Loading...
1984-12-05November 21, 1984 ~ (Regular Nighs Meeting) The November 21, 1984 meeting of the ~oard of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was cancelled by the Board on November 7, 1984. ~ovember 29, 1984 (Adjourned Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held at 6:30 p.m., November 29,. 1984, in conjunction with the Region X Community Services Board and the Charlottesville City Council at 406 Third Street N.E., Charlottesville, Virginia (Blue Ridge House); meeting, adjourned from November 14, 1984. Present: Lindstrom. Mr. F.R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and~C. Timothy Absent: Messrs. J. T. Henley and Peter T. Way. Officer Present: Mr. Robert W~ Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive. Board members viewed a~.film on the impact mental illness has on families and communities. After the film several Region X clients explained the various theraputic and vocational trainin which takes place at this location. Board and Council members were allowed to ask questions about the operation of Region X Community Services. At 8:50 p.m., on motion by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the meeting adjourned. December 5, 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 5, 1984, at 7:30 p.m., in Meeting Room 7, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:34 p.m.), and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. Ray B. Jones, Deputy County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. p.m. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Fisher, the Chairman, at 7:30 Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher said because the meeting previously scheduled this afternoon with the School Board had been cancelled, primarily at the request of the School Board, he could suggest the meeting be slated for the afternoon of February 20, 1985 at 4:00 p.m. Mr. Fisher recognized the return of Mr. Agnor after his long absence due to illness. He ~nd the Board indicated pleasure in having the County Executive back full time and in good health. Mr. Agnor said he would like to thank the Board and staff for their support and concern, both of which he found overwhelming during his illness. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at the meeting at 7:34 p.m.) On motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the Consent Agenda was accepted with the removal of items 4.2 (a letter from Mr. David Bowerman of the Planning Commission on the proposed Land Use Study Committee), and 4.5 (a letter from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance, on Land Use Tax Assessments). The motion passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 552 December 5, 1984 [Regular Night Meeting) Item No. 4.1. Take Roads into the Secondary System. At the request of Mrs. Frances D. Carter in a letter dated November 6, 1984, Lynnwood Lane taken into the sedoncary system by the following resolution: "BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir- ginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart- ment, the following road in Lynnwood Lane Subdivision: Beginning at station 10+07.5 a point common with the edge of pavement of Route 657 and the centerline of Lynnwood Lane, thence in a northerly direction 377.27 feet to station 3+84.77, the end of the cul-de-sac of Lynnwood Lane. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 40-foot unobstructed right Of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by a plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 773, page 584. At the request of Mr. Michael T. Boggs, by letter dated November 15, 1984, the Board ~dopted the following resolution to accept roads in B~ookwood Subdivision: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Vir- ginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requeated to accept into the Secondary System of Highways subject to final inspection and approval, the following roads in Brook- wood Subdivision: Brookwood Road Beginning at station 0+10 a point common with the centerline of Brookwood Road and the edge of pavement of Claudis Court (Route 1220), thence in a southeastwardly direction 1,410 feet to station 14+20, a point common with the centertine intersection of the end of state maintenance of Jamestown Road and the centerline of the end of state maintenance of Brookwood Road. Jamestown Court Beginning at station 0+00 a point common with the intersection of Jamestown Court, Jamestown Road and Brookwood Road, thence in a southeastwardly direction with Jamestown Court-642.25 feet to station 6+42.25 the end of the cul-de-sac of Jamestown Court. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot'unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 601, pages 311 and 312. Mr. Fisher said he would like to have some indication on the letters from the County mneer giving descriptions of roads taken into the secondary system that the roads have had final inspection and have been found to be in an acceptable condition. Item No. 4.2. Letter dated November 28, 2984, from Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman of the g Commission, concerning response to Mr. Lindstrom'S'letter of October 29, 1984, on the ect of the proposed Land Use Study Committee. At the request of Mr. Lindstrom, this item ~as removed from the agenda and discussion of same was deferred until December 12, 1984. He aeeded more time to study Mr. Bowerman's letter so he could draft an appropriate response. Item No. 4.3. Letter dated November 26, 1984, from Mr', R. M. Wood, Albemarle Baptist ~inister's Conference, asking support for a family victimized by harassment in a community near Scottsville. Item No. 4.4. Letter dated November 26, 1984 from Mrs. Sue Lewis, President, League of fomen Voters, concerning a suggestion for a member of the Land Use Study Committee. The letter suggested the name of Mrs. Joan Graves for consideration when the final decision is made. Item No. 4.5. Letter dated November 29, 1984, from Mr. Melvin Breeden, Director of Finance oncerning Land Use Tax Assessments. Mr. Bowie asked that this item be removed from the consent genda and placed on the regular agenda for the December 12, 1984 meeting. He felt the approval ~f this letter would, in effect~ approve a tax increase for certain landowners, in some cases ~mounting to as much as 70 percent. D~~8Re~ular Ni~ht~ Meetin__g~ Agenda Item No. 5. SP-84-69. Jesse W. Bloodworth. Locate a single-wide mobile home on 11.88 acres zoned RA. ELocated on the west side of Route 635, 1/2 mile south of its inter- section with 1-64 and 3/10 mile north of its intersection with Route 688. Tax Map 71, Parcel 45A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1984.) Mr. Fisher told the Board that he had been getting calls all afternoon from people who would not be able to attend the hearing tonight due to the inclement weather. He said he told those people he would recommend holding the hearing anyway, but ask that no action be taken until December 12, to allow those who were not present to have an opportunity to speak. Mr. Donnelly presented the staff report: "Request: Acreage.: Zoning: Location: Mobile Home ~ .... ~1.88 acres RA, Rural Areas Property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcel 45A, is located on the-¥&~'~ ~ west side of Route 635, approximately 1/2 mile south of 1-64. Character of the Area: This property is developed with a single-family dwel- ling and several farm dependency buildings. Much of the property borders a row of developed lots located between the property and Route 635. No other mobile homes are located in the immediate area. Staff Comment: The applicant is requesting this mobile home for elderly relatives who have become somewhat dependent with age. While the mobile home would be located about 150 feet from the nearest adjoining property, it would be partially visible from other dwellings in the area, Staff suggested that the applicant consider location adjacent to the existing dwelling. Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends: Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; Location and screening of mobile home to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator." Mr. Donnelly said the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 20, 1984', recommended approval of the' petition with the additional condition that: The mobile home must be located ~t an alternative site marked by a circled "x" on a Plat submitted by the applicant. Said location is described as south of the frame dwelling and west of the primary site for 'the mobile home, or in close proximity thereto, but in no case shall it be located farther east than the marked alternative site. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing Mr. and Mrs. Bloodworth, spoke first, prefacing his remarks with appreciation for Mr. Agnor and enthusiasm for his return to his full-time duties. Mr. Dick told the Board the application is for a mobile home to house Mrs. Bloodworth's parents -- her fathar is aged 82 and her mother 76 -- so they can be under their daughter's care but not in the already overcrowded house. Mr. Dick presented photographs of the area, showing it as heavily wooded and as providing ~ffective ~screening for the mobile home. He called attention to the photograph of the nearest neighbor's house, nearly invisible in the trees. He indicated the site approved by the Planning Commission on a plat (a copy was pre- sented to Board members). Mr. Dick presented other photographs, showing the location of other mobile homes in this area and various angles of the proposed mobile home site. Mr. Dick told the Board that the decision to place the mobile home on the property was not one that the family had made arbitrarily, but rather had been made as the least expensive alternative to provide housing for-Mrs. Bloodworth's parents. He' said the mobile home would be so far out of view of anyone it would not be offensive and that the propOsed use Would be a proper use, since the acreage meets all the requirements. Mr. Dick said he was sorry that some of the people who oppose the mobile home are not at the meeting tonight. Mr. Dick addressed what he said was the main concern at the Planning Commission meeting -- ~he devaluation of the surrounding property. He said other mobile homes in the area had not ~epreciated property values, and he did not thin~k this one would, either. Several homes near ;hose mobile homes have been assessed at well over $100,000. Mr. Lindstrom .asked Mr. Dick if the applicant would have any objection to limiting the ~ermit for the mobile home to the period of time that one or both of the parents is living ~here. Mr. Dick said he thought there would be no objection, but that it might be expanded to ~nclude other family members. Mrs. Bloodworth was present and said the family would like to be zble to use the mobile home for Mr. Bloodworth's parents as well. Mr. Aubrey James came before the Board asking that the matter be postponed until a later ~ate. He said he had a petition with approximately 70 names on it, and many of those PeOple ~ould not make it to the hearing. Thesepeople are opposed. Mr. James said he lives within quarter of a mile of the Bloodworths. Mrs. ~oo~e asked if there is anpther mobile home ~djacent to Mr. James'-~roperty and was to'ld that there is not. He said there is one about a uarter of a mile distant. Mr. Carl Gordon told the Board he is an immediate neighbor of the Bloodworths and that he nd his wife are very much in favor ot the desire to take care of family members who can no Lo~ger care for themselves. He said they do not believe that the mobile home will work any ~conomic hardship on anyone in the community. He s~id this ~articular mobile home would serve December 5~ 1984 (Regular Night Meet~in~) a good purpose and would Only be on the prop~DYi~yf~;~a~li~ited amount of time. Mr. Gordon said he is the closest neighbor to the proposed mobile home site and he cannot see it through the trees. With no one else present to speak for or against the petition, Mr. Fisher then closed the public hearing and told the Board that the next adjacent neighbor had called him and said therei are a number of people who wanted to be at this hearing but'could not come because of the roads and the weather conditions. He asked the caller if anyone would come to the hearing if he asked the Board to defer the petition. The caller telephoned his neighbors, and called back to say they would be in attendance. He then requested that action be deferred until December 19~ Mrs. Bloodworth said her family is living under very trying conditions, with her parents in the living room of her home, and she would prefer that the matter.not be delayed, but a decision made one way or another. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that if the neighbors were bringing information to the Board that it does not have, that would be one thing, but if they simply intend to say the same things.the Board has already heard, it would not be appropriate to defer the petition. He said he would support the petition with the stipulation that the mobile home be left in place only for the duration of the lifetimes of both sets of parents. Several citizens present said people woUld have been at the hearing but for the weather and these people wanted a chance to also speak. Mr. James said several people who signed the petition wanted to speak. Mr. Lindstrom said his question is whether these people have some- thing to offer other than additional numbers objecting to the petition. Mr. Fisher then closed the public hearing again. Mr. Bowie asked Mr. Donnelly when the notification for the meeting went out and learned that the original notification was sent on November 7, 1984. Mr. Fisher said that even though everyone knew a month ago, the bad weather just happened today. Mrs. Cooke said she agreed with Mr. Lindstrom that if the people have something new to say, the matter.should be deferred, but she would prefer that there be no rehashing of the same issues. Mr. Fisher said the-Board would not know if the comments were the same until it heard them. Mrs. Cooke asked if the petition brought to the Board was not the same as the original petition. Mr. James said the wording of the new condition, as far as anyone present knew, is not the same~ Mr. Lindstrom said he is inclined to support approval of this petition, but the people present and others will be upset if they think the Board made its decision without listening to all their comments. He said he hated to make the Btoodworths wait, but it might be better for their relations with their neighbors. Mrs. Cooke said she thought it should be scheduled for December 12, 1984 rather than December 19. Mr. Dick said he might have problems having time for the hearing that day, since he is actively involved in other legal matters at the same time. He said the people who object have had notification by mail and by newspaper, and furthermore, the sleet has turned to rain. His clients made it to the hearing from the same neighborhood~ and it would not be fair to make them wait. Mr. Fisher asked if the December 12 date was convenient and Mr. Dick said he would have to check his trial calendar. Mr. Fisher then asked if Mr. Dick wanted to move the hearing to December 19 and hold it at night. Mr. Dick said he needed to accommodate his client and Mrs. Bloodworth has said the living con- ditions in her home were very crowded and the sooner they could get a decision, the better. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought that was fair, and made motion to defer the petition until next Wednesday, December 12, 1984. Mr. Way seconded the motion, which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS. Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-84-4. Emmaus with Child. Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance, RA, Rural Areas District, to Permit a single-family dwelling occuptied by one adult and his/her family and not more than ten adult women unrelated to the adult, under the supervision of that adult. Ail such women shall come to the home of their own volition. For purposes of this section, the term "family" shall include the spouse and children of such supervising adult. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly reported that ZTA-84-4 had been deferred indefinitely by the Planning Commis- sion, and therefore there is no action the Board can take at this time. Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-84-5. Henry Javor. Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to read: prohibit rental or leasing of trucks, vans, or trailers from service stations consisting of less than 30,000 square feet. Such operation allowed only on a free-standing service station not adjacent to any other operating business establishments. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on November 20 and November 27, 1984.) Mr. Donnelly said the applicant has requested that this petition be deferred. He said the- Planning Commission, when it heard the petition,~mecommended denial, and Mr. Javor, by the petition, had been questioning the enforcement procedures of the Zoning Administrator. Mr. Fisher said he would not recommend deferring the petition to the first day meeting in January because the Board tries to avoid having zoning matters scheduled for the night of its reorgani- zational meeting. He suggested perhaps January 9, 1985. Mr. Bowie made motion to defer ZTA-84-5 to January 9, 1985. Mrs. Cooke and passed by the following recorded vote: The motion was seconded by AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. 555 December 5~ 1984 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 8. trict. Request to withdraw land from the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal Dis- Mr. Donnel!y told the Board that Mr. Harvey Tapscott would like the Board to approve the withdrawal of 40 acres from the Hatton Agricultural/Forestal District, described as Tax Map 136, Parcel 8, located on the fringe of that AF District. Mr. Tapscott has stated that the property is to be purchased by three adjoining landowners and that "the purchasers are not interested in development." Mr. Donnelly read a staff report on the request, to wit: "Withdrawal of Land from A/F District As a part of the process to establish an A/F district, the Code of Virginia requires establishment of a nine-member advisory committee which 'shall advise the local governing body and the local Planning Commission in relation to the proposed establishment, modification, and termination of agricultural and forestal districts.' (Section 15.1-1510.) While Section 15.1-1513, Discontinuance of Association in Districts does not specifically refer to Section 15.1-1510, the County Attorney's office has concluded that recommen- dation from the committee (and possibly the Planning Commission) is required since withdrawal of land would constitute 'modification' of the A/F district. Division of Land Within A District The ordinance adopted by the Board of Supervisors to create the Hatton A/F District is more restrictive regarding division of land than the RA, Rural Areas zoning district. The ordinance states, in part, than 'any parcel in the proposed district shall not-be developed to a more intensive use during the period which said parcel remians within the proposed district with- out prior approval of the Board. It would appear that, if presented with a definitive proposal, the Board could authorize division of the 40 acres among the three adjoining property owners. Likewise, since this would be a relaxation of the ordinance, it would appear logical that the Board could impose reasonable restriction on such land consistent with the intent of the A/F district, i.e., restrictive development. Should the Board choose to consider authorizing withdrawal of the 40 acres, it.may take some time to reconvene and obtain comment from the advisory committee. The Board may also wish to seek comment from the Planning Com-m[aaL~: mission and public. Should the Board choose to consider division of the property~within the A/F district, a more definitive proposal should be submitted as well as a statement from the various purchasers as to development intentions." Mr. Donnelly then indicated the location of the property on a map. Mr. Fisher said there seems to bea two ways to handle the request. One would be to allow ~ithdrawal of the property from the A/F district through the process set forth by Mr. Donnelly, and the other would be to get a written proposal for the division of property and rights. Mr. Donnelly said the staff understands that the Board can approve the subdivision of the property within the district itself. Mr. Fisher asked to hear from the applicant. Mr. Calvin Jones, one of the prospective purchasers, came forward and told the Board that he is an adjoining landowner who wished to buy ten acres of the property from Mr. Tapscott. Mr. Tapscott, he said, bought his land from the Pierson Scott estate and cut the timber. He said the Planning Department told Mr. Tapscott he had to request the Board to remove the land from the District so he could sell it. Mr. Jones said Mr. Agnor, when asked, said the Board can remove the property from the A/F district for good cause. If the withdrawal cannot take place, the potential buyers would like to have the land subdivided between them and left in the District. He said he has no intention of develop- ing the land, but needs an access to the creek for his cattle. Mr. Fisher said he is in favor of finding some way to leave the land in the A/F district and divide it, unless the buyers want to combine the land with their existing A/F parcels. He said Mr. Jones should get the other buyers to agree on the boundaries and the restrictions and ~resent a proposal in writing. Mr. Jones said the buyers intend to have the land surveyed and livide it equally. Mr. Fisher said he visualized the parcels joining parcels already owned by the buyers. Mr. [ones said that is basically correct; Mr. Adcock's property may not attach to other property he owns. Mr. Jones said he was certain that two of the parcels would adjoin the property of their prospective buyers. Mr. Lindstrom said that, since this is the first time the Board has been requested to ~ithdraw land from an A/F district, the Board had better be careful about what it does, and had 0etter set up procedures by which it will allow other withdrawals. On those grounds, he said, ae would like to hold a public hearing on the requested withdrawal. Mr. Tucker reminded the ~oard that the proposed division of the land would be approved administratively if the land ~ere not in an A/F district. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board should request a written report and a sketch, and in the meantime schedule a public hearing. Mr. Tucker asked what kind of hearing ~r. Lindstrom wanted. Mr. Lindstrom said a regular advertised public hearing for the Board; ne saw no reason to go before the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said Mr. Jones and the other ouyers would like to close the sale before the end of the year. He suggested that the Board aotify the adjacent property owners and all the other property owners in the Hatto~ District. ~r. Fisher asked how many people that involved and was told the staff is not sure of the number of landowners. 555 Mr. Bowie said he had been reading Code Section 15.1-1513 and in that section learned that the heir to land in an A/F district may withdraw it as a matter of right. He said one-~ of the basic problems seems to be that the heir did not withdraw the property before the lan~ was sold. Mr. Bowie said he did not feel that the Board is faced with any~massive policy change and did not see the need to defer the item-until some further meeting. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not think his suggestion was going to 'cause the applicant any trouble, but he thinks the Board needs a proposal back and since the Board needs to establish a precedent for other similar withdrawals, it should use this case to establish a policy. One of the more important points, he said, is letting people know that changes are being made in the policy. Mr. Fisher said the buyers should work out a proposal whereby they can subdivide the land, and the intention and methods of doing so will be communicated to other property owners in the Hatton A/F District. Mr. Fisher said the item would be put back on the agenda for December 19, 1984. Mr. Lindstrom made motion to adopt a plan of-notifying all adjacent property owners, including those within the-A/F district, of requests for withdrawal from an A/F district, and holding a hearing before subdividing the land within the district, The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and passed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Housing Authority. Resolution: Issuance of Bonds by Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Mr. Tucker said this request to approve a $6 million bond issue already has been approved and recommended by the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority, for Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority to finance acquisition and construction of a 120-unit multi-family apartment project adjacent to Hollymead Square I. He said the formal action is needed for approval of the project by resolution of the Board. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if he had studied the resolution and was told that it seems to be in compliance with the statutes of the state and protects the'County. Mr. John Ashton, bond counsel for the applicant, said the resolution is a requirement to satisfy Federal acts regarding the issuance of bonds. He said there had been no change in the status of the project since the public hearing was held on the issuance of the bonds in October Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to adopt the following reso- lution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of Albemarle County, Vir- ginia, (the "Albemarle Authority"), has held a public hearing on Octo- ber 30, 1984 regarding the issuance by the-Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority (the "Housing Authority"), of revenue bonds in an amount not to exceed $6,000,000 (the "Bonds"), to finance the acquisition and construction of a 120-unit multi-family rental project to be located on Powell Creek Road adjacent to the Hollymead Square I apartments in Albe~ marle ~o~ty, Virginia (the "Project"), for Cavalier-Hollymeade Associates, a ~.r~2Mi~ginia limited partnership (the "Developer"); and WHEREAS, the Housing Authority and the Albemarle Authority have recom~.: mended that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia (the "Board"), approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Housing Authority to ~omply with Section 103(k) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended (the "Code"); and WHEREAS, a copy of the Albemarle Authority's resolution recommending approval of the issuance of the Bonds and a copy of the Housing Authority's resolution approving the issuance of the Bonds, records of the public hearings held thereon and a fiscal impact statement have been filed with the Clerk of the Board; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIR- GINIA: 1. The Board approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Housing Auth- ority for the benefit of the Developer, to the extent required by Sec- tion 103(k) of the Code, to permit the Housing Authority to-assist in the financing of the Project. 2. The approval of the issuance of the Bonds, as required by Sec- tion 103(k) of the Code, does not constitute an endorsement of the Bonds or the creditworthiness of the Developer. 3- This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. Agenda Item No. 10. Revisions to Claudius Crozet Park Agreement. Mr. Tucker reminded the Board that on November 14, 1984, the Board approved an agreement with Claudius Crozet Park, but had made some minor revisions in the wording of same. The Park De~ember ~. 1-~84 (Re .ular Night Meetin~ 557 Board reviewed the agreement and will approve it if the Board will agree to one more wording change. He said the Park Board wants the phrase "existing buildings" deleted from the last sentence of the second paragraph: "These improvements and maintenance are not inclusive of the swimming facility, *~*~-~~2-, or future buildingst, structures or additions made inde- pendently by the Owner o? groups or individuals other than the County." The Park Board felt it might, at some time, require improvements to existing buildings, pavillions, for instance, that need new flooring. The Board of Supervisors is not obligated to fund such requests, but the Park Board would like the requests to be heard along with other requests for capital improve- ment funds from the County. Mr. Henley made motion to accept the change in wording in paragraph two and to add, at the request of Mr. St. John, the signature of the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, to the document. Seconded by Mrs. Cooke, the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Authorization for Chairman's Signature: Project in the Albemarle~hartOt~es~illaaa~ea. Urban BMP Demonstration Mr. Tucker said this is a proposal to be submitted to the Virginia Soil and Water Con- servation Commission. The project will monitor certain stormwater detention projects in the County. The purpose is to determine how effective some of these devices are, since all are supposed to work on paper, but some actual observation is needed to determine which devices work most effectively. Mr. Tucker said this is the first application the County has sent to the state for these purposes. The study will coordinate the County, City and University of Virginia engineering depart- ments as well as the Highway Department to work on three primary projects: The Four Seasons Pond ($47,000 is already approved for a major detention basin.) Branchland - a proposed wetlands area. and Riverbend Shopping Center parking lot - level spreaders. The County will provide no direct funding except for an in-kind contribution of $28,000 already approved for the project at Four Seasons. The University will be contributing computer time and some equipment. A lot of the funding requested from the State will be used for equip- ment also. Mr. Tucker explained that t~[e~et spreader is a flat collection area for runoff from large areas such as parking lots so that the water's velocity decreases and subsequent erosion decreases. When the study is completed, a report will go to the State Water Control Board, which can then make recommendations as to the type of runoff control it would recommend in the future for various topographical situations. There being no questions from the Board, Mrs. Cooke made motion to authorize the Chairman to sign for the County a proposal for an Urban BMP Demonstration Project in the Albemarle- Charlottesville Area, and to approve the application. Seconded by Mr. Bowie, the motion carr- ied by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: May 23 (afternoon and night), June 6 (night - part), June 13 (part), June 16 (part), and June 18 (night), 1984. Mr. Bowie said he had a minor problem with the May 23 minutes, since during a discussion of the Lickinghole Creek dam site, the comment is made that the "county engineer is not going to to the engineering". He asked if the County Engineer is not doing it, who is, and would like an answer. He also said that on page seven of his copy, the paragraph needs a verb, ~robably "could" or "would", in reference tp a memorandum Mr. St. John had promised to write. Mrs. Cooke recommended approval of the June 13 (part) minutes and Mr. Fisher recommended ~pproval of the June 16 and June 18 minutes. Mr. Henley had not read the June 6 minutes, and so they were not subject to approval. On motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, the minutes from May 23, June 13 (part), Yune 16 (part) and June 18, 1984, were approved by the following recorded vote with the correc- tions noted: ~YES: ~AYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not on the Agenda. Mr. Bowie said he had seen Rex Hodges' documentary on WVIR-TV (Channel 29) last week and ae recommends that the Board obtain a copy to support its position on the damage the proposed Piedmont Corridor Highway would to to the watershed. He said the film illustrated the impact of the 1~.5 mile highway on the area and that a ten minute presentation from the film would be "dynamite" in Richmond when the Board presents its postion to Highway Commissioner Har~d King. ~e asked that the staff see it it can obtain a copy. Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Property Acquisition. 558 D.ecember 1 84 Re ular Ni ht ee '. __ On Motion by Mr. Bowie, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, the Board went into executive session by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 15. adjourned. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:45 p.m. and immediately December 12, 1984 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on December 12, 1984, at 9:00 a.m., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. ' Present: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney and Mr. James R. Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. 9:06 a.m. Call to Order. Mr. Fisher, Chairman, called the meeting to order at Agenda Item No. 2. Agenda Item No. 3. Pledge of Allegiance. Moment of Silence. Ag~enda Item No. 4. Consen~ Agenda. On motion by Mr. Way, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,..the Consent Agenda was approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Bowie, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Mrs. Cooke. Item No. 4.1. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Common- wealth's Attorney for the month of November 1984, were received and approved as presented. Agenda Item No. 5. 1984. Approval of Minutes: May 30, June 6 (Afternoon) and June 6 (Night) Mr. Henley reported a typographical error in the June 6 (Afternoon) minutes where the word "or" should have been "for". On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, the minutes for May 30, June 6 (After- noon) and June 6 (Night), 1984, were approved by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 6. Highway Matters. Item No. 6a. Route 729 Project - Resolution of Support Requested. Mr. Agnor reported that a letter had been received from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt of the Department of Highways and Transportation dated December 7, 1984, stating that a public hearing on the Route 729 project -- replacement of an existing bridge over Buck Island Creek was held on November 19, 1984. There was some opposition~ A location and design placing the new structure and approach roadways to the east of the existing structures which will allow the existing structures to be used as a bypass bridge during construction was presented. The design raises the approach roadways and bridge to an elevation where flooding (overtopping) can be expected approximately once every ten years rather than on the six-month cycle now occurring The new structire will be a two,lane, legal weight limit structure. Mr.'Roosevelt states, in his letter, that comments were primarily favorable, although he recommends that the location and design of the bridge remain unchanged, despite some opposition. Both the location and the design have been approved by the Highways and Transportation Commission. Mr. Agnor said the Department is asking the Board for a resolution of support for the project.