gilliam and Scott, initiated this request. "January 16, 1985 Miss Lettie Neher, Clerk Office of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors 401 McIntire Road Char!ottesviIie, VA 22901-4596 Re: S. W. Barnes Property - Vacation of Roads Ellison & Oak Streets Dear Miss Neher: As instructed by your letter, dated December 5, 1984, the following is information pertinent to the requested vacation of Ellison and Oak Streets, located on the referenced property in Crozet, Virginia: We represent S. W. Barnes, Inc., ("Barnes") which is the owner of property located in Crozet, Virginia, shown as parcels 7'1 and 7lB on Albemarle County Tax Map 56A2, a copy of which is attached to this letter. Barnes operates a lumberyard on this property. In 1946, a plat, made by Hugh F. Simms, laid out a portion of Barnes' property and an adjacent parcel into lots and streets as a residential subdivision. A copy of this plat is attached. This plat was recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 272 at p. 113, in connection with the conveyance of lots 17 and 18, as shown on the attached plat. Over the course of the next few years, additional lots in the area to the west of Oak Street were conveyed by reference to the plat. The two streets shown on the plat, Ellison and Oak Streets, were never accepted officially by Albemarle County as part of its road system, and are not maintained .by the County or by the Commonwealth. However, the recordation of the plat and the sale of lots with reference to the plat may have acted as a common law dedication of those streets to public use. For this reason, we hereby request that the Board of Supervisors take the appropriate action to vacate these streets. At present, Ellison and Oak Streets are ill-defined paths running through the Barnes property. Motorists using the lumberyard as an alternative thoroughfare to Tabor Street do not stay within the confines of the platted streets, but make their own routes through the lumberyard, creating a dangerous situation for themselves and the workers at the lumberyard.. The potential for a tragic accident between the heavy equipment and trucks operating in the lumberyard and a motorist driving through the area is very real. The County Comprehensive Plan calls for a road running from High Street, a portion of which proposed road appears to lie in the same general vicinity as Ellison Street. For safety's sake, however, this road should be located along the boundary of the lumberyard and should not pass through the lumberyard proper. It is our position that the vacation of Ellison and Oak Streets as presently platted would infringe only minimally, if at all, upon any rights the public may have acquired in the present location of these streets. On the other hand, vacation of these streets would eliminate a definite Safety hazard. In keeping with the County's land use plan, a thoroughfare along the boundary of the lumberyard would provide more appropriate and safer passage to those areas presently reached by traveling through the lumberyard. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) We understand that there is before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors an application for a zoning map amendment for the subject property, which is being held in abeyance subject to resolution of certain issues. We believe that it would be appropriate for this request for vacation of streets to be considered in conjunction with the zoning map amendment application, and request that the Board of Supervisors consider hearing these matters together. Sincerely, Christine C. Chapman For the Firm" Mr. Donnelly presented the following memorandum from himself to the Board of Supervisors gated February 7, 1985: "S. W. Barnes, Inc., is requesting vacation of Ellison and Oak Streets located on Tax Map 56A2, Parcels 71 and 7lB. The streets in question were platted in 1946 by Hugh F. Simms and laid out a portion of the S. W. Barnes property and an adjacent parcel into lots and streets. Subsequently, lots 17 and 18 were conveyed by reference to the plat and eventually additional lots in the area to the west of Oak Street were also conveyed by reference to the plat. The two streets shown on the plat, Ellison and Oak Streets, were platted prior to the adoption of a subdivision ordinance in Albemarle County (1949) and were not expressly dedicated to public use on the plat. There does not appear to be any evidence that these roads were ever formally accepted by Albemarle County as public roads and they are not maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The facts that (1) the plat was recorded prior to a County subdivision ordinance prevents the plat from meeting statutory dedication requirements and (2) the absence of a formal acceptance of the roads by the County or the Commonwealth excluded the common law offer of dedication. An offer to dedicate may, before acceptance, be revoked and the revo- ~t2~a~i~n~mayhb~sh~wn~0~stablished in several ways. Among these are: (1) acts inconsistent with pubti'c use; (2) a conveyance of the Property; (3) enclosing the land so as to exclude the public; (4) erecting buildings on the land offered to be dedicated. Attachment #2 (on file) indicates portions of buildings constructed in the rights-of-way of Ellison and Oak streets. It is the opinion of the Deputy County Attorney and the Planning staff that the streets were never dedicated to public use or accepted by County authorities. This being the case the County would have no role in the vacation or abandonment of the streets. From a planning perspective, access to the residential area south of Barnes Lumber Company is currently provided by Tabor Street which is inadequate in terms of transporting mobile homes to Sneads Mobile Home Park. Another concern raised involves the provision of emergency access to the residential area, with Tabor Street being the sole means of access. The Comprehensive Plan indicates a proposed loop road from the~Crozet commercial area easterly and south adjacent to the eastern boundary of Claudius Crozet Park. This loop road will serve the proposed new medium density residential area and provide a connection with the proposed new southeast link to Route 250'~west. 'A portion of this proposed road appears to be Ellison Street and dedication may be required in the future. While .vacating Ellison and Oak streets may'be beyond the purView of the Board of Supervisors, the vacation of the roads is viewed as contrary to the public interest and safety since no other alternative route to Tabor Street currently exists." Mr. Fisher said what Mr. Donnetly and the legal staff seem to be saying is that the County does not have any jurisdiction in this matter, but if it' did, the staff would recommend that the vacation petition be denied. Mr. DonnellY Said that is the point. Mr. Bowie asked how mobile homes are delivered to Sneads Mobile Home Park now. Mr. Donnel said they come through the lumber yard. Mr. BOWie asked if there are buildings in Ellison Street. Mr. Donneliy said there are buildings in portions .of the street. ~ Mr. George H. Gilliam addressed the Board representing S. W. Barnes, Inc. He said the lumber yard has buildings that stand on the old platted streets. Parts of the buildings sit out in the right's-of-way making regulation width streets impossible without major demolition or relocation. As a first-sDep to cleaning up the mess that the existence of the old roads create the lumber company has decided to determine what the public-interest is in the existing road. The company has no objections or disagreements with the items in the staff report, but it would like to have the official word'on the use of the land. The S. W. Barnes company.is planning a long-range renovation of the lumber yard that will include removing some of the old buildings and constructing some new ones. In connection with that, Mr. Giliiam said the present streets will be realigned. While these will not be public streets, some access may be given through private easements to landowners who need access through the lumber yar.d. What S. W. Barnes, Inc. would like the Board of Supervisors to do is simply to declare by resolution that it has no interest in the matter. No one else was present to comment on the issue. Y (February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the public has any legal rights in these roadways. Mr. Ft. John said he agrees with Deputy County Attorney Fred Payne that the roads were not dedicated or accepted and the Board should not vacate anything it has no power to vacate. A resolution could say that the Conty does not assert any public interest in the matter because that would be different from saying that no public interest exists, which is a legal conclusion. A resolution might not suit at all, however. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the record would not speak for itself in the absence of a reso[ Hr. St. John said he thinks that is correct. The matter is one for the title examiner. Mr. Lindstrom said he is for letting the record stand as it is. He would not want to confuse the record by renouncing a public interest that is not there, or renouncing one the Board thinks is aot there only to find there was a public interest. Mr. St. John said he agreed. He recommende that the Board do nothing. Mr. Lindstrom said the abandonment of the roads will be a problem for property owners and he would feel better if the Board took no action abandoning its "interest", when no interest is there. Mr. Henley said a number of people in Crozet hope the streets will stay open. He noted that he had received the following letter from Mrs. Yvonne Vess, a resident of the area, outlining the concerns of the Tabor Street residents: "I am writing this letter regarding the closing of two public roads, Oak and Ellison Streets, which run through the S. W. Barnes, Inc., lumberyard. Oak and Ellison Streets are seldom used because they are not maintained and are therefore full of bumps and potholes. Even though there is little~ traffic, it is understandable that the lumber company does not want the public traveling through that area. Safety is obviously the concern here, in fact, there is a sign on the company's property reading 'no tresspassing'. Not a public road. This is for your~ safety.' Oak and Eltison streets are more than a 'short cut' for the residents in that area. In many instances these roads are the only access to the neighborhoods lying beyond the lumberyard. According to a letter from Paxson, Smith, Gilliam & Scott., the law firm representing S. W. Barnes, Inc., .their position is that the closing of these roads '...would infringe only minimally, if at all, upon any rights the public may have acquired...' As I understand it, there are many complex legalities concerning the public's right to use these roads. Regardless of the legal outcome, if this vacation is approved, the whole community ser- viced by these roads (which includes High Street, Hill Top Street, Myrtle Street, Park Road, Claudius Crozet Park, WPED Radio Station, Snead's Trailer Court and Brookwood Subdivision - approximately 170 homes) is left with only one route for ingress and egress, that being Tabor Street. Tabor Street is a very steep, narrow road which, for the most part, is lined on both sides with large trees. During the winter months, when snow and/or ice are on the roads, Tabor Street is virtually impossible to travel, even in a four-wheel drive vehicle. Because the road is shaded from the sun, it remains in that condition for several days. Often heavy ice or snow on the trees and even strong wind causes large limbs to break and fall across the road, blocking traffic. When such circumstances occur, Oak and Ellison Streets are the only alternate routes, not only for residents, but also for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and rescue squads. In writing this letter I am expressing the concerns of my neighborhood as well as my own. Although Oak and Ellison Streets are not desirable to travel, at times it becomes necessary for all or us who live in this area. If it is decided that these two streets should be vacated, we will need another thoroughfare to our homes other than Tabor Street." Mr. St. John said that according to his interpretation of Lindsay v. James, 188 Va. 646 1949), the owners of land near the lumberyard have private rights even though the County holds no public rights to the property. Those private rights cannot be extinguished by the Board. Mr. Henley remarked that if he were S. W. Barnes he would not want the streets in the lumberyard area either, but they are there, and the public uses them. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Lindstrom has suggested that the Board take no action but leave the matter as it exists. He asked if Mr. Henley would approve of that. Mr. Henley said he guesses that is the right thing to do. Mr. Bowie said he sees that the Board has little choice except to leave the matter alone. Mr. St. John said the matter of private rights-of-way cannot be affected by governmenta action. The landowners who use the road will have to work out something with S. W. Barnes. Hr. Fisher announced that the matter, then, is closed and should be settled between attorneys For the landowners and the lumber company. Item No. 6c. Other Highway Matters. Mrs. Cooke said the members of the Woodbrook Parent-Teacher Organization are very concerned tbout the school buses and traffic on U. S. 29 North near the entrance to Woodbrook School. ~he traffic on Route 29 is dangerous, and several buses must stop along it to let children on or off. Mrs. COoke introduced Mrs. Susan Bramley, who has been sent as president of the ~oodbrook PTO to present a letter to the Board and to Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt about the traffic ~ituation: February 13, 1985 (Regular kay Meeting) "February 10, 1985 Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt, Highway Engineer Highways and Transportation Department Route 250 E. Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 -Rear Mr. Roosevelt: As you are aware from your recent visit at a Parent-Teacher Organi- zation meeting at Woodbrook Elementary School many of the parents of the 315 elementary students and the area neighbors have become very concerned about and frustrated with the Route 29 North traffic. Speci- fically, the problems that have been identified are: 1) The difficulty for elementary, middle and high school buses and parents, dropping off and picking up children, to enter and exit the Woodbrook Subdivision from Route 29 North; 2) The difficulty for school buses, parents and area neighbors to merge into the southbound lane of Route 29 North, especially during the morning rush hour traffic; 3) The difficulty for three school buses to safely stop on Route 29 North during rush hour traffic to either pick up or drop off students; 4) The excessive speeds (85 percent of the traffic is traveling at speeds of 58 miles per hour) by commuters, out-of-the-region travelers, and tractor-trailers within the area between the South Rivanna River and the Albemarle Square Shopping Center. While we are aware of the planned traffic lights on Route 29 North at both the Woodbrook and Carrsbrook intersections by 1992, we feel that both the County and state governments need to take some interim action about these potentially life-threatening problems. We request that the Highways and Transportation Department consider the following recommendations as interim solutions to our traffic problems: a) Grant special permission to designate Route 29 Northin the vicinity of Woodbrook subdivision as a school zone; b) Post Route 29 North 'maximum safe speed 45 MPH' between the South Rivanna River and the Albemarle Square Shopping Center; c) Support area residents and parents in asking the County Police Department to increase its enforcement of the posted speed limits on Route 29 North from the South Rivanna River to the Charlottesville City limits. We believe that these interim measures could greatly improve Route 29 North traffic safety for all concerned until a solution has been found for the Route 29 bypass. Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations. Sincerely, (SIGNED) Michael H. Boblitz President, Woodbrook Community Association Susan Bramley President, Woodbrook Parent-Teacher Organization" Mr. Roosevelt said he really has no comments at this time. He would prefer to look at the situation with the traffic engineer and determine what can be done. Mrs. Cooke requested that the Board of Supervisors get a copy of Mr. Roosevelt's findings when they are available. ~ Agenda Item No. 7. Request to Amend Leaf Burning Ordinanc.e. The Board received the following letter from Mrs. Jean Reinhold on the problems with leaf- burning in the Hessian Hills area: "January 2, 1985 Dear Mr. Fisher: I_am writing to respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County review their entire policy for the burning of leaves in the subdivisions of this County. During the past Christmas holiday five members of our family flew from Boston to spend a week with us. Shortly after their arrival at noon on the 23rd, a neighbor began a very large fire (10-15 feet in dia- meter). The leaves had been piling up for over a month and created a heavy column of smoke that the wind blew on our home and that of Mr. Page at 107 Bennington for the next several hours. Another neighbor directly across the road started a second large fire. It was a lovely clear day or had been until the burning began. Our grandchildren had to remain indoors. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) The next day, Christmas Eve, the burning began again in early after- noon and was still burning as other guests arrived for dinner. Burning began again on December 26th. This time the fire was started by two men at 106 West Park Drive (to the rear of our home). They burned and watched the fire for several hours and then left. The fire smouldered and then began to flame up. No one attended to it, so at 4 p.m. we called the fire department. They sent the engine out, found no one at home and they put the fire out. Our neighbor, Mr. Page, reminded them that his rear yard, woodpile and tree had been set on fire several years ago in exactly the same way. The present policy of allowing burning in residential sections where lots are rarely more than one-half acre is a very real problem. It has existed for a long time. Fire department records will show that they have had to put out fires from time to time in this area. In fact, the Saturday after Thanksgiving, 1983, so many were burning on Bennington that the police came by and ordered everyone to stop as the heavy smoke had cut driving visibility to a dangerous level. It is probably not possible for any one to burn without causing some discomfort and annoyance to their neighbor. Most burning is done within 100 feet of other homes. Some of us mulch leaves and burn the balance, some have them carted away while others burn all their leaves. We have 16 large oaks; some people have as many as 60 trees. Ail of us try to be friendly, cooperative neighbors who consider others, but the quantity of leaves make their disposal a very real problem. The recent appraisal of all our property should yield additional revenue. Could not some of it be allocated for the collection of leaves in the densly populated subdivisions so that we could all stop burning? In any event, I would like to request that all burning be restricted on our national holidays, especially the Thanksgiving and Christmas season. It is on these holidays that many out of town visitors come to see and enjoy the beauty of Charlottesville and Albemarle County. Sincerely yours, (SIGNEO) Jean (Mrs. Frederick W.) Reinhold" Mrs. Reinhold told the Board the leaf-burning took place almost the entire time her family as home for Christmas. She restated her letter's emphasis, saying that many of the neighbors are upset with the burning. She and her husband bag about 200, 30-gallon bags of leaves each year and have then hauled away. Many have more than the 16 trees the Reinholds have. Her son, she said, is a surgeon who feels the smoke from the leaves creates a health hazard in the neighborhood as well as a fire hazard. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mrs. Reinhold's neighborhood has a homeowners' association. She said it does not. Mr. Lindstrom said the solution for these problems seems to lie among the homeowners themselves rather than an ordinance that may not be fair to everyone. Banning burning may not be the best solution, and he is not willing to prohibit it. Instead, a home- owners association can create a voluntary burning plan. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks Mrs. Reinhold lives in Charlottesville District, which Mrs. Cooke represents. She knows that a homeowner's association works very well and would be glad to assist in forming one. She asked for Mrs. Reinhold's telephone number and said she would call tomorrow to help begin work on forming a neighborhood association. Mr. Fisher said people in Hessian Hills had the same problem ten or eleven years ago, when the leaf-fall was particularly thick and~people were afraid the entire neighborhood would burn. ~rom that concern came the existing ordinance. ' Agenda Item No. 8. Request Concerning Housing Coordinator. The Board received the following letter from Mrs. Rellen Perry concerning a housing ~oordinator for the County: "January 23., 1985 Mr. Gerald Fisher, Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors Mr. Guy Agnor, County Executive Mr. Robert Tucker, Deputy County Executive Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development Gentlemen: The Albemarle Housing Coalition is preparing a report. One of the recommendations will be for a County Housing Coordinator. We regret tat we must forward this recommendation in advance of the full report, but we understand that budgetary planning makes it imperative. In 1975, the Housing Committee appointed by-the Board of Supervisors made a final report which had as its number one recommendation the hiring of a County Housing Coordinator. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) As you know, this Coordinator was hired but eventually the original purpose and scope was narrowed when an office was set up limited to handling the Section 8 rental housing program with HUD funds. Although the County staff has supported and cooperated with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and with AHIP, and these excellent programs have effected some improvement, the improvement has not had sufficient breadth and impact to substantially reduce the number of inadequate dwellings and over-crowded living situations. There has been no activity in the rehabilitation of rental dwellings or mobile homes where many lowest income persons must live. A Housing Coordinator could increase the amounts of funds for housing coming to Albemarle and deal with the problems of bureaucratic foot- dragging now being experienced with FmHA in which hundreds of thousands of dollars which might have enabled the working poor of rural Virginia to buy homes has been returned instead to Federal coffers to be divided among other states. Given the present needs for safe, warm and dry housing for low income families in Albemarle County, the Albemarle Housing Coalition urges the appointment of a well qualified Housing Coordinator. The attached job description is based on that drafted by the original board appointed committee, updated to meet present needs. Yours sincerely, Rellen Perry for the Albemarle Ham~.Coalition" "Job Description Summary: Coordinate housing resources and their development in Albemarle County. Duties and Responsibilities: Determine the priority for housing needs through familiarity and study of the county housing situation and by conducting a contin- uous survey of housing needs; Enlist community acceptance of and participation in overall housing efforts and or specific programs or projects; Solicit available space and act as clearing house for people with emergency housing needs. Coordinate efforts with existing organizations such as, but not limited to, Housing Coalition member agencies and individuals; Pursue and facilitate the actual construction and occupancy of housing for low and moderate income housing seekers. Become familiar with programs both private and governmental which could be utilized locally; Participate in legislative efforts to improve the County's ability to handle housing problems; Coordination of emergency housing, entailing (a) keeping records of emergency housing inventory, (b) screening and placing families, (c) orienting families to proper care of facilities, and kd) coordinating maintenance of properties, before and after use. Qualifications: Graduation from an accredited college or university (work experience may be substituted for educational requirement). At least two years of significant work in the field of housing, planning rural development or a related field." Mrs. Perry said she has spent the last year studying the housing situation to become familiar with the problems faced by the poor in the county who must be content with substandard housing. She asked Mr. Agnor if he would summarize the history of the housing coordinator position as it has been in the past. She also reminded Board members of a housing tour later in the spring that would point out some of the problems that exist in Albemarle County. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) ad grown to three. The Housing Coordinator developed a Housing Improvement Plan in conjunction ith the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, 'a Housing OpportUnity Plan, helped ,~oO?dinate The Meadows, a housing project for the elderly in Crozet, and started the Section 8 ?ental subsidy program in the County. Mr. Agnor said the Board of Supervisors policy has been to encourage the development of housing by the private sector with money from federal and state programs. The Housing Coordinator did this also. In 1983 the Board changed the Planning )epartment into the Department of Planning and Community Development and at that time merged the Housing Office into that department.' Since last year, Ms. Katherine Imhoff has been in charge of the housing programs. The functions are very similar to those that the Housing ',oordinator had -- administering Section 8 rental subsidies and coordinating housing improvement rith the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program (AHIP). The merger was made because the function of the housing office was that of a planner, not of an active landlord and the existenc of a separate department was not felt to be efficient. The staff assumes, Mr. Agnor said, that ;he office functions as it has and as the Board intends-- as a planner for housing programs. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be any recommendation in the prepared FY '85-86 budget to ;hange the housing section. Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the housing office eels hampered in its ability to coordinate housing by the Board guidelines and the lack of a eparate designation. Mr. Agnor said he is not aware of that sentiment, if it exists. The staff does not indicate that there are any problems and feels that it has flexibility. He said the frustration on the part of others interested in housing in the County is because the coordinator has been absorbed into the Planning Department and is not visible, and is only ~oing housing coordinator work part-time. Mr. Fisher requested that the Board review this in more depth when it reviews the budget in March. He would like to know what work the staff is actually doing. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mrs. Perry if any of what Mr. Agnor had said is news to her. He wondered if she knew that the County's policy of not getting involved in real estate as O~mz~h~ Charlottesville has, is in fact a policy. He said he is concerned about the housing situation, but does not want to get into real estate and is wondering if the Housing Coalition~feels that ~he policy is wrong or merely that the County should use what it has in the housing o&fice. ~rs. Perry said she feels the County needs a more dynamic approach to housing needs. No ~ ~ttention is being given to mobile homes, weatherization, or rental rehabilitation. These items need dynamic leadership to seek out funding sources and no agency is currently doing that. AHIP is limited to owner-occupied dwellings and excludes mobile homes, too. Many of the poor, then, are virtually ignored because of the type of housing in which they are forced to live. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it would be helpful to have a little more information before ihe Board approves a final budget. He would like to digest the information offered by the ousing Coalition and look at what the staff is doing.' He said he spoke with Ms. Imhoff and ot the impression that she feels the housing office is doing the same job it always has, nd that is adequate. A specific look would be helpful. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstrom ould like to do that before the budget is considered. Mr. Lindstrom said he would agree with hatever the Board suggests. He just wants to know if there is more the County should be doing. The staff may be hampered in its search for money for its projects because there is not enough time or manpower, and it may be that there is a need for expanded housing staff that should be part of the budgetary process. It is possible, of course, that the staff is perfectl adequate as it is now. Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the matter should come up during the budget review for the Planning and Community Development Department. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Department does operate the housing office in such a way that it does not get lost in the other business of the department. The. Board had feared before the merger that the housing functions-would'be lost in the myriad of other jobs the Planning Department does ...... Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing: Amend Section ~-23 of the Albemarle County Code to Increase the License Tax Fee fo'r Unneutered Male Dogs. Mr. Fisher noted that this request came before the Board in January. Mr. Agnor supplied ~he background information, saying the present ordinance charges a licensing fee of $3 for both aeutered and unneutered male dogs, while an unneutered female dog license hosts $5. The new )rdinance would raise the fee for an unneutered male to $5. Kennel fees will not change. Mr. kgnor said the change would go into effect on September 1, 1985, since new dog licenses go on sale on October 1 for the next year. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Ms. Susan Wiedman, who had requested the change on )ehalf of Voices for Animals said her organization supports the increase and that the city of ~harlottesville has already passed such an ordinance to go into effect on January 1, 1986. foices for Animals will be presenting information for the owners of unneutered animals stating ~he advantages of having a neutered pet. Mr. Henley asked the advantages to the dog. Ms. Wiedman said the male dogs do not wander, ~hey make better pets; they do not get-cancer of the genital organs as often as the unneutered ~nimals do. Mr. Henley said he would not neuter his'dogs if they would thenceforth refuse to aunt. Mrs. Sally Mead said she supports the increase in fees. fear, but males can impregnate females all year long. Females are only in heat twice a Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt the following ordinance. Mrs. Cooke seconded the notion. Mr. Henley said he feels dogs should be kept tied anyway. The problem dogs are not ~unting dogs, which are usually kept tied, but the pet that is allowed to run loose. Mr. Bowie said there is no doubt that dog packs are made up of unneutered males, and he supports the License fee increase out of fairness. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked if the fee goes into the general fund and is intended for animal csntrol. Mr. Agnor said the staff has checked with neighboring jurisdictions to see if the fee is in line with what is being~.done in other counties and found that Louisa and Nelson counties' already distinguish between neutered and unneutered males and so does the city of Waynesboro. Mr. Bowie said the motion should make clear that the Board is only adopting the fee increase, not the pamphlet on neutering. Mr. Lindstrom and Mrs. Cooke agreed. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and LindStrom. None. Mr. Way. ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 4-23, CHAPTER 4, DIVISION 3, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE ENTITLED "ANIMALS AND FOWL" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 4-23 of the Albemarle County Code entitled "Amount of License Tax", Chapter 4, Division 3, "Animals and Fowl", is hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 4-23. Amount of license tax. Dog license taxes shall be as follows: (a) Female. Five dollars. (b) Female, unsexed (successfully spayed). Three dollars. (c) Male, neutered. Three dollars. (d) Male, unneutered. Five dollars. (e) Kennel, twenty dogs. Fifteen dollars. (f) Kennel, fifty dogs. Twenty-five dollars. Provided that no license'tax shall be levied on any dog that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person. FURTHER, this ordinance shall be effective on and after Septemb'er 1, 1985. Agenda Item No. 10. Water Quality Monitoring Policy. (This item came about as a request from the Board that the staff develop well-testing procedures for County-owned properties.) The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Deputy County Executive, dated January'24, 1985. "I have reviewed with Mr. David C. Papenfuse the suggestions made by Mr. James W. Moore, III, District Engineer for the Department of Health's Division of Water Programs for the Commonwealth of Virginia and offer the following comments. Mr. Moore has suggested that we consider a level of monitoring for County owned well systems similar to that required for community groundwater systems of the State. We are proposing in the (attached) policy that testing for coliform bacteria be made once per month rather than once per calendar quarter and that a complete inorganic analYsis be made once every other year rather than once every five years. The water quality monitoring undertaken at the present time is not, in our opinion, adequate to protect the users of our well systems. We propose that procedurely, the inorganic analysis will be made for approx- imately one-half of our well systems the first year while the other half of the well systems will be sampled the second year; this would continue on a rotating basis. Based upon the Health Department's fees for analysis, the approximate total cost of this additional monitoring breaks down as follows: Coliform analysis = $1,560 per year; Inorganic analysis = $1,050 per year. We would recommend that the policy become effective on July 1, 1985, in order that those departments responsible for the sampling of these well systems will be adequately funded through their budget requests. After the first year of monitoring is complete and baseline data has been established, we may recommend that the sampling for coliform be reduced to those months that the building or use is most actively use.d-. For example, schools could be sampled monthly from August through May only. Parks could be sampled from May through October. As I indicated in an earlier memorandum, I am by copy of this memo inviting Dr. Prindle and Mr. MoOre to attend your February 13, 1985 meeting to answer any questions you may have." Februar 1 1 8 ' e ul D Meetin Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum for the Board, saying that Dr. Richard Prindle, Mr. David Papenfuse, Mr. James Moore and Mr. Tucker are all present to answer questions.' (Mr. ~enley left the meeting at 10:13 a.m.) Mr. Lindstrom asked the reason for having the inorganic analysis done every other year. Hr. Agnor said the committee concluded that the every-other-year schedule would be more ~ rigorous than the every-five-year tests that are done now, and yet would not be as expensive as zearly testing ($1,000 per year). Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks it would be reasonable to do it zearly for $1,000. Mr. Fisher noted that this discussion is the result of the Board's concern for the recent ~ell problems at Stone Robinson School and concern about water at Murray. He said he unde~ that those situations are much improved. Nonetheless, the Board has a responsibility to those people who use the facilities. He asked Dr. Prindle for comment. Dr. Prindle said he supports the more rigorous testing, but does not think, as a practical matter, that the inorganic ~esting is needed monthly or yearly. No real problems are anticipated (no wells are in peril) ~nd so the tests would be excessive unless a drastic change takes place. Mr. Papenfuse said he is the lone dissenting vote in this group. He does not feel the ~'roposed testing schedule is appropriate. Testing more frequently for something that has never t~een found would not be enlightening and would be expensive and time-consuming. The coliform I~ests have already been getting good reports during their quarterly tests. The nine affected schools, Yancey, Walton, Scottsville, Stone Robinson, Red Hill, Stony Point, Murray, Meriwether Lewis and Broadus Wood have never had a problem with bacteriological contamination in the testing done for the schools by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Since those have been clean, he questions increasing the frequency. He is worried about the expense, the time involved and the inconclusiveness of the.tests. At the very least the tests should be for specific contaminants that may be present in dangerous quantities. Mr. Fisher asked how often the inorganic tests are done. Mr. Papenfuse said every five years. Mr. Fisher said five years is a long time. Mr. Papenfuse said this test should be done more frequently, but the testers should know what they are looking for. Mr. Tucker told Mr. Lindstrom that the cost would double if the tests were done for Lnorganic material yearly. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the laboratory doing the testing for inor ontamination has to be told what to look for, specifically. Mr. Tucker said there are some ~uidelines and some specific types of things that the testers'look for. Mr. Lindstrom said the test results from Stone Robinson indicate no difference in the water from the old, contaminated ~ell, and the new well. Mr. Tucker said the tests did not find any contamination in the old ~ell. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the school found the contamination in the first place. Mr. rucker said the contamination was detected from smell and taste; the concentration was actually less than one milligram per liter. Dr. Prindle said he is sorry this gets so complicated. He said the Board is looking at a test for bacteria monthly and a test for inorganic chemicals more frequently than that. The inorganic chemicals tested for are nitrates and nitrogens in fertilizers and human/animal ~astes. The tests can also be run for dangerous elements such as mercury and lead. Stone Robinson's contamination would be organic, since it appeared to be petroleum in the water. The tests were costly in terms of time and money. Unfortunately, in terms of the expense involved, the human nose and palate are more sensitive than the laboratory tests, and although the water tastes like fuel oil, the laboratory cannot detect fuel oil in the water. Dr. ~c Hewlett, one of the concerned parents of Stone Robinson children, tested the water in a laboratory at the University of Virginia and found no contamination of benzine or tolluene, so the two mos~ serious poisons were not in evidence at all. Testing on this scale all the time, Dr. Prindle said, is out of the question because there ~re about 30,000 compounds, and it would be difficult even to decide which ones to test for. Hr. Fisher said the problems at Stone Robinson, then, are ones of taste and smell, not harmful ~ollution. Mr. Jim Moore told the Board that when Mr. Jack Collins notified the State Water Control Board in Lexington of the taste and smell problem at Stone Robinson, in October, the Division recommended that the well not be used. He said this is standard practice'where petroleum contamination is suspected. He personally tested the water from both the old and new wells and found nothing. Those tests were run in November. Still, the water from the old well tastes of Ilpetroleum. 'Some samples are being analyzed at the state laboratory in Richmond, but those Iresults have not come in yet. Besides fuel oil, there is no other potential source of lcontamination. A fuel line did leak several years ago, and that could be causing the problem, Ibut the concentration is smaller than one part per million in the Water -- enough to taste, but ~not to detect with laboratory tests. The new well, Mr. Moore said,' does not have any strange taste or smell, It also meets state and federal supply standards. He said the Board should not feel it wasted money in abandoning the old well, since something is definitely contaminating the water, but the tests are not conclusive as to what. Mr. Moore said the'nitrate and biological contamination tests on the new well revealed nothing. The new well has not had the complete inorganic analysis. Since state funds are no longer available for well testing, the laboratories have reduced the number of expensive tests that localities must pay for. Mr. Lindstrom asked what the inorganic tests identify. Mr. Moore said the laboratories mostly look for heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and mercury. There are ten major contaminants. The tests also. check for iron, nitrogen, phosphates, manganese. Stone Robinson got a complete analysis of its water. ".:'., 58 February 13, 1985 [Regular Day Meetin~__ Mr. L~Ustrom~ asked if benzene and tolluene ar'e inorganic chemicals. Mr. Moore said they are not. They would be found in an organic test, if the laboratory doing the testing looks for them specifically. The only organic testing required by the state is for surface Water supplies such as that used by the city of Charlottesville and the urban area. In those tests, the laboratories look for herbicideg and-pesticides, but not petroleum compounds because these are and the tests for them are too expensive to do routinely. Mr. Lindstrom said he is ed that no one knows what is-in the water at Stone Robinson. He asked if it does not seem sensible to test routinely for petroleum in the water at schools that have buried fuel tanks that could be deteriorating and leaking. Mr. Moore said he would not recommend thaT. and odor will identify the problem. In addition, all new wells have linings to protect them down to fifty feet below the surface, so any contamination in the groundwater would have sink a substantial distance before it could contaminate the wells. Mr. Lindstrom asked if are state or federal standards for the amount of petroleum contaminants that can be ested harmlessly. Mr. Moore said there are none for petroleum compounds, but there are ~rd No Adverse Response Levels (SNARLS) for benzene and tolluene. Those limits have been stablished for short and long-term consumption. Some levels have been set for herbicides and des. The lack of levels for petroleum consumption has caused the state to recommend that er suspected of being contaminated not be consumed. The research required to establish levels of tolerance to all the thousands of inorganic and organic compounds is too extensive to be worthwhile. Mr. Lindstrom said this is frUstrating because the tests the staff is recommending would not identify petroleum products and-furthermore, the committee would not recommend doing the tests because the problem would be Smellable before it became dangerous. Mr. Bowie said the Board still does not know what is in the Stone Robinson School well. Mr. Lindstrom said this has all been triggered by something that may not have been petroleum contaminiation and may be just a "wild goose chase", but he is still concerned over the buried petroleum tanks on school property and how well insulated the schools' water supply is from leakage. He suggested that the staff find out where those tanks are in relation to the wells. The public is entitled to protection from pollution, but the County cannot test for everything in every well, unless it knows what it is looking for.- - Mr. Bowie said he thinks the Board has to come up with a testing system and with an information system so that teachers, principals and students know to report any strange conditio in a school's water supply. Mr. Lindstrom said the County should have a policy that if any odor or taste is detected in school water it be reported immediately. None of the tests proposed would make much difference. Mr. Bowie said these tests are better than just testing the water ever five years, but the County stiI1 does not know what it is looking for. Mr. Moore said that even so, the increased testing is a good thing. It will not pinpoint rare . contaminants, but the County is not likely to have rare contaminants. In any case, the testing is better than what's being done now. Mr. Papenfuse said wells are not like surface water and are not so susceptible to contamination. Mr. Moore said the tests are based on groundwater, not surface water for the very reason that surface water is easily contaminated Surface water is tested more often. · Mr. Fisher said he thinks-the water at the' County schools and County parks should be treated by the same standards as water for sub'divisions and he is willing to support the committee's recommendation. Even if the testing will not find petroleum products, it will still be a good thing. Petroleum products will give themselves away by taste and smell. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to accept the policy that has been proposed (following) and Mrs. ~ooke seconded the motion. Mr. Bowie asked if the motion included a request that baseline data 0e evaluated at the end of the year to determine if the tests are done often enough or too ~ecorded°ften' Mr. vote:Lindstr°m and Mrs. Cooke accepted that and the motion carried by the following kYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom, ~AYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. WATER QUALITY MONITORING POLICY FOR NON-COMMUNITY WATERWORKS OWNED BY ALBEMARLE COUNTY It is the policy of the County of Albemarle to routinely monitor the water quality of wells which serve schools and other County-owned buildings for the following contaminant and frequency: * One coliform sample per month for each system. * One complete inorganic analysis every other year for each system. ' Agenda Item No. 11. Groundwater Protection. The Board received the following memorandum from Mr. Tucker dated January 28, 1985, concerning groundwater protection: "Staff has been investigating recently two potential groundwater pro- tection ordinances which would compliment the proposed water quality monitoring policy and the proposal for limiting the amount of water withdrawn in an industrial district. LS Februar_ _1 1 8 Re ul r Da Meetin The first of these would require amendment to the Fire Code to provide for future monitoring of underground storage tank systems to determine if leakage has occurred. This provision would require wells (four-inch PVC screen pipe) for new tank installations. The second area being considered involves groundwater protection measures which could be implemented through the Site Plan Technical Review Committee process for subdivisions and site plans. Prior to our doing any further study, or impact analysis of these potential provisions, we are seeking any reaction you may have regarding the necessity for such provisions or other protection areas we should investigate. Should you have any questions prior to your February 13 meeting, please do not hesitate to contact me." Mr. Agnor summarized the memorandum for the Board. He said this will require a fair amount ~f staff work to determine the legality of the ordinances and the staff would like some clear direction from the Board before proceeding. (Mr. St. John left the meeting at this time.) Mr. Fisher asked if the regulations would be for petroleum tanks or for all underground storage tanks, including those for water, regardless of size. Mr. Agnor said yes. Mr. Tucker said the staff's intent is to concentrate on larger tanks, and not those used in conjunction with single-family dwellings. Regulations would be aimed at large service stations, pumping stations or bulk storage tanks on farms. Most tanks being installed now are fiberglas and those do not pose the deterioration problem that the buried metal tanks pose. Mr. Tucker said that, eliminating faulty workmanship, the only thing that can happen to a fiberglas tank is that it can be punctured. Mr. Fisher said he has heard stories abouv service station tanks that leak and contaminate water hundreds or thousands of yards away. He said if the problem is in tanks that are already in the ground, this would not help at all. Mr. Lindstrom said he read somewhere that the life cycle of a metal storage tank is about 25-30 years, and many tanks in residential areas are past this point. These regulations would not take care of that. (Mr. St. John returned at !!10:50 a.m.) IL Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Moore what is being done around the state to alleviate this problem. l~r. Moore said he does not know of anything except the use of fiberglas tanks. His laborator /~nvestigates several cases of petroleum contamination each year. Most of the problems stem fr~m metal tanks. Mr. Lindstrom asked if a fiberglas tank is now required under the BOCA Code. Tucker said it is. Mr. Fisher suggested the Board reschedule this item for March and think about it in the · Mr. Bowie said changing an ordinance will not solve the problem, but the Board needs at ways to take care of the problem with the old tanks. Mr. Lindstrom said he would be g to consider this ordinance change if two questions can be answered: are fiberglas required and how do other communities deal with the problems posed by old tanks? The Board took a brief recess from 10:55 to 11:00 a.m. Agenda Item No. 12. Report from the Regional Forester. Mr. Mike Griffin, Regional Forester, told the Board that he has good news and not-so-good in this report. He is grateful for the increase in support for fire protection through protection assessment that went up from $0.01 to $0.03 per acre, a fee of $9,057. (State payment for forest fire protection services.) This offsets the cost of fire protection Albemarle County. The volunteer fire departments also help offset costs by offering manpower return, they receive some training from personnel with the Virginia Division of Forestry. Timber management is one area on which the Division of Forestry has been concentrating. County landowners have been instructed in the best management of their timber. The )ivision has also assisted in tree planting, 3,700 acres~in the last five years in Albemarle. Division has been very concerned with Best Management Practices to preserve air and water [uality and soil stabilization. 'In the fire management'program, the DiViSion is pleased with the radio systems that allow contact with volunteer fire departments. The fire detection systems are changing from tower observation to airplane monitoring. The detection program is used to help enforce the four o'clock (afternoon) burning law. Community volunteers help detect smoke to find illegal burning and forest firels.~ LaSt year the Division detected 163 fires in the County, which burned about 875 acres. Most of that was in a single fire Recent sporadic rains have kept fires down. · · In environmental management, the Division of Forestry is working with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and other planners to preserve environmental quality in the urban area. The services of the Divison are available to the County in the office of the Division of Mineral Resources on the University of Virginia grounds. ..~ Mr. Griffin said the County has a couple of insect problems. The gypsy moth is going to c be a problem. It is moving toward the County. at a rate oF ten to fifteen miles per year, The moth can be slowed in its'advance, but not stopped. Mrs. Cooke asked what this moth is. Mr. Griffin said it.~s a caterpillar that eats the leaves of trees in the summer. Mr. Fisher asked if the treeS' die.' Mr. Griffin said they do, because the.leaves never reach full maturity and the tree cannot be properly nourished. Some trees, strong ones, can refoliate and Survive. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this will be a permanent problem. Mr. Griffin said in areas where the ~ is active, it is pretty well established. It is impossible to completely eradicate it, although 'it can be eradicated in small spots. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there is. a kind of d the moths prefer. Mr. Griffin said they like oaks and most of Albemarle County,s timberland is oak. The coming of the moth may change timbering in the County, and a certain amount of revenue loss. The'main problems are in urban areas where the moths can be so thick that they cause an odor and make highways slippery. Febru r.- 1 1 8-.. :'Re :-.ular Dav.Meetin_ff~ Mr. Fisher said he understands that Mr. Griffin's territory runs from Lynchburg to Fairfax County. Mr. Griffin said that encompasses about 2,000,000 acres. Mr-. Fisher thanked him for coming and giving the Board an opportunity to share its concerns with the Division. Agenda Item No. 13. (JABA). Report: Activities and Needs of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging Mr. Gordon Walker, Executive Director of JABA, said Mr. Robert Tucker had recommended that JABA staff present a slide show on its activities and the needs of the citizens it serves to the Board. Housing for the low-income is a major problem because many people cannot be helped by AHIP or other home repair programs. Another problem is finding the people in isolated areas of the county who need services, such as transportation, home health care, home repair, meals. Mr. Walker said JABA would be happy to receive any ideas the Board may have on how to cope with its various problems. He then presented a ten minute slide show on the problems and successes JABA faces. He said there are no horror stories here, but rather, the slides highlight a need to develop a program to address people who rent houses and for whom the property owners do nothing. In addition, people are suffering because of cuts in Medicare send them home from the hospital before they can care for themselves, and many must return to substandard housing. Mr. Fisher said the Board is looking forward to the housing tour on March 7 which is being sponsored by the Albemarle Housing Coalition which JABA is directing. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Sale of McIntire School. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised on January 29 and February 5, 1985, in the Daily Progress.) Mr. Agnor presented a brief history of the project.for the benefit of the people present for the public hearing. The Board held a hearing in 1983 and requested comments on proposed uses for the McIntire School property. Proposals taken in 1984 included one from the Charlottesville Hou.sing [ Foundation and another from the Virginia Discovery Museum. The Buildings and Properties . Committee met fourteen times to negotiate with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation to try and make the school meet housing needs while allowing the Y.M.C.A. which leases a good portion of the building to remain in the building. McIntire Village Associates has now offered to purchase the property for $650,000, with a deposit of $60,000 and a closing of $100,000 in a downpayment payable at closing on or before December 1, 1985. The balance would be paid over ten years, beginning on the third anniversary of the sale. The building would then be converted into rental units for the elderly through use of Section 8 funds. The Y.M.C.A. would be allowed to stay in the building and become the owner of the portion of the property it now rents. The ballfield area would be used to construct 19 residential units. The total property would house the Y.M.C.A. and 35 rental units for the elderly. Staff and the Committee recommend favorable consideration of the McIntire Village ~ Associates proposed by the Board. The purpose of this public hearing is to receive further comments prior to sale of public property. Mr. Fisher said he understands the proposed agreement has been revised. He asked what the- changes are. Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for McIntire Village Associates, said a change was~in the deposit. Originally the deposit was to be in the form of a note, but that has been ohanged- to a letter of credit. Mr. St. John said the other changes are clerical -- dates made to coincide with rental schedules, asbestos replacement clauses changed. Mr. Landess said other changes involve the substitution of collateral and provisions to allow the sale of condominiums without placing the original indebtedness in danger of non-repayment. The-County would not have a lien on the property, but would instead have the letter of credit, so the property could be sold free and clear. Mr. St. John said this move is very much in the county's interest. means the County will not be in the position of foreclosing on a half-built condominium project and being stuck with it. The Board will release the buyer periodically from part of the letter of credit as the balance of the purchase agreement on the building is paid. Mr. Fisher said the proposal as he understands it, provides that nothing~ will be built outside the existing building except for the units on the ballfield. Mr. Agnor said that is correct. Mr. Bowie said he thinks 19 houses will go on the ballfield, but that will be subject to City zoning regulations. Mr. Peter Schmidt, representing the buyer, said the buyer does nbt' know what the exact configuation of the units will be, whether detached or attached. At this time, Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Ms. Barbara Thomas, director of the Monticello Community Action Agency's Head Start Program, told the Board that herooffice is in the McIntire School building and she is concerned ~bo~hets~t~hao~o~h~ ~a~ihe~aE~n~lesl~ha~ currently hold space in the building. She would request that the new owners provide some space to public interest groups in the building. Mr. Agnor said each ten~u~2;~, is subject to a lease agreement with the County, and when the- property is sold, the agencies Will have. 30-90 days to va.cate the property. Mr. Fisher said there is no arrangement to let the tenants remain past the change in the building ownership. Mr. Agnor said that is correct.~ Mr. Fisher said there is no committment on the part of the buyer to the present tenants, an agreement will have to be negotiated separately. ~Mr Schmidt said McIntire Associates plans to seek federal Section 8 housing aid for'the elderly] and under the present plans, the tenants will have to leave. Mr. Lindstrom said the broad question is that of public benefits and the use of this building. Selling it under these circumstances -- providing benefits to the public in the form of hOuSing for the elderly -- seems to be the best use the County can devise. N© apProach to maintaining the building for public office use seems feasible. This approach would benefit the Public and take the burden of the School from the County and its taxpayers. Mr. David Lee said he lives in the neighborhOod and he wOnders if the sale will becOme null and void if traffic problems cannot be wOrked out between the City and the bUyer. The neighborhood is concerned about the increase in traffic. Mr. Fisher said housing for the elderly will create a low-volume of traffic and the traffic count should actually be lower than when the ballfield wa's Operating. Still, the property will revert to the CoUnty if several conditiOns, not just this one, cannot be worked out. Mr. Lindstrom offered motio~ to authorize the chairman to execute the following contract for the sale of the McIntire School property on behalf of the County. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Henley and Mr. Way. THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of 1985, by and between McIntire Village Associates, a Virginia corporation, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Buyer, of the first part, and The County of Albemarle, Virginia, hereinafter sometimes referred to as Seller, of the second part. WITNES SETH: That the Buyer agrees to buy and the Seller agrees to sell the hereinafter described real property upon the terms and conditions set out below: 1. Property. All that certain tract or parcel of land fronting on the U.S. Route 250 By-Pass within the City of Charlottesville, Virginia, known as the McIntire School propertY, containing approximately 12.4 acres, together with all improvements thereon, such improvements consisting primarily of the former McIntire School building. Such property will be conveyed together with all appurtenances and rights pertaining thereto and subject to any easements or conditions presently of record and affecting the same, provided such easements or conditions do not prohibit the development of the property for residential purposes and the use of a portion of the existing building by the Charlottesville-Albemarle YMCA. 2. Consideration. Buyer agrees to pay $650,000.00 for the above described property, payable as follows: upon execution of this agreement, a deposit of $60,000.00 in the form of a letter of credit of Buyer payable to Seller in the event of and upon the date of closing will be delivered; a cash payment of $100,000.00, including payment of the principal amount evidence6 by Such letter of Credit for $60,000.00, at closing as hereinafter set out; and the balance of $550,000.00 to be evidenced by Buyer's note payable to Seller and secured by a deed of trust on the property. Such note shall bear no interest and shall require no payment on principal until the third anniversay of the date of closing. Commencing on such third anniversary, principal installments in the amount of $55,000.00 each, shall be paid each year for ten consecutive years. Seller agrees the deed of trust securing such note may be subordinated to a subesequent deed of trust securing a construction or permanent loan or loans, provided such subsequent deed of trust contains language assuring that the proceeds of the loan secured by it shall be applie to improvements upon the property, including both new construction and renovation of the existing property, but excluding costs associated with designing and obtaining municipal approvals, and further assuring that the loan proceeds shall not be disbursed until the lender has been furnished a certificate by a certified architect or engineer, certifying that the disbursement does not exceed the value of improvements placed upon the property prior to such disbursement, which value shall include materials and equipment purchased and requiring u inspection by the lender prior to such disbursement. 3. Closing. Delivery of the' deed, note and deed of trust and the cash payment shall take place at the offices of McGuire, Woods & Battle, Court Square Building, Charlottesville, Virginia on or before December l, 1985, or such other time and place as may be agreed to by the parties. Rental payments by tenants, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of such closing. Any prorations or adjustments shall be made to the cash portion of the purchase price. 4. Special Conditions. (a) Buyer will work with the Charlottesville Housing Foundation to obtain a Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 8 type rental subsidy for the elderly and, if available, agrees to use the existing building, other than that portion to be used by the YMCA, for such housing. Buyer will also apply to the Virginia Real Estate Commission for registration of a conversion condominium on the McIntire School building. If a commitment for such Section 8 subsidies is not secured by September l, 1985, Buyer shall have no further obligation to pursue such subsidy. If for any reason, other than failure to act by Buyer, neither such condominium conversion nor Section .8 subsidy is approved by closing date, Buyer shall have the right to declare this agreement null and void, have the above mentioned letter of credit returned to it, and~neither party shall have further rights or obligations hereunder. If the conversion condominium is approved, Buyer will attempt to arrange financing for the purchasers of units through VHDA. Februar:- 13 1~8~ (Regular Da[ Meetinff~ (b) Closing under this agreement is conditioned, at the option of Buyer, upon Buyer being able to obtain financing through a tax free bond issue with an interest rate not to exceed 80% of Prime with a. ceiling on Prime of 15%, for construction/permanent financing of the project. Buyer and Seller agree that Prime shall be the Prime rate at Sovran Bank N.A.. (c) Buyer-will make application to the City of Charlottesville for planned unit de~ rezoning allowing at least 54 total dwelling units on the property and the use of a portion'of the existing McIntire School Building for a YMCA facility. Buyer shall use reasonable diligenc to obtain such PUD rezoning by closing. In the event Buyer is unable to obtain such rezoning, Buyer shall have the option to declare this agreement null and void and the above mentioned letter of credit shall be returned to it and all rights and obligations of the parties he shall cease. ' (d) Any required improvements for ingress and egress for the property from the 250-Bypas-s either by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation or the Office of Community Development of the City of Charlottesville or other appropriate governmental body, must be acceptable to Buyer. (e) The Seller may continue to rent space in McIntire School provided that no lease term shall run more than sixty days beyond the date that Buyer advises Seller it wishes to close, provided that such closing date is subsequent to September 30, 1985. (f) Buyer reserves the right to have the existing building inspected for asbestos. If asbestos is found Buyer may declare this agreement null and void and have its letter of credit returned to it. Seller grants Buyer, its agents or independent contractor permission to have such asbestos studies and tests made on the property as Buyer may deem necessary at Buyer's expense. Unless Buyer notifies Seller in writing it is declaring this agreement void under this provision by February 15, t985, this contingency shall terminate. (g) At the time of sale and closing of the first residential unit by Buyer, Seller agrees to release its deed of Trust provided Buyer places with Seller a letter of credit in an amount equal to the then outstanding principal balance of the note. The amount of the letter of credit may thereafter be reduced as the principal balance is reduced. Such letter of credit will be issued by Central Fidelity Bank, Sovran Bank N.A., National Bank, United Virginia Bank, Wachovia Bank N.A. or Investors Savings and Loan Association. 5. General Conditions. (a) Seller agrees to convey the above described property by general'warranty deed with english convenants of title, prepared at its expense, conveying the above described property free and clear of any liens or encumbrances, other than as set out in paragraph one above. Seller will pay recording taxes, if any, applicable to it. (b) Buyer shall have the right to have title to the above-described property examined at its expense and in the event any defect in title is found, which cannot be cured within a reasonable time after notice thereof to Seller, shall have the right to declare this agreement null and void, the above mentioned $60,000.00 letter of credit shall be returned to it and' neither party shall have any further rights or'obligations hereunder. Buyer shall be res' for preparation and recording of the deferred purchase money documents and for recording the deed to it. Buyer shall further be responsible for the costs of all conversion condominium and obtaining zoning and site plan approval by the City of Charlottesville. (c) All risk of loss by reason of fire, windstorm or other hazards shall remain upon Seller until closing. Seller agrees to maintain insurance upon t.he property in its full insurable value and in the event of any loss or damage to the property in excess of thirty-five percent of its value Buyer shall have the right to either declare this contract null and void or to accept the property in its then condition, together with any proceeds of insurance payable thereon. In the event such loss or damage is thirty-five percent or less of the value of the improvements, Buyer agrees to accept the property in its then condition together with any insurance proc-eeds payable thereon. 6. Brokers. The parties agree no Broker or other agent was involved in the negotiation or consumation of this agreement and each agrees to hold the other harmless from any claim for a commission or fee for the arrangement or execution of this agreement. 7. Miscellaneous. This contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may not be amended or modified except by written agreement signed by both parties. This contract shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and shall be binding upon each of the~parties hereto and their respective successors or assigns. 8. Damages. If any of the above conditions or contingencies cannot be met at the time specified, or by closing date if no time is specified, Buyer may void this agreement and Seller agrees to return the $60,000.00 letter of credit to Buyer. If, however, all conditions and contingencies have been satisfied by closing and Buyer determines not to close, Buyer forfeits its $60,000.00 deposit and the letter of credit shall immediately be payable as liquidated damages. Agenda Item No. 15. Report: Task Force on the Prevention of Sexual Assault. Mr. Lindsay Barnes, Chairman of the Task Force, said that this task force is composed of a of people who got together after there was a rash of rapes in the co,unity. The group i composed of people from the University of Virginia, the County and the City and has three broad goals. 1) Increase community awareness; 2) to recommend the coordination of the 25 or more agencies presently connected with the sexual assault problem; and 3) to recommend programs and policies aimed at preventing and deterring sexual assault. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) The task force began its activities in September, 1984, after passage of a joint res with three general meetings involving all of the 50 members. After the initial meeting, the members divided into four separate committees~.judicial, law enforcement, public education, and community prevention. The judicial committee wants to examine parole and probation and make recommendations on these items. Their work has been slowed due to the absence of Senator Michi and Delegate Allen who were to provide information from the state level. The committee will begin again when the General Assembly has finished the current session. The law enforcement committee is studying how law enforcement officials can gather sexual assault information for prosecution purposes and preserve that evidence for trial. Since a sexual assault case is often made or lost in the few hours following the assault, it is vitally ~H~grtant that the police and hospital personnel work tegether in evidentiary gathering. The public education committee is co,chaired by Chief Johnstone and that committee hopes t, identify community attitudes about sexual assault. That committee feels that as a predicate to any program of public education, community attitudes about sexual assault must first be obtainec Then there is the community prevention committee. This committee will study the hundreds of sexual assault cases reported in the Charlottesville/Albemarle community to determine if there are common characteristics or recurring themes which might help victims in the community prevent sexual assault. Mr. Barnes said an interim report was sent to the Board members for their review. He also has a specific request that the Board favorably receive a request to appropriate money so that the Community Prevention Committee and the Public Education Committee can undertake the task of analyzing the demographic data relative to the hundreds of sexual assault cases reported over the last ten years. Also, the Public Education Committee would like to undertake a survey of community attitudes regarding sexual assault. The cost of the data gathering, questionnaire preparation, encoding, assimilating of data, and preparing the final report is estimated at $3,900. The University of Virginia has pledged $1,300 in computer and manpower time to help with this work. The City Council of Charlottesville has approved a contingent appropriation of $1,300. Today, the task force requests the Board to also contribute $1,300. The best benefit of the studies is to have a heightened public awareness of sexual assault, and hope that any education of the public will result in both prevention and deterrents over a longer period of time. Mr. Barnes said he is personnally no fan of task forces, and will not say that he believes all sexual assaults can be prevented. However, he feels the information gathered can be helpfu] He again requested the Board's favorable consideration of an appropriation. He also noted that Barbara Berger and Lane Kneedler, co-chairs of the task force were present if the Board had questions. Chief Frank Johnstone, co-chai~offtha~P~hli~Educa~ion~COmm±~t~e~ was present to explain the budget estimate in the interim report. He said that originally it had been planned to have face-to-face interviews. This was discussed with Ted Caplow and Jeff Fredericks, professors at the University who have extensive research ability. In order to focus on face-to-face intervie~ it was determined that at least 300 interviews would be needed. The estimate of $2656 included in the interim report was based on such a survey. The in-kind match from the University was negotiated by another committee and Chief Johnstone said he had no information on that amount. Mr. Bailey Izard, co-chair of the Public Education Committee, and President of the ~¥~ University of Virginia Study Body, said he wanted to give Some insight on what would be obtaine~ from the survey and how the information would be used. He said that when the survey is completed, and the results analyzed, the committee will try to identify the education needs of the community, to improve attitudes concerning the realities of sexual assault, to increase the public's knowledge of sexual assault laws, to awareness of and interest in programs relating to sexual assault, to increase the reporting of sexual assault incidencies, and to stimulate dialogue relating to the current problem with sexual assault. Mr. Izard said that there is no way to accomplish these goals without taking the survey, and he requested that the Board give favorable consideration to funding. Mr. William Raines, Principal of Albemarle High School and a member of the task force, was present. He said at the high schools they are seeing the same kinds of things that the ~ community sees about sexual assault. The incidences occur in several forms. Rape occurs more frequently than is reported in the newspapers. A lot occurs at home. He said that students parents need more information since awareness is the best deterrent available. He said more agency coordination is needed in the community and feels this effort can help in the direction. He said more effective programs and policies are needed for prevention and he urged the Board support this program. (Mr. Henley returned to the meeting at 11:58 a.m.) Mr. Fisher said he would like to discuss the survey questionnaire. He feels that most public funds spent on such questionnaires are a waste of money and often alienate people. When he came to this meeting today, he was determined not to support public funds for any q?~i~ questionnaire. Beyond that ~uestion is the implied use of the information in educating the public~o?~'~Mow~¥er, who determznes what kind of education is needed~ This seems to imply there will be a much greater investment later in terms of educating the~public. He said he has al~ tried to i~ beware of the "camel's nose", because once the nose gets under the tent, the whole cameI will soon get in. He feels that this is the camel's nose and the Task Force will ask for more money. Mr. Raines said, for his part, the material would be used by guidance counsellors, health teachers and others who work directly with the young people in schools. The schools need this ihformation and he does not see that the questionnaire would be any part of the camel. The information can be used by school staff restructuringe some curricula and programs in the schools. Mr. Fisher said what Mr. Raines seems to be saying is that the public schools will go to ~he school board later and ask for money or support to continue the program. Mr. Raines said the health units already have a place for this information and it does not have to be taken through the school board. This information will be used to augment what is already in place. February 13, 1985 (Reg_ular Day Me. ~ting) Mrs. Cooke said she was a member of the founding commit.tee and has one question that..was not answered at any of the committee meetings: what causes the problem? Why are the committee talking about what happens after the fact or about prevention when no one seems to be dealing with what causes the problem in the first place. She said before any of this can be effective, the Task Force has to address that question. Barbara Burger, one of the co-chairmen of the ta force, said the issue of what causes sexual assault is difficult - you have to profile the offender and the treatment of the offender, and the judicial committee is looking at that to some extent, but she does not believe it is the community's responsibility to look at the offender. Rather, the community should look at protecting itself from the offender. The primary aspects of prevention should be concrete proposals that the county and city can use. Information from the questionnaire can be used to help victims, community members, and others. learn the rights of the victims, the law concerning rape, and the services available to victims Mr. Fisher said he is not opposed to the Task Force, but he does not see how attitudes can be improved and wonders why the Task Force cannot do its job by looking at records, laws and services and basing information on what the County knows now. Ms. Burger said the area has little information now. It is difficult to educate people about sexual assault. You cannot simply tell people not to go out at night, or not to. go out at all. Even staying home will not prevent the fifty percent of sexual assaults that take place in the home. Ignorance is not the answer. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the committee has a legitimate need to know what the community thinks about sexual assault. Surveys seem ~to be an adequate means of finding out what the community thinks and wants. He has had some su~ccess with surveys among his constituents on various issues. What disturbs him about this survey is that it seems to be a rather nebulous approach. Still, it seems to be t-he only way to do that. He does not believe that even when crime statistics have been col. lected and analyzed, that it will tell what the community thinks about sexual assault. Mr. Fisher reminded Mr. Lindstrom of a survey taken several years ag~hen many county citizens were antagonized. He feels that surveys may invade someone's privacy. Mr. Lane Kneedler, .another member of the Task Force, said Chief Johnstone has done a great deal of work to be sure that the reporting is accurate and has made precisepp~a~nBst~o prevent any antagonism. The attitude aspect of this survey is a bit vague, but it will work. The information obtained from the survey can be used at the high school and un~¥ers.ity level ~d:. ~isca:s:s~o~:s: s~$~m'm~n~0m ~.hi~.in~.~m~t~6~it~'~S't~e:~ m6r:'e~ ~:~ 6~'la~s ~n~. ~f~ the, fact that they do not have to be victimized in certain situations. The survey can have a real impact on prevention and on victim education. ._ Mr. Fisher asked where the survey form is. Mr. Kneedler said volunteers from the Un~ of Virginia and the private sector are putting the survey questions together. This has not been started because the Task Force wanted to be sure it would be able to carry the survey to its conclusion and not have a lot of volunteer t~me wasted on a survey that would not be used. Mr. Fisher said if the Board funds anything, it has a responsibility to see how the actual survey is carried out. Mr. Kneedter said the Task Force would have no problem in making the survey contingent upon review by the Board and City Council. If the Task Force had permission to do the survey once it meets the Board's approval, that would be all that is necessary to ask the volunteers to begin work on the form. Mr. Bowie said he had doubts that the survey of 300 people will accurately indicate the views of 100,000 citizens. Chief Johnstone said Dr. Kaplow has assured him that an accurate nationwide sample could be obtained with less than 1,500 people by choosing the sample ~ correctly. ~r. Kaplow and Mr. Frederick make their living by being right about these things, and they think 300 replies to the survey will be plenty. Mr. Barnes has said that City Council will review the questionnaire but the Council has no objection to the survey. He said the community attitudes found by the survey can also be used by the Commonwealth's Attorney in selecting jurors for sexual offense-cases, and in preparing-the prosecution of the offenderS.'~ Mr. Bowie asked if this will be.a g~eneral survey, without names. Mr. Barnes said this is correct. Mrs. Cooke Said she did not think her question had been answered: yet, bUt she would yield for the moment. ~ ' Police Chief Deke Bowen said the police departments have been'very diligent in gathering information and in working together to cope with this problem. The survey needs to address community needs. The results of the study will be helpful to the police in their crime prevention units, because the information will be directly from this locality. Mrs. Cooke said she is going to try again. She asked this question-at the first meeting of the committee, but has never received an answer, '~hat causes this violent crime in the first Mr. Kneedler said all four committees are working, in some part, on this problem. The community prevention one deals with it the most, by addressing the'questions of attitudes, and how sexual assault can be stopped. The committee deals With What can be done in the community physically to prevent rape.by lighting some areas to make them safer at night. The committee .. is also looking at treatment of offenders and what can be done to reach people Who might be potential offenders. Mr. Lindstrom asked from where the money for such an appropriation would come be taken. Mr. Agnor said it could be transferred from the contingency account in the Board of Supervisors budget. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to accept the report of the Task Force and to ask staff to make a recommendation at the February 20~meeting on'~ow to appropriate $1,300 contingent upon the Board's and City Council's review and approval'of the Survey questionnaire. Mrs. !Cooke seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Way. · Agenda Item No. 16. Police Department Quarterly Report. The Board received the following memorandum from Chief Frank Johnstone dated February 7, 1985 entitled "Quarterly Report - OctOber-November 1984."' "The following are the significant activities of the Police Department in the final quarter of 1984. 1. SERVICE DIVISION REORGANIZATION: The records se~ti0~cnomp~edt~ the reorganization of criminal and arrest records and the system now con- forms with generally accepted UCR Uniform Crime Reporting guidelines. Work will'continue throughout 1985 to try to b~ing the three prior years records in line with these guidelines and to finish the creation of a master name index file system. 'The Department was also notified of the award of a $9,500 grant from the Highway Department to begin a traffic management information system. This will permit us to analyze three years worth of accident data to develop selected enforcement programs in an effort to reduce highway fatalities and serious injury accidents in Albemarle County. A Commander II was hired to supervise this section in late November and a number of programs are presently being pursued to complete the reorgani- zation of this section. Some of the programs are: reorganization of traffic accident reporting system, complete evaluation of all report forms to assure their utility for department recordkeeping purposes, automation of records system, integration of automated system so that it may be used by investigators, administrators, records section and Victim/Witness Coor- dinator, development of training handbook for police records clerk, develop- ment of training programs (to include staff development, in-house, in-service training, etc.). A transition of police dispatching functions to the 911 Center began in earnest in December. A refinement of the dispatcher job description was completed and replacement personnel were being sought. 2. PERSONNEL POLICIES: Training of department staff and officers con- tinued during this period, though at a lesser rate than first planned. Three police officers and their K-9 partners (dogs) were trained over a 14 week period of time and are presently in the field. We began firearms training for sworn personnel to be done three times a year rather than every other year as in the past. Classroom training accompanied range training so that officers were given training in civil liability and instructions when to shoot, as well as how to shoot. Ail sworn members were also given eight hours of training on the new side- handled police batons. Most officers adjusted quickly to the new baton and its many defensive uses and feel confident in their Ability to use it to protect themselveS. 3. COMMUNICATIONS: The radio consultant completed specifications for the new radio system and vendors were invited to bid. A pre-bid conference was held in November and the bids are to be opened in early January. SPECIAL ACTIVITIES: A. Crime prevention: The Crime Prevention Program continues to progress toward achieving its goal of establishing community watch programs. Ten such programs had been organized by the end of the year and a number of other groups are in various stages of preparation for them. Seven seminars were conducted during November and December for business establishments to train their personnel about shoplifting laws, etc.; this was very well received by the business community. Approximately twenty other meetings were held with neighborhood watch groups, child fingerprinting programs, business and residential security surveys, etc. B. School Resource Officer: This program continues to receive a great deal of support from school officials, parents and students. C. Victim/Witness Program: This program continues to be a widely respected and used service for the county residents. A total of 189 'new' victims were referred to this program during the last quarter. This is slightly better than three new cases per working day; each victim interacts between seven and ten times with the Victim/Witness Coordinator during the period of service usage. The use of eight trained volunteers has been of significant assistance' to the Coordinator. 5. STATISTICS: Final quarter and calendar year department statistics are (on file in Clerk's OffiCe). It is important to note that while the .work load increased significantly the clearanoe rate on reported crimes also improved." Februar 1 1 8 ~Re ulr. D ' ' ho ~hi ounty l~he in I~catalo I~ah~e Chief Johnstone summarized the report. He said he had received a complaint from a citizen felt the County was getting more equipment than it needed in the communications department. s is not the case; in fact, compared to Henrico, a smaller county with 26 radio sites, the is doing very weil with the eGuipment it is getting. Chief Johnstone said he would send information on that complaint to the Board. He said statistics show an 18 percent increase in crime, but the figure is somewhat ding. More crimes are being reported and the new reporting system is more effective in guing those crimes. Chief Johnstone said the crime rate should level off next year. Mr. said he understood that report of crimes would increase this year through motivation on part of the police force and the reports have gone up likewise. This year will serve ~as a year. Chief Johnstone said the reports may cause an increase next year also, as people Ire more willing to report crimes. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the clearances -- crimes solved -- nd learned that a case is cleared by arresting or prosecuting the offender, identifying the , or by a decision of the Commonwealth's Attorney not to prosecute. The total clearance , he said, is not as good as it might be. The twenty-two percent clearance rate in burglari a high, however. Clearance rates are required in the crime report. Chief Johnstone said s department will go on training and will not be satisfied with its present level. Mr. said the department shows a statistical improvement because it is handling more . Mr. Bowie said the data will be better when the community has had two or three years to ust to the new department. Agenda Item No. 17. Executive Session. Personnel. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adjourn into executive session for the discussion of personnel s. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. : None. Mr. Way. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:55 p.m. Mr. Way was present at this time. Agenda Item No. 18. ation. Report from the Charlottesville/Albemarle Task Force on Child Sexual Dr. Carolyn Williams of the Region 10 Community Services Board presented the following ?eport on the work of Task Force: "The Charlottesville-Albemarle Task Force on Child Sexual Victimization was originated in the spring of 1982 by the Thomas Jefferson Child Advocacy Group. We are a group of professionals and concerned persons whose goal is to reduce the incidence of child sexual abuse in our area. We would like to inform the Board of our activities and to call the Board's attention to current legislative proposals which we feel would greatly assist the attainment of our goals. The primary objectives of our task force are the following: 1. To improve the way in which these cases are identified and reported by means of increasing public and professional awareness of the problem of child sexual abuse. 2. To review the way in which these cases pass through the legal system to coordinate the efforts of the different professionals involved and to mini- mize trauma to the victims and their families; and 3. To encourage and coordinate the development of treatment resources and support services available in our community for families involved in sexual abuse. Our task force is composed of representatives from the various professions who work closely with child sexual abuse. These include City and County Child Protective Services, the City and County Commonwealth's Attorneys Offices, City and County Police Departments, City and County Schools, Juvenile Court Services Unit, Rape Crisis, Region Ten Community Services, Center for Clinical Psychology Services, Child and Family Phsychiatry Clinic, and private prac- titioners. The task force has brought these agencies together so that they may exchange information and coordinate their efforts, and this has fostered the development of a team approach in the process of investigation, prosecution and treatment. During the last year, our task force's activities have included the following: 1. Providing in-service training for teachers and other school officials on how to identify and report child sexual abuse. 2. Offering speakers to parent and community groups who wish to learn more about child sexual abuse. 3. Surveying mental health practitioners in our area and developing a resource list of providers of psychological treatment for victims and their families. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) 4. Developing multi-disciplinary teams in both the city and county to coordinate the processing of these cases. 5. Sponsoring presentations by multi-disciplinary teams from other areas regarding how they deal with such cases. 6. Co-sponsoring local presentations of the play 'HUgs and Kisses'. 7. Developing guidelines and disseminating information on the use of anatomically correct dolls in investigations and in the courtroom, use of expert witnesses in court, and ~ competency of child witnesses. We would also like to inform the Board about legislation which is being considered during the current short session. This legislation, under the sponsorship of Senator Joseph Gartlan, is designed to reduce the trauma which is too often imposed by the legal system child victims of sexual abuse. The primary proposals are (1) to allow the use of a videotape of the victim's testimony in both criminal and civil trials, (2) to allow the admissionof testimony by third parties of the victim's out-of-court statements about the alleged abuse, and (3) to require that those seeking a license to operate or be emplOyEd at a child care facility submit to a criminal records check. As we have attempte~ to address the problems posed by dealing compassionately and effectively with child victims of sexual abuse, we have derived suggestions similar to those in the proposed legislation. We feel that it is in the interests of justice that the Often devastating effects of courtroom proceedings on child victims be reduced whenever possible while preserving the right of defendant to confront his or her accuser. In our opinion, the proposed legislation will facilitate the court's access to the full details of these cases. On behalf of our task force and on behalf of the abused children whom we serve, we apprecia your time and interest." Dr. Williams said although reliable statistics are not available, due to the secrecy and ~hreats that accompany child sexual abuse, between 100,000 and 500,000 children will be sexually ~bused in the United States this year. Child sexual abuse has begun to draw some attention from the national news media, and has been the subject, of numerous news articles and television lacumentaries and movies. This has removed some of the secrecy surrounding the problem. - With this preface;, Dr. Williams read the Board the memorandum quoted above. She said the ~oals of the task force are to provide more training, more treatment groups, and to provide investigation capabilities and to improve the process. Dr. Williams said these cases are complex, heartrending and time-consuming. The task force hopes the Board will support it in its efforts, because it does not deal with cases, but with ?rightened children, caught up in a web of adult emotions and exploitation that they cannot stop ~nd cannot understand. - Mrs. Anne Bloxom, Albemarle Department of Social Services, said there are an increasing ~umber of cases in Albemarle County each year. In 1982~there were seven cases; in 1983, nine ~ases; in 1984 the number jumped to 15 cases, and so far in 1985, there have been eight cases. These cases are time,consuming because theyinvolve n~t ~l~ p~2~$~¥~ ~vices, but also criminal prosecution, foster care and coordinated social services. The best estimate, nationwide, is that one girl in three and one boy in ten is sexually abused. Most of these cases are not reported, but the media coverage is improving that somewhat '~ Mr. Fisher asked if a multi-disciplinary task force is getting cooperation from the various agencies. Ms. Bloxom said it was difficult at first, but now there is a lot of cooperation ~ecause the agencies have educated each other, so the police and the child care workers ~ ~nderstand each other's needs. The groups still have some areas that could be improved, but the ~.rogress has been phenomenal. Mr. Fisher asked if the Victim/ Witness Coordinator has been aelpful. Ms. Bloxom said she has. A team has been training teachers in what to look for as ~ell. Mr. Fisher thanked Ms. Bloxom and Dr. Williams for their report and for the hours of time ;hey' have spent as members of the task force. Agenda Item No. 19. Agreement - Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. A memorandum dated January 30, 1985, was received from Ray B: Jones: "It is hereby requested for the Board of. Supervisors to take official action authorizing the Chairman to sign the attached agreement between the County of Albemarle and the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company. The agreement was prepared by the County Attorney's office in conjunction with the Fire Company's attorney along the same format of previous agreements. It has also been approved for funding by the Jefferson County Fireman's Association from the annual allocation by the County to the Volunteer Fire Companies. The Crozet Volunteer Fire Company expects to break ground in the immediate future which would result in some expenses being incurred by late February, 1985. Therefore, some drawdown of the funds would be made at that time." Mr. Henley made ~otion to aUthorize the Chairman to sign the following agreement. Mr. Bowie, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: ~AYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way None. · Seconded THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this day of by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (the "County"), and the CROZET VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT, INC. ("Crozet") W I T NE S S E T H: That for and in consideration of the,©operation by Crozet of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the of this agreement, and the construction of a new fire station during the period of this reement, the County shall pay to Crozet One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00), which payment shall be made on February 1, 1985, from the County's capital Fund. Thenceforth, the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00) per Year shall be withheld each year from the County's annual grant to Crozet, for a period of ten (10) years, beginning with fiscal year 1985-86 and extending through fiscal year 1994-95, so that at the end of the tenth year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total Of One Hundred Fifty ThoUsand Dollars ($150~000.0~) will have been withheld. This withholding is in additionto any other withholding as a result of prior service agreements with Crozet. If at any rime'during the term of this agreement, Crozet is no longer in the business of ~roviding fire-fighting services or the property upon which the new fire station is to be ucted (located on State Route 240 and further described in Exhibit A hereto) is no longer used for the purpose of housing the volunteer fire company, Crozet covenants that it will convey its interest in the propertY, as a fire-fighting organization, including all appurtenances thereto and improvements thereon, to the County at no cost to the County so long as the County or its assigns will use the property for fir. e-fight~ing Purposes. SCHEDULE A ParQel 1: Ail that certain property conveyed to the Trustees of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company by deed from the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County dated March 25, 1964 and recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of said County in Deed Book 396, page 598. By deed dated July 11, 1979, recorded in Deed Book 675, page 535, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County conveyed to the Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. the same property which it had previously conveyed by said deed dated March 25, 1964, recorded in Deed Book 396, page 598, to the Trustees of the Crozet Volunteer Fire Company. Said second conveyance reserves a 25' right of.way on subject property. Parcel 2: Ail the certain lot or parcel of land in the village of Crozet and described in a deed recorded in Albemarle County Deed Book 255, page 285, as follows: Beginning in the center of the Crozet-White Hall road a corner to C. L. Wayland, thence down south side of branch S. 5%,E. 76 feet to stake S. 68 E 44 feet to a stake and S. 85 E. 55 feet to a corner of division fence; thence with it S. 25 W. 87 feet to a corner on north side of a reserved road 15 feet wide, between this lot and the barrel factory lot; thence N. 67 W. 187 feet to the center of the County road and along same 90 feet to the beginning; being the property conveyed to the seller by deed of Margaret L. Belew, widow, da~ed .May 23~ 1962 .and recorded in said Clerk's office ~n- Deed Book 380, page 95 .... Mr. Agnor said he has a related matter to discuss. The Seminole Trail VolunteerYF~re~ allowed to have a hydrant installed in front of its building on Berkmar Drive using funds the fire hydrant special fund being administered by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Crozet Volunteer Fire Company would like to use the last of this fund for its own hydrant. amounts to about $1,500. The money will not be used unless it is used for this purpose~' .. Fisher asked what is going to h~ppen when the funds are all expended and other people uest fire hydrants. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Brent has indicated that there is no other need for-- funds at this time. Mr. Henley made motion to authorize the County Executive to indicate to Mr. Brent that the may be used to pay $1,500 for a fire hydrant at the new Crozet Volunteer Fire Company .g. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which passed by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. Agenda Item No. 20. ZTA-84-7. Amend LI and HI Districts to restrict uses without public or sewer (Continued from December 19, 1984). Mr. Donnelly said during review of this amendment on December 19, 1984 and the Board had uested additional study or recommendation regarding: Limitation on water consumption. Monitoring and enforcement procedures. He then gave the staff's amended report dated January 16, 1985: "Previously, staff recommended that special use permit approval-~e required for an industrial use not served by public water with a water usage exceeding 10,000 gallons per day. Staff now recommends a withdrawn rate limit based on site acreage and corresponding to consumption rate of a single-family dwelling: 1. Health Department regulations employ a water usage rate of 150 gallons per day per bedroom. Therefore, a four-bedroom dwelling would h~ve a daily consumption of 600 gallons; 6¸9 F_ebruar. 1 I 8~ (Re :~lar Da Meet~~ 2. Minimum lot size for a dwelling not served by public water and public sewer is 60,000 square feet. Therefore, per acre consumption would be about 400 gallons per day. (This figure assumes that public sewer would not be available if public water were not available.); 3. Staff recommends an industrial water withdrawal limitation of 400 gallons per acre of site per day unless special use permit is obtained; 4. It would be appropriate to analyze this proposed withdrawal limitation in terms of practical application; a. Health Department regulations employ a domestic usage of 15 to 35 ?~LL~'m~ ~o~gal~.p~syper employee per eight-hour shift for industriaI uses. -Using the proposed withdrawal limit, this translates to 13 to 3-0 employees per acre for an industry operating eight hours or four to ten employees per acre for an industry operating 24 hours; In development of the 1977 Comprehensive Plan, Kamstra, Dickerson and Associates surveyed firms representing 60 percent of the County's industrial employment. These firms, termed as ~medium intensive to intensive usage category' exhibited an average of 10.7 employees per acre; Based on (a) and (b) above, it appears that the proposed withdrawal limitation would generally not affect industrial uses with water consumption for domestic purposes only. Additionally, since the limitation is based on withdrawal as opposed to usage, certain industries which recycle process water may not be affected. de Adoption of the proposed withdrawal limitation would make certain existing industries non-conforming. However, section 31.2.4.5 of the Zoning Ordinance would permit expansion within existing property boundaries. 5. Special use permit review would be required for both groundwater and surface water withdrawal: The State Water Control Board has reported that 'Overdrafting of groundwater is not a problem in Albemarle County. There have been no documented cases of well interference which can be attributed to pumpage from neighboring wells or well fields. Problems potentially may arise, however, if groundwater development is pursued without regard to the hydrogeologic factors affecting the occurrence, movement and storage of water in this stage of the hydrogeologic cycle.' Ground Water Resources of Albemarle CoUnty, Virginia, Sterrett & Hinkle, December 1980; p. 44. Special use permit review should address the hydrogeologic factors outlined by th~ State Water Control Board. The applicant should be required to submit a report addressing these factors, developed by:a hydrogeologist or certified engineer. Comment from agencies such as the State Water Control Board and Division of Mineral Resources should be obtained. Industries withdrawing surface water should be required to comply with State Water Control Board regulation and, where applicable, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Water Shortage Contingency Plan. Staff recommends the following amendments to the LI, Light Industry, and HI, Heavy Industry, districts: a. 2.1 BY RIGHT Except as otherwise limited by 2.2, the following uses shall be permitted in any LI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. b. XX.2.2.X BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes." Mr. Donnelly said he asked Mr. Mike Tompkins, Zoning Administrator, for recommendations on the ordinance could be monitored and enforced. His reply of February 6, 1985, follows: "Thank you for the opportunity to comment on possible enforcement and monitoring procedures relative to the above referenced proposal. The key factor in the enforcement or monitoring issue appears to be the water withdrawal limitation, In my opinion there are two basic ways to monitor/enforce such a withdrawal limitation. The first is where enforcement/monitoring is done administratively, whereby some kind of certified report, prepared by a professional engineer, is required to be submitted to the County over certain time periods (i.e., quarterly). Such a report would identify and verify consumption levels and it would be the Zoning Department's responsibility to abate any apparent violations. It would be the applicant's responsibility to generate and submit these reports. ?0 February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting A second way to enforce/monitor Water consumption would be to accomplish the above technically. T~is implies some k±nd of metering device which could be.monitored monthly. I have' no recommendations' concerning the feasibility of such a device or who would be responsible for setting and reading it. I think those questions could be answered after a joint meeting with Zoning, Planning, Engineering, and the ~A!bemarle County Service Authority. Given the time allowed to address this issue and the lack of comments from other departments, these are the best suggestions I have. From a zoning (legal) standpoint, I would like to express my concern that we are not applYing this concept to commercial districts and perhaps other zoning districts in a more comprehensive fashion. By not doing so, the possibility of legal challenge is apparent. 'Again, however, I am reluctant to press the legal issue without further~discussion-and consultation from the County Attorney's office." Mr. Fisher said if approvals for such uses were given administratively, the only time it ~ould be necessary to actually monitor by measurement would be if there were indications that there might be additional water usage, taking place. Mr. Fisher asked how this would work if left to the enforcement process instead of the~ permit process.~ 'Mr. Donnelly said it ~would be up to the applicant to supply the information and the County would have to tame the applicant's that the information was accurate. Metering Would be more accurate. At this point, Mr. Fisher reopened the public hearing, Mr. Russell Seltzer told the Board he supports'these amendments'as far as water usage is ~oncerned since he thinks it is a reasonable'amount of water. Monitoring is a different ~ uestion, and one.which will be difficult to solve. He has some problems with the wording "anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes". He feels that anyone could say they do not "anticipate" any discharge other than domestic waste, so he would prefer that the be "any product'ion of waste other than domestic waste" would require issuance of a special use permit when the land is not connected to public sewerage. Mr. Lindstrom said the language might be changed to "anticipated or actual" which would address the issue~ but still let the staff evaluate the use before it actually began. Mr. Seltzer asked if the l~nguage anticipated that the discharge be into a septic field. There is no need for a special use if the discharge is not into a septic field. If~'the facility does not use the amount of water set out in the ordinance, but produces highly toxic substances that be discharged into a septic system, the facility might not be required by the ordinance to apply for a special use permit, but he feels it should. The wording of the amendment in that regard concerns him, but he supports the amount of water under consumption set out in the amendment. No one else being present to speak, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. Mr. Bowie said he has the same problems as before. He sees no way to effectively monitor the industries to see if they are complying. The County will have to accept that the industries ~re telling the truth, and they may not be. The Board may adopt an ordinance it cannot enforce. Mr. Lindstrom said the County could have an industry that increases its water use after it is permitted to build and begin function, or there could be an industry that does not meet the standards from the beginning and the application for the special use permit indicates a need for note water. With this ordinance the Board has-the ability to specifically address this issue ~nd it does not have that ability now, The benefits will outweigh the problems of enforcement. 3n the subject of toxic discharge, those matters are covered under other sections of the .a Ordinance and do not need to be addressed in this section. Mr. Fisher said the water,removal criteria is pretty good, but it does not seem to be enforceable and'he worries about how the County will judge an induStry's intent and how it will measure the water withdrawal rates. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems to him that the staff is capable of looking at a proposed use and. determining how much water that use is going to require. The ordinance will place the burden On the staff. Mr. Lindstrom said he likes the fact that this ls based on water consumption allowed by right in a rural area; the Board cannot expect a precise ordinance for every situation. Mr. Fisher said part of this problem came about because of the situation with the Unogen, Inc., petition where the company said it had no warning that there were any restrictions regarding water or sewer on the land. Mr. Bowie said he woUld feel better about this~amendment if there was some guidance on evaulations of applications and if there were some method of snforcement. Mr. Agnor said special use permits with conditions attached can present all kinds of enforcement problems. The staff does not usually follow up on permits to see that people are oomplying unless there is some reason to do so. Mr. Agnor said he would qualify that by saying that if there is construction which requires certain things be included before a certificate of occupancy can be issued, there is enforcement. But, once a site is occupied, the County has no ?outine procedure to follow up and see that all special use permit conditions are being complied ~ith on a continual basis. As concerns this amendment, if the application process could indicate the volume of water to be used, then in terms of Checking on a routine basis, it Would ?equire monitoring only if there was reason to believe that significantly more water was being ~sed. This could be investigated to determine if the original calculations .were being complied ~ith, without having to monitor or have-a separate report by an engineering firm. That kind of ~nforcement is Continual, and is not always necessary. ~r. Lindstrom said there are hundreds of special use.permits in existence now and there may ~e violations, but unless someone complains, the County does not have the staff to keep up With ~hem all. This ordinance amendment grew out of the fact that there are several parcels of land in the County which are zoned for industrial use but which do not have public sewer Or public ~ater. Allowed in the Zoning Ordinance are a number of uses 'bY right which could significantly ~ap groundwater resources or permitlthe discharge of waste other than domestic waste which could ~ave a harmful effect on surrounding uses. The Zoning Ordinance provides for high density and Imedium density residential uses and as a precondition to using that zoning density there must public sewer and water available. This category is not any different. The Board is simply bogged down in defining what kinds of uses would use Public sewer and water. Mr. Lindstrom the staff has done a reasonably.good job of determining those uses. This will put the a~ on notice and give the Zoning Administrator the ability to make a determination as to whether the use will require a special use permit. be At this point, Mr. Lindstrom offered.motion to adopt the following ordinance as presented. Mr. Henley said he was willing "to give it a try" and offered second to the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recordad vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom. Mr. Bowie and Mr. Way. BE IT HEREBY ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County is hereby amended and reenacted in the LI, Light Industrial and HI, Heavy Industrial districts as follows: Section 27.2.1 BY RIGHT Except as otherwise limited by 27.2.2.10, the following uses shall be permitted in any LI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations: Section 28.2.1 BY RIGHT Except as otherwise limited by 28.2.2.14, the following uses shall be permitted in any HI district subject to the requirements and limitations of these regulations. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the following uses by special use permit be added to those already contained in the LI and HI districts as follows: Section 27.2.10 Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, 2~2in~lving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per side Dereap~r day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. Section 28.2.2.14 Uses permitted by right, not served by public water, involving water consumption exceeding four hundred (400) gallons per site acre per day. Uses permitted by right, not served by public sewer, involving anticipated discharge of sewage other than domestic wastes. A~enda Item No. 20a. Industrial Land Study. Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report, complete with an inventory of industrial zoned land shown on a map for the Board's convenience: At the request of the Board of Supervisors, an inventory was conducted of all parcels in the County currently zoned for industrial use. Industrial property has been classified by zoning category. Each zone has further been broken doWn by total acreages of property currently in an industrial use and by total vacant or undeveloped acres. For the purpose of this study, an industrially zoned parcel was regarded as underdeveloped if: 1. Occupied with a use permitted by right in another zoning category (i.e. residence or office); 2. An existing structure is vacanT; 3. Land is in agricultural use or idle. Industrial acreages in each zoning category, have been tallied by the availability of public water and/or sewer. County regulations provide the Planning Commission/Board of Supervisors the determination of "reasonableness" of access to public utility lines. For this study, the following assumptions were made: 1. A major water and/or sewer line is located within approximately 1000 feet of the parcel boundary (major line implies at least an 8-inch water line and/or 8-inch sewer line); 2. Available fireflows in the vicinity are generally adequate; 3. The property is within the current service boundaries for water and/or sewer service. The Albemarle County Service Authority should be consulted for information regarding any specific public utility line or area system. In some locations, for instance, existing lines may require improvements to provide adequate connection capacities. A 1000 foot extension to an existing utility line (water or sewer) is estimated by the Service Authority to be approximately $30,000, provided no pump station, or other facility enhancement is required. The parcel survey Of industrial zoned property indicates a total of 1449.42 acres of county land are presently zoned for industrial use. This total consists of 1049.0 acres zoned LI; ~129.02 acres zoned HI; and one parcel containing 271.40 acres zoned Planned Development Industrial Park [PD-IP). Of all industrial zoned land, 691.78 acres are presently vacant or rated as underdeveloped for industrial use. The vacant/underdeveloped industrial property consists of 18.05 acres of HI; 402.33 acres of LI; and 271.40 acres of PD-IP. Some public utilities are presently available to 62 percent of the vacant/underdeveloped LI property, to 100 percent of the vacant/underdeveloped HI, and 100 percent PD-IP property. INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTY STUDY SUMMARY JANUARY 1985 Vacant or Light Industrial Zone Developed Underdeveloped Total Villages/Communities 123.83 88.99 212.82 Urban Area 325.20 223.95 549.15 Rural Area 197.64 89.39 28?.03 TOTALS 646.67 402.33 1049.00 The 402.33 acres of vacant/underdeveloped LI zoned property has the following available utilities: 21.99 acres, Public water only; 5.00 acres, Public sewer only; 222.59 acres, Both; 152.75 acres, Neither. Heavy. Industrial Zone Developed: 41.8 acres 69.0 acres Public water only Public water & sewer 110.97 acres Total HI zone occupied Vacant or Underdeveloped: 18.05 acres Total HI zone occupied 129.02 acres: Total HI zoned Property Planned Development Industrial Park 271.40 acres: Vacant; public water available. Public sewer approximately 3200 feet north. Mr. Henley remarked that there is no land zoned heavy industrial that has both water and Mr. Donnelly said there are, however, 18 acres having water service only. Mr. Lindstrom said there was numerous discussion during the revisions to the zoning map in 1980 that there was a lack of worthwhile industrial lands in the County, so the Board decided to leave it to property owners to request rezoning when a parcel was needed and at that time, the would make a decision based on some pre-determined guidelines. Mr. Keeler said he believe about 80 acres on Avon Street Extended were added in 1980, some LI acreage near the Airport in the industrial park, and about 65 acres near Scottsville. The owner of the industrial park, however, has proposed to expand the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant but that has not yet taken itplace. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff has any idea how much land has been rezoned for ~ Il industrial use since that decision was made. Mr. Keeler said no land has been added. -~ II Mr. Fisher said it seems that there are about 670 acres of land already zoned for light Ilindustry, and this is a lot in comparison to the actual requests for use of industrial lands. ItHe asked how much industrial land is recommended for use in. the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Donnell allsaid there is a parcel by parcel inventory available. Mr. Fisher asked if this list is availabl ~lto industries coming to the county looking for a site for operation. Mr. Donnelly said yes. ~l~r. Fisher asked, c~llquely, if the staff gives, this list to. industries without recommending a i~certain location or advocating a particular site. Mr. Donnelly said that is the case, since the list is just a list with names and parcel numbers. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of response the Planning Department gives industries that ask for suggestions as to an industrial location. IIMr. Keeler said many times they have already selected a site. The Board of Supervisors in Iloffice in 1979 adopted a policy whereby the staff was directed to go over the zoning map and point out the land recommended for industrial use and point out any potential problems or public opposition. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the staff looks at the Comprehensive Plan and checks the criteria on certain pieces of property, pointing out to the applicant that this property could be rezoned for an industrial use. Mr. Keeler said that is done only if the applicant appears interested in a particular piece of property. He said the Planning staff has assisted the Chamber of Commerce in preparing an industrial brochure showing utilities, access and other features of the land. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the County has a responsibility to see that industrial land is available with necessary utilities in place, but, it is not the County's responsibility to act as a real estate broker. He thinks the County may be meeting its responsibilities already, and the Board should avoid restricting land uses unnecessarily. The policy for rezoning industrial land should be followed as it is set out in the Comprehensive Plan, and potential applicants should be made aware of that. Some applicants will be frustrated, but those things are to be expected. In the case of Unogen, Inc., the applicant should have realized that it was expecting too much when it wanted to locate next to a school or in a residential neighborhood. February 13, 1985'(Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 21. Proposed Definition: NoVember 7, 1984 and January 9, 1985) "Accessory Building or Use." (Deferred from Mr. Donnelly presented the following memorandum, dated February 5, 1985: "In response to Mr. Bowie's concerns exPressed at the January 9 meeting regarding the proposed re-wording of the definition of Accessory Buildings or Use, staff offers the following comments: The word 'type' could mean buildings only and in order to elimi- nate confusion over interpretation of the definition, staff pro- poses the following changes: Accessory ~~ Structure or Use. A ~i~ structure or use which: (1) is subordinate to and serves a principal ~~ structure or principal use; (2) is subordinate in area, extent or purpose to the principal ~i~i~ structure or principal use served; (3) contributes to the comfort, convenience or necessity of occupants of the principal ~i~i~ structure or principal Use; (4) is located on the same lot and same zoning district as the principal ~~g structure or use; and (5) is e~ a SF~, struc- ture or use customarily found in Albemarle County. The word 'building' has been replaced by the word 'structure' since a structure includes a building in its definition but a building by defi- nition is confined to a structure having a roof. Certain accessory uses may be structures, but not necessarily buildings. Mr. Bowie's second concern regarding what effect the ordinance change would have on a family use of PropertY and more specifically in regard to the development of a golf course for family use would be left to the interpretation of the definition by the Zoning Administrator. In this regard, Mr, Tompkins has indicated that under the proposed defini- tion, he woUld interPret a golf course as being an accessory use to a single-family dwelling." Mr. Bowie said there has been a slight misinterpretation of his second concern. He did not to overly restrict an individual family's use of its Own property while restricting a ~orate use. While this definition generally addresses the problem, it still allows a golf by right, and that does not really solve the problem. He thinks the Board should follow · St. John's advise and leave the ordinance as it is. The definition has now been rewritten five times and it just cannot be made completely satisfactory. Mr. Lindstrom said he thin~s the ordinance change is worthwhile and he does not want to see of these efforts come to nothing. Mr. Lindstrom then made motion to adopt a resolution of to amend the Zoning Ordinance by adding this definition. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. · Bowie asked if the Board is just voting on changing the word "building'' to "structure". Mr. om said his motion is to adopt this entire section. Mr. Fisher said he does not like it will .not ¥ote for i.t. Mr. Bowie said he does not like it ~i~er. It is more confusing, and bs the property rights of people without accomplishing anything. Mrs. Cooke said she seconded the motion to get it on the floor for discussion, but she will not support the motion. · Fisher said item #5 in the definition is the part he likes least. Roll was called and the motion pass by the following recorded vote: Mr. Lindstrom. : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Way. Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion of Zoning ProVisions for a Research and DeVelopment Distric Mr. Tucker summarized the following memorandum dated February 6, 1985: "After your review of the Unogen request in late December, 1984, you requested staff to consider the need for additional provisions in our ordinance or perhaps a district which could provide for campus-like research and development activities. Mr. St. John has responded to this request from a legal point of view and I have requested that Mr. Donnelly respond from a planning perspective. In summary, both our legal and planning staffs are of the opinion that our current ordinances adequately provide for research and development type activities and to make special provisions for these types of activities may be inappropriate-. By adding research and development uses to other zoning districts, e.'g., residential or commercial, we could become more vulnerable to litigation in an area where there is no established rule of law, By creating a separate district, the amount of land available for such uses would be more limited than that currently being provided in our industrial districts. Many of yOu will recall that the County's old Zoning Ordinance contained a separate district for Research and Technical Manufacturing (RTM). Only · one tract of land was ever designated RTM; it was never developed and the zoning of that land was subsequently changed in the 1980.zoning revisions. At that time, we combined the uses in the RTM District with our current Light Industrial (LI) District, thereby making research and develop- ment uses available in all LI Districts rather than in an exclusive research/ development zone. Based upon the legal and planning conclusions developed on this question, staff would recommend that no changes to our zoning ordinance, regarding research and development activities, be made." February 13, 1985 ~Regular Day Meeting) ~tter from Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, dated January 3, 1985, concerning this was also presented: "This is my input to you on the matter of our zoning ordinance as it relates to research, development, and technical manufacturing. It is based on materials, which I already have, rather than any contacts with other localities. I will divide my remarks into two basic categories. I. Review of the processing of Un0gen's application on Berkmar. II. Review of our ordinance provisions applicable to research, development, and technical manufacturing activities of the 'creative' type as opposed to production activities. I. First, as to the rulings and decisions of our zoning administrator and staff cavegorizing Unogen as a light industry which would require a special use permit for pharmaceutical laboratory under ZO SeCtion 27.2.2(1), I t~ink this was absolutely Correct. Second, regarding staff's rulings on Unogen's proffer, I believe these were also correct, and offer the following remarks: In my judgment a proffer is a device for imposing conditions on a re-zoning, and by definition such a device limits rather than expands the rights an applicant would get if the re-zoning were granted without any proffer. The proffer either imposes affirmative conditions, or limits the uses which would otherwise be available, under the new zoning. Thus, it follows that no proffer should be accepted which expands the number of uses otherwise provided under the new zone, or allows as a matter or right, a use which would otherwise require a special use permit, under the new zone. II. Turning now to the matter the Board asked us to look at, a review of our ordinance provisions applicable to ~'small, campus-type research and development activities'. I have concluded that our ordinance from a legal standpoint at least is adequate and need not be changed. The alternatives would be first, to establish a separate district for these activities, or second, to allow them by special use permit in other existing districts. The argument in favor of these alternatives, is that a small, highly professional and technical research establishment 'does not want to rub shoulders physically with a plant type use nor does it want to be categorized with those uses because of the image this creates in the public eye. The arguments against the above alternatives, are 'that if you create a separate district you are actually limiting the area available to applicants such as Unogen, and if you open up other districts, such as commercial, to laboratories, research and development, etc., then it is most difficult to establish predefined standards for approval or disapproval of the special use permit. This latter difficulty is the basis for most of the litigation in this particular area. As you know, a small, attractive and well-landscaped building can house either a totally benign research operation, or the development of nerve gas or Agent Orange. By what standards are you going to allow research and development in one scientific direction, and not in another? That is the difficulty with the special use approach. It can be done, but it is very difficult and gives rise to endless argument before the Board between competing experts, as to what is totally benign and what is potentially dangerous; and very likely, litigation with the same arguments in Court. For this reason, I do not recommend either of the above alternatives, and would stay with our present ordinance. It is understandably frustrating to an apPlicant whose project is genuinely clean and benign,.to be categorized in ~he public eye as a chemical plant. It is equally frustrating to such an activity, to be excluded from a district where truck repair shops, car washes, and So forth, are allowed. But I see the former frustration as being a matter of Public relations which should not override the practicalities on which our Ordinance is based, and the second frustration as overlooki'ng the reality that while truck rePair shops may be louder, uglier, and generate more traffic than a pharmaceutical lab, the lab can theoretically, depending on the nature of the. sUbstanCes used in it, present problems as serious though not as obvious as the truck repair. In other words, in the' case''of car'washes,.gas stati.ons, tr~ck repair, et.c., and other commercial uses', ~you' have a lOt ~of noise and tra.~f.~c, but you know what is in there. Ci'ting the'eminent zOning authority, Ge'rtr.ude ..Stein, a car wash is a car wash is a car wash.' But with these labs, et.c., one never knows and a nice building can ho'use - who knows what? And in the rapidly developing area of this kind of research, there are new processes and substances every day, which cannot be'expreSsly covered by any ordinance. That adds tremendously to difficulty in establishing standards, for pUtting these use$ in various zoning districts. Finally, that brings up the question of why these Uses require a $pecial.use permit, within the light industry distriCt itself. The question is, if you cannot find standards for scattering these research-development labs through various districts-, how can you find standards for. granting or denying special uses to them, within the iight'industry district itself? February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) The answer is, that while the difficulties are the same, the magnitude of a disaster in the event you make a mistake, is diminished, when the ordinance requires location of these activities within a district set aside for them and reasonably isolated from residential areas. This has been a major consideration in the few court cases which address this particular narrow question of research-development type uses, and I have not see a single case where the mandatory placing of them in an industrial or otherwise set-aside area, has been overturned by the courts. In other words, we are on safe ground here so much so that I doubt if we would even be challenged. However, once you open up other districts to these uses through the special use permit, you are not only inviting litigation but litigation without any established rule of law where the court itself is at the mercy of competing teams composed of land use lawyers and expert witnesses. In sum, I thi~k~e~qgan~application was handled correctly by all hands, and that our ordinance should remain as is. I will revise this letter into a formal memorandum if you wish or you may use it or any part of it in your final product, as you wish." Memorandum from Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development, dated February 1, 1985, was then presented: "This is in response to your letter of January 14, 1985 and Mr. George St. John's letter of January 3, 1985. Mr. St. John's opinion is that from a legal point of view, current zoning provisions for research and development activities are adequate. From a planning perspective, I also think current provisions are adequate. I do not recommend changing current zoning regulations for the following reasons: Zoning, among other things, is intended to separate activities into major categories such as agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Within these major categories more precise subcategories or zoning districts are provided, which may group uses according to compatability or other considerations. Two Questions arise regarding research and development (r/d) uses: a. Should r/d ~s'es'b'e~'c'Ons~i'dered under the major category of industrial uses? Staff has reviewed the statements of intent of the rural area district and the various residential and commercial districts and recommends that r/d activities would not be appropriate to any of these districts. (Each zoning district, designed to satisfy a particular purpose distinct from other districts, is described by a carefully-worded statement of intent that may include among other things the specific purpose of the zone; a statement that defines the zone as distinct from other zones; locational requirements; utility requirements; transportation considerations; and the like). Additionally, staff would be concerned about mixing uses of major categories. This was done under the prior zoning ordinance and resulted in problems. A circuit court judge referred to the old A-1 zone as a 'catchall' zone containing many uses that bore little or no relation to the statement of intent of the zone. Also, the old B-1 Business zone contained industrial uses and the old M-1 Industrial Limited zone contained commercial uses unrelated to their respective purposes. Staff can determine no peculiar characteristic of r/d activities to distinguish these uses from the major industrial category. To the contrary, r/d activity is the forerunner of production activity and therefore exhibits similar characteristics (i.e. - raw materials, by-products, operational characteristics). In view of this consideration, criteria for placement of these uses within the community should be similar to other industrial uses (since r/d uses are experimental in nature with unknown consequences, review may be more stringent in some cases). R/d uses are currently accommodated in industrial zones which in staff opinion is appropriate. b. Are current zoning provisions proper or should a new industrial category be created? The~'pr~i~o~r~zo~ning ordinance contained a Resea~?h and Technical ~ Manuf a c tur i ng ~M~-~ 6~i~ ~s ig~-~t~6~ ....... ~t ~bd~'-~-~' ~6~ i~-~f~-'~§~-i-~ ...... effect for over ten (10) years, only one rezoning petition was filed requesting RTM zoning. The purpose of this zone was to encourage development of 'campus- type industries'. During development of the 1980 zoning ordinance, the old M-1 Industrial Limited and RTM zones were combined to form the current LI Light Industrial zone. The LI zone permits industries, offices, and limited commercial uses ' to develop as active centers of employment on both individual sites as well as within industrial parks'. Therefore, the current LI district is intended to accommodate both research/development activities as well as limited production line activities. Comment was made that r/d uses do not want to locate adjacent to 'smokestack' industries due to dust, smoke, noise, vibration and the like that may be deleterious to the r/d activity. Albemarle County does not currently have any 'smokestack' industries. New industries locating in the County are required to comply with performance standards intended to negate 'smokestack' aspects. Also, any owner of property zoned industrial or seeking industrial zoning can bar 'smokestack' indus~tries either thru contractual agreement with the r/d prospect of proffered zoning. Based on the foregoing comments, staff can determine no need for and no public purpose to be served by creating an additional industrial zoning district intended to accommodate primarily r/d uses. February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) In fact, creation of~a r/d zone may have some adverse effects. First, placing the zone on the books would not place it on the maps. As pointed out earlier, very little interest was shown in the old RTM zone, which was limited to r/d uses. Second, since st'aff would view a r/d zone as ~n industrial zone, placing r/d zoning on the map would limit or reduce land available to other industrial uses. Third, r/d uses are self-described as 'high risk' businesses. High risk businesses are by nature more susceptible to rapid turnover and failure than other businesses and consequently are more apt to rent than to own a facility. Therefore, it would not appear that a r/d zone would be as highly sought by a property owner as other industrial zones due to his high risks in terms of: facility construction; potentially high vacancy rate; limited alternative uses; and consequently less desirable prospect for sale. In other words, in'practice, a r/d zone may prove only as a temporary designation on a given property." Mr. Tucker said the staff is not oPposed to the creation of a new zoning district, but it ~ants the Board to be aware of the limitations it will be creating if it makes a district solely for research and develOPment industries. Mr. Fisher said the industrial park concept was designed to be a campus-type atmosphere with restrictions and performance standards, and this concept has its roots in the old RTM district. Mr. Tucker said the industrial park is the most flexible zoning there is for industry because it allows both light and heavy industrial uses. It is more restrictive than other categories in terms of the planning and design. Mrs. Cooke noted that the industrial park property (near the airport) does not have water or sewer. Mr,~ Tucker said the park has water and the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plant has been approved. Mr. Fisher said the developer who plans to place industries on the property ha~'~"the approval he needs to expand the Camelot Sewage Treatment Plan~. Mr. Tucker said the only thing an'industry !would have to do to locate there is submit a site plan to the Planning Department. Without the sewer, Mrs. Cooke said, the property cannot be uSed for industries like Unogen. Mr. Tucker said this is correct, but in addition to that, the park was approved for industries much larger than Unogen. Mr. Fisher wondered if some smaller portions could be allocated to small industries at the back of the parcel. Mr. Tucker said development of the property was calculated to take tplace in phases, and it has been designed for larger tracts, but there are places for smaller industries. Mr. Fisher said the ordinance provisions for this area was drafted very carefully to prepare the highest quality environment for research and development industries. Mr. Bowie said this will not make much difference until a sewer line is run to the property. Mr. Fisher noted that the staff recommendation is to make no changes. Mr. Lindstrom said this study needs to be part of the information that is made available to industries seeking locations in the county, since it represents a lot of work on the part of the staff. Mr. Tucker said he would clarify that the Planned Development-c:Industrial Park'District is the most flexibl district the County has and that it will allow heavy industry to operate there; heavy industry could be placed in the center of the park, but light industry would have to be around the perimeter and small operations around the perimeter. Mr. Lindstrom said it seems toi!i~.him that a lot of the industrial land~is tied uP by a very few people and they seem to be .waiting for an industry to come along and pay for the installatio of the sewer system. Agenda Item N°. 23. Report on the Resource Recovery and .Management Committee. Mr. Bowie presented the following report dated February 7, 1985: ~Q~r~f~st interim report of Novamber 1, 1984 introduced several items studied by the ~ommittee. This report expands on those items and makes further rec~mmendations~.-.~ i. Regional Energy Producing Facility: On December 19th, the Regional Resource Recovery Task Force met with Mr. Hunter Taylor, a consultant to the Commonwealth of Virginia in 'Energy Recovery from Solid Waste'. After this meeting, the County committee asked our Engineering Department to analyze and verify the operation and maintenance costs discussed by Mr. Taylor. Paragraph I of their memo of February 4, 1985 states that O&M costs for such a facility in this area would be about $3,000,000 annually, and debt service would exceed another $3,000,000. In summary, if we went to such a facility, our 'tipping costs' would immediately rise from its current $10.00 per ton to about $40.00 per ton, and twenty year projected costs would increase from $25.00 per ton to over $50.00 per ton. It appears that any further effort to develop such a facility would be.futule. The only place these facilities seem attractive is where there is no landfill alternative. 2. Recycling: A. Personal Experience: We became interested, in recycling shortly after moving to Albemarle County. When we first arrived, we did what everyone elSe seemed to be doing, contract with a hauling service. At that time, we had about two to three bags of refuse per week, including glass, paper and aluminum. At present, through' maximum use of recycling and other alternatives we have reduced our~disposal to about fifteen bags per year, a reduction of ninety percent. If this were universally done, the Keene landfill would last twenty years and the Ivy landfill would last 250 years. While the majority of users of the landfills are not able to participate to this extent, everyone could do something. Not only would the landfill life be extended, but the benefit to the economy and the environment.would be inestimable. How then can we encourage the use of recycling? February 13, 1985 (Regular Day Meeting) B. Recycling Centers: Until recently there was only one recycling center in the Charlottesville/ Albemarle area which is located off of McIntire Road beside the County Office Building. This is a small voluntarily used and little publicized facility. However a report of the center's operation last year shows that: --About 535 tons of aluminum, glass and paper were diverted from the landfill and reused;~ --$29,500 in collection and landfill operation costs were saved by the City and County; --37,500 kilowatt hours of electricity were saved along with an unknown amount of natural gas; --Over 9,800 trees were saved through recycling of paper (not cited in the report)~ --Employment was provided for two Workshop V clients at no expense to the public. In December, a second recycling center was opened at the University of Virginia and a~other is being considered somewhere along Route 29 North. It would seem that there are some areas in the County where recycling centers could be established. C. Commercial (for profit) Recycling: Item 1 discusses the possibility of private sector interest in developing alternatives to burying solid waste and states that an RFP was being prepared. A draft of this RFP has been forwarded with this report. We feel that this effort should be pursued and monitored. Hopefully, an acceptable proposal will be received. D. Cost Savings to County: The cost of operating the Ivy Landfill is divided between the City and County based on volume of refuse. Last year, Albemarle County's share was 53.15 percent. This year due to increased construction in the County, our share will increase to 58.02 percent or about $50,000 more. Any effort which reduces the amount of waste charged to the County will result in a direct reduction in annual costs as well as extending the life of the landfill. 3- Ivy Landfill Contract Renegotiations:~_~ Item~ Ofa~ur-~pr~ious report stated that the agreement between the City and County for the management of the landfill was being reviewed. We have opinions on this but due to contract negotiations involved the matter should be discussed in executive session. 4. CoOpe~t'iOn With Private Sector Organizations: This committee is fortunate to have the active participation and support of the Charlottesville- Albemarle Clean Community Commission (CAC3). This volunteer organization is dedicated to the reduction of littering and the increased use of recycling. Their primary effort is through public education and cooperation. In other Virginia cities where similar efforts have occurred, litter has been reduced by as much as 60 percent. The Clean Community Commission has been resoluted by the City and County, is certified and funded by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Conservation and by the 'Keep America Beautiful' organization. They currently receive $11,000 annually from the State (for use in public education) for which the County would not otherwise be qualified. The Clean Community Commission efforts to date are: --They have been instrumental in establishing the above discussed recycling centers through Workshop V, and will assist other nonprofit agencies in establishing similar sites. --They are organizing a County/City 'Clean Up Drive' to take place on April 13 and are planning a similar drive for this fall. The County now supports CAC3 by providing office space and staff support from the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Director of that department is a member of the CAC3 Board of Directors. 5. Summary: It seems that any possibility of an energy producing facility in the foreseeable future is unlikely. There is no site, little interest and no money. It also appears that significant reduction in costs and extension of the life of the landfills could be realized by increased emphasis on recycling. Also, while there would be direct cost savings to the County, as well as other benefits, it appears that by involving private enterprise there would be little or no cost to the County. 6. Recommendations: A. That the County abandon further efforts to explore or develop a Regional Energy Conservation Facility. Members of the Regional Task Force would continue to meet on matters of mutual interest. B. That the County committee continue to explore ways of increasing the use of recycling centers to reduce litter and extend the life of the landfills. C. That the committee encourage development of plans for one or two additional centers for imPlementation on a test basis. IF County involvement were indicated the plans would be submitted to the Board of Supervisors. February 13,.1985 ~(Regular Day Meeting) D. That County support of CAC3 be continued and if necessary, inceased for specific projects such as the forthcoming Clean Up Drive. E. That efforts to improve solid waste disposal procedures such as addressed in the RFP be continued and encouraged." Mr. Bowie ~hen~ama~e motion to accept the recommendations of the committee. Mr. Lindstrom ,econded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he is amazed by the fact that this committee has come to same conclusions as a more expensive committee came to ten years ago. The capital outlay recycling waste for energy is still prohibitive. Mr. Lindstrom said he is impressed by the of the one little recycling center the CAC3 runs. Mr. Fisher said the Board has no oerience~with what a true bottle bill would have done for recycling. A bottle bill would be a ood solution, although it would not be popular. Mr. Lindstrom said such legislation made a big snce in the State of Michigan. Mr. Roger Flint, President of CAC3 Board of Directors, thanked the Board for its support. ~everal citizens have volunteered help, and Mr. Pat Mullaney, Mr. Bowie, and Mr. Daniel S. of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, have been a big help. Roll was called on Mr. Bowie's motion and it carried by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. Agenda Item No. 24. Report on the future disposition of the Woodbrook Lagoon. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum: dated February 7, 1985: "Mrs. Cooke asked that background information be assimilated on the futu~'~ use of the Woodbrook Lagoon property for discussion by the Board of Super- visors. Generally the information she requested was the plans, if any, of the Albemarle Service Authority for the property; the potential uses of the property by the County; and how the County could acquire the property, if interested. Attached are brief reports (on file) on the matter by the Parks and Rec- reation director and the County Attorney's staff. The property contains 7.63 acres, and has recently been filled and graded as a close-out opera- tion for the former lagoon,-and is being considered by the Albemarle Service Authority for disposal. The property has potential use for youth athletic activities (football, baseball, soccer) and neighborhood recreation serving the residential-areas of Woodbrook, Carrsbrook, Westmoreland, North- fields, Fieldbrook, and Raintree currently served inadequately by one field at Woodbrook School. For private ownership purposes, the property could also serve as open space for adjacent properties in future development of undeveloped properties. In the opinion of the Deputy County Attorney, Mr. Bowling, the Service~ Authority could convey land to the County, if requested] upon terms and conditions as the Board of Directors of the Authority determines to be in the best interest of the Authority, without offering the property for sale to the general public. Mrs. Cooke plans to discuss the use of this property for public needs, and a request by the Board to the Service Authority Board for acquisition of the property by the County." Mrs. Cooke said she had this put on the agenda because several residents have told her the Fear that a developer may buy this property and put it to some undesirable use. (Mr. Bowie left at 3:24 p.m.) She has since spoken with Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Service Authority, and he has said that the property would require so much work as to make it unfeasib for development. She feels the County might buy this land and declare it open space or allow a limited recreational use. She does not want to draw more people to the area than actually live there, because this area is congested enough already. She recommends that this area be made into open space with no recreational use or limited recreational use. Mr. Henley said he feels the land should be sold to the homeowners. Mrs. Cooke said the former lagoon cannot be built upon. Mr, Henley said he does not think the County should buy land and put nothing on it. Mr. Mullaney said the Parks and Recreation Department needs youth athletic practice g facilities in this area and this property would take almost no work; the Albemarle County Service Authority is flattening and seeding the area, and all the Parks Department would have do is erect portable goals. The entrance could be fenced off to prevent traffic on the propert The area needs to be secured to be protected against three-wheelers and motorbikes. If the is used for open space, who would be responsible for its upkeep? The,Parks Department would like to manage the property unless it is allowed to use it. A private developer could use this as open space, but the County may not need it. February 13, 1985~(Regular.Day Meeting) ~Mr. Fisher said he would like to look at this land. (Mr. Bowie returned to the meeting at 3:30 p.m.) Mrs. Cooke said Mr. Michael Boblitz, president of the Woodbrook Homeowners Association is present. Mr. Boblitz said the homeowners association has been brought back into existence because people are concerned about the density~in the area and about traffic problems A park would exacerbate these problems and add lights, noise, drainage problems and security problems to the area. He said the entire neighborhood is opposed to any use for this lagoon other than as open space. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of the homeowners would be willing to i£ the details could be worked out. He does not want to saddle purchase the land a~ open space the County with an "attractive nuisance" that people cannot use, that has to be taken care of and policed. Mr. Boblitz s~ggested that the Board and homeowners association might look at other alternatives for the property and for some kind of joint use. Mrs. Cooke asked if the Board needs to hold a public hearing. Mr. Fisher said some a alternatives need to be spelled out: he listed (1) a public park; (2) limited public use; (3) private ownership. Mr. Mullaney has given his views on the first two alternatives. The last one might be the best alternative. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if there is a particular procedure to be followed by the homeowner's association if they try to. acquire the land. Mr. ~t. John said no, but they would have to negotiate with the Service Authority. The conditions for use of the property are flexible. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the homeowners might need to look into purchasing the land themselves, because he cannot justify the expenditure of County money for what would essentially be private property. Then the homeowners would have the responsibility for the land and its care. If the public becomes invoi~d;~there will have to be some public use. Mr. St. John said he does not think the County can legally have open space fox the use of Woodbrook residents only, because if the Woodbrook people can go there, then anyone in the Co.unty can go there, and the County would have to post the land and not allow anyone to use it. Mrs. Cooke said she thinks Mr. Lindstrom has the right idea. Mr. St. John said if it was not done this way, there would hays to be complex deed restrictions, including the taxation implications of non-deyelopment. Mr. Fisher ~aid the homeowners would have a problem drafting ways to maintain the area and police it. Mr. Lindstrom said that is the homeowners' problem. Mr. Fisher said in that case, the Board will wait and see what the Woodbrook Homeowners ~ Association can w~rk out with the Service Authority and will not take a position on the matter. The Board agreed to this idea by concensus. Agenda Item No. 25.. the Airport. Request to revise the County Code concerning Parking Regulations at Mr. Agnor said the Airport property was included in the County's ordinance concerning parking regulations on the grounds of the University of Virginia and Piedmont Community College in order to allow the erection of signs. The Airport now needs to be included in Section 12-10 of the Code which lists prohibited acts. Mr. Henley made motion to advertise for a public hearing on March 13 an ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 12-10 and 12-11 of the. Albemarle County Code to include the airport ~ property for parking regulations. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion, which carried by th~ following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 26. Archaeological Survey of Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum, dated February 8, 1985, for the Board's ~nformation: "Due to its historic character and high rate of anticipated future growth, the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission of the State Department of Conservation and Historic Resources has chosen to conduct an archeological survey of Albemarle County to identify and evaluate archeotogical sites under long-term threat of development. The two-year extensive study will, l) document the patterns of prehistoric and historic archeotogical site settlement, 2) evaluate the importance of the cultural resources found, and 3) develop guidelines to preserve andprotect those resources identi- fied to be of Cultural or historic significance. This project will build upon a project currently being administered by the University of Virginia Department of Archeology, which involves ~'analyzing three County sites under immediate threat of growth and deve- lopment. Whereas, the University of Virginia project is limited to three areas most threatened by development in the short term, the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission project is broader and more flexible, looking at long-term archeological impacts of growth in this area. Work on the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission project began in January, 1985, and is scheduled for completion in September, 1986. If you would like more information on the survey, a copy of the project description is available in the County Executive's Office." Mr. Agnor said the state is' looking for sites of archeological significance now so future projects will not have to be halted while the archeological survey is done. Mr. Fisher asked the digging is being done on private property. Mr. Agnor said yes, with the permission of the owner. February 13, 1985 (Regular.Day.Meeting) Agenda Item No. 27. Executive Session. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, the Board went into executive session at 3:44 p.m. for the discussion of personnel matters and a legal issue concerning the Ivy Landfill. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 4:59 p.m. Agenda Item No. 28. Appointments· Item No. 28a. Community Services Board. Appointment not made. Item No. 28b. Land Use Regulations Committee. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, second by Mr. Mr. Timothy M. Michel was appointed to the Land Use Procedure Study Committee to replace · Richard Cogan as the Planning Commission's representative. The motion carried by the g recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None. Item No. 28c. Library Board. Mrs. Cooke made motion, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to appoint . Judith H. Walker o£ 3210 Clarke Lane as a member oS the L~brary Board of Directors, with a to expire on June 30, 1989.._The motion carried by the following recorded vote: : Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. : None: Not Docketed. Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Bowie made motion, seconded by Mr. , to appoint Mr. Samuel D. Craig, III to the Albemarle County Service Authority Board of tors, with a term to expire on April 16, 1988; Mr. Craig will represent the Rivanna Distri motion passed by .the following recorded vote: ' Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Item No. 28d. Soil Erosion Advisory Board. Appointment not made. Item No. 28e. Welfare Board. ;he next meeting of this Board. Mr. Way said he would have a name ready for appointment by Agenda Item No. 29. Other Matters Not on the'Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Lindstrom said he received a letter from the Coalition to Rural Virginia Governments ~nd he would like to have some information on the Coalition and its goals. Mr. Agnor said he the Coalition is primarily opposing changes in highway funding formulas. The group is interested in improving the rural governments' strength in the Virginia Association of · Mr. Lindstrom requested more information'on the group. Mr. Fisher noted that this Board will meet with the Planning Commission on April 6 Mr. Way reported on his trip' to Richmond. He said the JLARC committee dealing with House Jill 16Z6 (manufactured housing) heard and considered the opposition to that bill which would ~emove any distinctions made by counties'between site-bUilt-and manufact~ured housing (mobi'[e ~omes). The opposition was quite strong and'the bill was delayed indefinitely in the committee. Mr. Way said he enjoyed the experience of speaking before th~ ~p~2tee. Agenda Item No. 30.. Adjournment. At 5:04 p.m., on motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seConded'by Mr. Bowie, the Board adjourned until February 20, 1985, at 4:00 p.m. for a joint meeting 'w~th the School Board. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstr'om and Way None. . . ·