Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1982-02-10
February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on February 10, 1982, at 9:00 A.M. in Meeting Room 7, Second Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arrived at 9:25 A.M.), and Miss Ellen V. Nash. Absent: Mr. James R. Butler. Officers Present: R. St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:18 A.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented the consent agenda consisting of eight items for the Board's consideration. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:25 A.M.) Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the items on the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. Item No. 2.1. Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Wade Tremblay, President of Willoughby Corporation, requested by letter dated January 19, 1982, for Loma Lane in Willoughby Subdivision to be taken into the State Secondary System since all the necessary requirements are in order. The following resolution was adopted by the Board: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, 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 Department, the following road in Section Three in Willoughby: Beginning at station 1+18 of Loma Lane, a point common to the centerline intersection of Loma Lane and the edge of pavement of Harris Road, State Route 1130, (station 16+79.29); thence with Loma Lane in a south- westerly direction 456.75 feet to station 4+74.75, a cul-de-sac and the end of Loma 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 easements along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 717, page 232. Item No. 2.2. Street Sign Request. A request dated January 25, 1982, was received. from Mr. W. Jackson Douglas, for street signs to identify Summit Road in Knollwood and Hessian Hills Subdivisions. Mr. Douglas has agreed to purchase such signs. The following resolution was approved for same: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: West Park Drive (State Route 1406) and Summit Road (State Route 1408) at the southeast corner of its intersection; Bennington Road (State Route 1407) and Summit Road (State Route 1408) at the southwest corner of its intersection; and WHEREAS ~ citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Item No. 2.3. Lottery Permits. Lottery permit requests were received from the University Union for a raffle on February 13 and 14, 1982; the Eades Project for raffles on February 12 and March 1, 1982; and for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society for a raffle on February 27, 1982; same were approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of such permits. Item No. 2.4. Statements of expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealtl Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of January, 1982 were presented; said statements were approved as presented. Item No. 2.5. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenanCe and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of January, 1982, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer; said statements being approved as presented. Item No. 2.6. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of December, 1981, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Item No. 2.7. Report of the County Executive for the month of January, 1982, was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 15.1-602. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of January, 1982, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 17,279.64 784,449.15 2,891,074.99 30,781.32 51,105.73 214.02 59,503.46 316.47 209,089.77 20,514.17 271,660.82 $4,335,989.54' Item No. 2.8. Letters re: Public Utilities. The following letters were received as information: Appalachian Power Company, investigation to determine appropriate tariffs, dated January 18, 1982; Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, to revise its tariffs, dated January 19, 1982; Virginia Electric and Power Company, investigation to determine appropriate tariffs, dated January 20, 1982; Potomac Edison Company, investigation to determine appropriate tariffs; dated January 20, 1982; and Central Virginia Electric Cooperative, to revise its tariffs, dated January 27, 1982. Agenda Item No,. 3. Approval of Minutes: October 28, October 29 and November 19, 1980, and April 15, April 27, May 13 and June 3, 1981. Mr. Fisher had read the minutes of October 29, 1980, and noted the following corrections: Page 380, last vote on the page did not record Mr. Henley as voting. The minutes were corrected to show Mr Henley voting aye Page 389, last paragraph, sixth sentence down, delete the word "not" from the sentence reading "He gave as an exampl'e areas which are. . . ~Mr. Henley had read the minutes of April 15 and April 27, 1981 and found no errors. Mr. Fisher said he had also read the minutes of June 3, 1981 and noted the following correction on page 252, eighth paragraph from the end of the page, third sentence should be corrected because the two thoughts in the sentence did not appear correct. (The minutes were corrected to read as follows: '~r. Tucker said the lots would be-exempt under the Subdivision Ordinance because of the size. But two of the lots that were approved in the Phase II amendment in April, 1981; are now being redivided and they were not in existence prior to the date of adoption of the zoning ordinance.") MotiOn was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve the minutes of October 29, 1980, and April 15, April 27 and June 3, 1981 with the corrections noted above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley and Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Cooke. Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Authorize Performance Bond for Bishop Hill Subdivision Road. Mr. Agnor requested that he be authorized to write to the Highway Department to assure them that the County will guarantee for one year from the date that Bishop Lane in Bishop Hill Subdivision is accepted into the State Secondary System any defects and/or workmanship which may occur to the road up to a maximum of $3,750.00. Mr. Agnor said similar action was taken for the Meadows project and the County is the developer of Bishop Hill Subdivision. Motion to that effect was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, a:nd carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher,. Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 4b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the Georgetown Road pedestrian walkway. Mr. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, was present and said he had not been able to pursue the matter of the necessary right-of-way any further with Mrs. Gay Blair, one of the property owners involved in the right-of-way. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much lead time February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) is necessary in terms of having the right-of-way acquired before the beginning of the spring construction season. Mr. Williams said a month or two. Due to the type of work and the time involved for the work, the project would take sixty to ninety days. Mr. Agnor said bidding time alone would take about eight weeks. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see the walkway completed by the time school starts in the fall. He said if the right-of-way problem with Mrs. Blair is not resolved this month, then he feels the Board should take some advice on condemnation of the land. Mr. Lindstrom said this project has been discussed for five years and if Mrs. Blair were interested in signing an easement, he felt she would have corporated by now. Mr. Lindstrom then requested a report be submitted at the March meeting on the status of the Georgetown Road pedestrian walkway. Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and noted that the Highway Department is ready to go to construction on improvements to Georgetown Road itself. Mr. Fisher noted appreciation to the Highway Department for the work on the county roads during the recent inclement weather. Agenda Item No. 5. Appropriation Request. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, has requested by memorandum dated February 3, 1982, an appropriation in the amount of $52,645.69 from the General Fund to Code 1101-3002.07 for Professional Services, City/County Negotiations. As outlined in the memorandum, appropriations for Fiscal Years 1979-80, 1980-81 and 1981-82 totalled $132,500.00 and the total costs to date for the consultants for the city/county nego~ations is $185,145.69. Therefore, the balance due is $52,645.69 and Mr. Agnor recommended approval of same. Mr. Henley said he felt the breakdown of these costs should be explained to the public since Mr. Fisher and Mayor Buck will be talking about how much an annexation suit would cost in court. He felt what is fair for the goose, is fair for the gander, and he should be able to say a little something about what has been gotten for the money if "you all keep saying it is going to cost a million dollars to fight this thing". Mr. Fisher said he did not see any conflict with that because all that has been said is that if there is an annexation fight, more than what has already been spent will have to be spent. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the'following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. 'Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $52,645.69 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 1101-3002.07 for Professional Services--City/County Negotiations. Agenda Item No. 6. Letters re: Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. Mr. Fisher requested this be moved to the afternoon agenda after agenda item 19. Agenda Item No. 7. Set public hearing date to amend Business License Tax Ordinance. Mr. Melvin Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, was present and said the amendments to the Business License Tax Ordinance are needed because of changes in the State Code which revised the entire license section by setting limits on maximum rates allowed for different categories. Mr. Breeden said the rate on professional categories has been seventy-five cents per one hundred dollars of gross receipts and this was reduced to a maximum of fiftyeight cents. The reduced rate is effective May 1, 1982. The rate for business repairs and personal services have been increased from twenty cents to thirty- six cents per one hundred dollars of gross receipts. Business licenses that were based on a flat fee will be repealed and moved under various sections which are based on gross receipts. Mr.. Breeden said the major category added is in Section 11-54 by adding "developers Mr. Fisher thought this section currently applied only to speculative builders and contractors Mr. Breeden said speculative builders were charged according to the actual value of construction cost of the house. Now under the new guidelines set out by the State, "developers" and speculative builders will be charged based on their gross receipts; not on the cost of construction. Mr. Lindstrom asked about landlords who rent only a couple of units in the country. Mr. Breeden said that provision known as "lessors of real property" was transferred to a section titled "real estate service". Mr. Breeden noted that the provision is being left in the ordinance due to recent court cases on the subject. He also noted that the section applies~to persons in the business of renting apartments as a major source of income. Mr. Lindstrom asked how that is determined. Mr. Breeden said if the income from rentals i~le~an~$~0~~~ the ~erson would be exempt from purchasing a business license. Mr. Lindstrom asked about places which have been rented for years. Mr. Agnor said the ordinance allows the Director of Finance to go back three years and retroactivaly require a business license. Mr. Robert Vaughn, Zoning Administrator, was present. He noted that any business or home occupation existing prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1969 would be a nonconforming activity and have grandfather rights to continue. Mr. Lindstrom said there are many people who have apartments in their home which they rent. He can visualize mass chaos if the people who have been renting these units for a number of years are ~equired to purchase a license. Miss Nash then asked if the rental of a cottage was considered a home occupation and triggered the need for a business license. Mr. Vaughn said if the use of a structure were changed to multi-family or something of that nature, that change would bring this under the BOCA Code. If a cottage were properly zoned for just a single- family rental, there would not be any problem. Miss Nash then asked the effective date of the minimum $2,500 which can be received and collected without being subject to the license tax. Mr. Breeden said that has been in effect since 1973 and was based on $200.00 February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) per month per rental unit. Miss Nash felt that with the increase in rentals, the limit should be increased to $3,~600. A lengthy discussion followed on the minimum income which could be received from rentals, and the general feeling of the Board was that the current level of $2,500 was too low. Mr. Jones noted that Section 11-71 pertaining to rental of property needs to be reenacted. Mr. Breeden said a section needs to be added to the business license ordinance which places a business license tax on telephone, telegraph, water heat, light and power companies. This is now allowed under State law. Mr. Jones noted that adjacent counties have enacted such a tax. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, tS advertise for public hearing on March 10, 1982, an ordinance to add, amend, reenact and repeal certain sections of Chapter 11 of the Business License Tax Code and to add a new section on taxation of utility companies. (Note: The changes to Chapter 11 are filed in their entirety in the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Office.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of Amendment to Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said a question was asked last month about the new Soil Erosion Handbook recently adopted by the State. He noted that the present County Code refers to the Soil Erosion Handbook as it is amended from time to time. When Mr. St. John realized that the Handbook is adopted simply by reference, he said there is authority for amendments to be effective without reenacting the County's ordinance. But, when the Handbook was examined, it was determined that some amendments in the County's ordinance are necessary. It appears that new regulations in the Handbook are more stringent and applicable to broader areas of the County. Mr. Fisher felt it would be best to wait for the Handbook amendments before amending the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Miss Nash then offered motion to that effect. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 9. Policy on Use of Auditorium. Mr. Agnor said a number of requests have been received for using the Auditorium of the County Office Building. A draft has been prepared on policy recommendations for the use of county facilities including the auditorium. The policy is patterned after the School Board's policy for use of school buildings. The following drafted policy on the "Community Use of County Facilities" was reviewed by Mr. Agnor: A. General~ The Board of Supervisors believes in the full and best possible utilization of the physical facilities belonging to the citizens of the county. To achieve this end, the use of county facilities for school and student-related activities, as well as by outside organizations and groups, shall be encouraged when these activities will not interefere with the routine business of the county. Proper protection, safety and care of county property shall be primary considerations in the use of county facilities. B. E~igi.~!e..organizations The Board has classified various organizations and groups for the purposes of priority and the charging of fees. 1. Classifications I. School affiliated or related groups. II. Youth agencies, educational, recreational and cultural groups or organizations. I!!. Political, civic, chartiable, social or veteran's groups and organizations. IV. Profit making organizations, business or private groups. V. Religious organizations. 2. Membership The membership of any group or organization requesting the use of county facilities must be largely from the County of Albemarle. This restriction shall not exclude the use of certain facilities, as determined by the County Executive, by state and national organizations that have a local sponsoring division of such organization. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) 50 C. Applications and Approval Applications must be sponsored by reputable and established clubs, societies or organizations that reasonably can be held responsible for the payment of charges, compensation for damages to property and for use of the property in reasonable conformity with the regulations on the application. The Board authorizes the County Executive or his designee to approve all applications for the use of county facilities that meet the requirements of the Board, that comply with implementing regulations the County Executive deems necessary to protect county property and that do not conflict with established business or commercial interests in the community. The County Executive shall design such application forms as are required. The completed and signed form shall be a binding agreement upon the applicant and the county. D. Fees The County Executive shall establish a minimum schedule of fees and may make additional adjustments in the fees. The minimum schedule and additional adjustments shall be based upon the classification of the group or organization, the facilities to be used, the size of the group, the objectives of the organization, the approximate cost to the county and the purpose for which the facility will be used. In general, the following guides will apply: Classifications Pees Regular meeting: no charge Fund raising: custodial charges II Regular meeting: custodial charge Fund raising: custodial charges rent of facilities III and IV Basic rental fee including custodial charges V Custodial charges A full rental fee shall be charged to all classifications except I when county facilities are to be used'for fund raising and/or when an admission charge is levied. Ail fees must be paid in advance, and the sponsoring organization whOse name appears on the application shall be held responsible for any and all damages to property and equipment. E. Protection of County Property An employee of the county shall be on duty on the property at times when the facilities are in use. No equipment or furnishings may be used or moved without the consent of the employee in charge if such usage is not in conformity with the contracted agreement. The sponsoring organization shall be responsible for croWd control measures, including the employment of police protection when required. Such control shall be arranged in advance when deemed necessary by the County Executive or his deSignee. F. ~qposits A cash bond or deposit may be required at the discretion of the County Executive or his designee prior to use of the property. User Classification Fee Deposit Required I None None II Utility and custodial cost Appropriate to activity (Custodial cost based on overtime rate) III and IV Utility and custodial cost plus $25.00 or 10% of gate (whichever is larger) Appropriate to activity V Utility and custodial cost plus (dependent on activity) Appropriate to activity Mr. Agnor said a set of rules and regulations for use of the building have been prepared and will be given to those requesting use of the facilities. Mr. Fisher said the distinction between classification II and ZIZ concerned him as to the fee being charged. Mr. Agnor said he also ~ .a problem with the two classifications but Mr. Thomas Hurlburt, Deputy Superintendent, has informed him that this policy has been in effect for the schoolf~lities for a number of years and it has not caused any problems. Mr. Fisher then suggested that under fees, Classification III be moved up and made a part of group II. Miss Nash did not understand why the schools and this building should have the same February 10, 1982 (RegUlar Day Meeting) regulations and rules. Mr. Agnor said these were proposed in an attempt to avoid confusion for the public. He then noted that many requests have been received for use of the auditorium. Mr. Fisher felt groups wanting to use the auditorium should be encouraged to make some improvements to the room and stage. Mr. Agnor said one group had expressed interest in using the stage and wants to charge an admission fee. That group could contribute some money for improvements to the auditorium. He had informed the group that if a rental fee or a percentage of gate type of charge is placed on groups, then a fund would probably be created for the funds to be used - ~ making stage improvements. Mr. Fisher felt that was a good idea. Miss Nash asked if the Electoral Board paid a custodial charge for the use of the schools during elections. Mr. Agnor said yes. Miss Nash said they are not one of the groups on the list. Mrs. Cooke suggested adding the words "and County affiliated" under BI(I). Mr. Fisher agreed that there is a need for a policy on the use of the auditorium and agreed with the suggestion made by Mrs. Cooke. (Mr. Lindstrom left the room at 10:36 A.M.) Mr. Fisher then asked the Board about the distinction between groups II and III. Miss Nash agreed with Mr. Fisher that these grou~sshould be combined. Mr. Agnor said groups II and III could be combined in the fee section, but listing them separately under the classification section is no problem. (Mr. Lindstrom returned at 10:40 A.M.) Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to approve the foregoing policy with the insertion of "and County government" in section BI(I) and combining groups II and III in Section D, the fee schedule. Mrs. Cooke asked if it would be appropriate at this time to set up some type of fund for renovating the stage. Mr. Agnor said the the fees will be deposited in the General Fund. At the end of the year when the books are closed, a report can be made on the amount which has been collected. Mr. Henley felt the County Executive should make some recommendation on how the funds from the fees will be used. The other Board members agreed. Roll was called on the motion and same c. arried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 10. Appeal to Compensation Board from Clerk, Circuit Court. Mr. Agnor noted for the record that notice of appeal to the State Compensation Board from Mrs. Shelby J. Marshall, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, for an adjustment of one employee's salary has been received; the salary had been reduced from its current level. Mr. Agnor said Mrs. Marshall feels this is an error and can be corrected without any problems. Agenda Item No. tl. Public Hearing: Amendment to Section 2-4 of the Code concerning the at-large member of the Planning Commission. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on January 27 and February 3, 1982.) Mr. Fisher said the purpose of this public hearing is to amend the County Code for the term of the at-large member on the Planning Commission. This amendment would change the appointment to each even-numbered year following county elections and would be for a two year term. The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak for or against the amendment and the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the following ordinance. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Butler. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE II, SECTION 2-4(b) OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Article II, Section 2-4(b) of the Albemarle County Code be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 2-4. Composition; appointment; terms and compensation of members; quorum. (b) Appointment and terms. One member of the commission shall be appointed by the board of supervisors from its own membership for a term of one year to serve in an advisory capacity without voting rights. Of the seven voting members, one shall be nominated from each of the six magisterial districts by the board member representing that district, and one shall be nominated to serve at-large. Three of the members appointed from specified magisterial districts shall be appointed in each even-numbered year following county elections, by nomination of the newly elected board members and for terms coextensive with theirs. One member-at-large shall be appointed each even-numbered year following county elections for a two-year term. Vacancies occuring due to resignati°n or other causes shall be filled by appointment for the unexpired term only. Feb--(Re ~larDa ~eetin= At 10:50 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:02 A.M. Agenda Item No. 12. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance re: (Deferred from January 20, 1982) Natural Resource Extraction This matter was deferred from the January 20, 1982, meeting in order that Mr. Robert Milichi, geologist with the State Division of Mineral Resources, could be present to answer some of the Board's concerns about oil and natural gas extraction. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present and noted that he did not have any additional comments other than his memorandum of February 5, 1982, which basically stated that the Natural ResourCe Overlay District should be amended to allow uranium mining only by special use permit. Mr. Fisher said he understood that if oil or natural gas are encountered when digging an exploratory well such would be extracted through that same hole with essentially no change. Mr. Milichi said that is essentially correct. He further explained the procedure and noted that it is possible to produce oil and gas from several stratigraphic horizons out of the same hole. Mr. Fisher felt attention should be focused on exploration as well as extraction. Mr. Milichi said the same processes are involved in exploration and extraction. He noted that once a hole is drilled, whether the hole is dry or 'producing, the damage has been done, the same as building roads, cutting trees, etc. In the case of natural gas, there would be a series of pipes on top of the well and the major damage in developing a gas_field would be putting in the gathering line because there would have to be several wells to make a commercial field. In order for the gas to be utilized, there would have to be a line going to each of the wells, gathering the gas, and all being put into a major trunk line. Therefore, a pipe line would have to be constructed. Mr. Milichi then reviewed the construction of a pipe line for gas extraction and noted that the process is very long. A brief discussion followed on the construction of the road, which would be similar to a large logging road, to exploration sites. Mr. Fisher then asked the size of boring for the 15,000 foot holes. Mr. Milichi said the hole would have a large diameter at the top and then taper off as it went into the ground. Mr. Fisher asked if there is any exploration taking place in Virginia at this time. Mr. Milichi said there is a considerable amount of natural gas exploration occuring in Southwest Virginia. Mr. Fisher asked how close the borings are to each other. Mr. Milichi said that is regulated by state law and he was of the opinion they would be about 2,000 feet apart. Mr. Henley said he did not see any logic in having one hole for extraction and another for exploration. A discussion followed on the different aspects of exploration and extraction and the crossing of right-of-ways for exploration purposes. Mr. Fisher extended appreciation to Mr. Milichi for his attendance at the meeting today. He then asked Mr. Tucker to review the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Tucker did so. (The proposed amendments, both from the Planning Commission and the Piedmont Environmental Council, are sev out in the minutes of January 20, 1982.) In particular a definition for exploratory drilling was submitted and one change was recommended that the "100 feet in depth" drilling be changed to "125 feet" due to some work already occurring at the Buck Mountain Creek area. A second definition was added for natural resource extraction because extraction has primarily been for sand and gravel and now includes other items such as coal, petroleum and natural gas. Mr. Tucker also noted that the recommendation is to add Section 10.2.2-38 for exploratory drilling in the RA district as a use by special use permit. Mr. Fisher questioned whether "open pit or any underground workings" in the definition of natural resource extraction was inclusive enough to include the coreborings or borings that would be done for natural oil and gas. Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney, was satisifed with the words "underground workings" and noted that there was not an established definition for such. Mr. Lindstrom suggested adding "borings" after "open pit" and "other" after "or any" in the definition of natural resource extraction. Mr. St. John said that may clear the concern. At 11:35 A.M., the public hearing was reopened. Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, was present. She said the Council generally supports what has been proposed. However, the Council did have some concern about the difference between "exploration" and "mining" She said Mr. Tucker suggested putting "milling" and "mining" under the special use permit for natural resource extraction. Mr. Fisher said that recommendation is nov before the Board at this time. If milling and mining of uranium is put under the natural resource extraction district that will not address the milling and mining of uranium. Mrs. Van Yahres then introduced Mr. Ted Scott, from the Piedmont Environmental Council, who has written a book on Uranium: A Virginia Concern. Mr. Scott said he did not have any statements to make but would be happy to answer any questions about uranium. Mr. Fisher said the ordinance as proposed does not have the word "uranimum" in it but does include the language "coal, petroluem, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore or other minerals" and he felt that should cover uranimum. Mr. Scott agreed. He also suggested that the Board support House Bill 583. Next to speak was a lady from Nelson County. She noted that a group of Nelson County persons have been very concerned about the oil and gas issue and special studies have been made. She said roads built in mountainous terrains are not the only problems but damage to existing roads as well. She said one remedy in Virginia is to pass a severance tax as well as coal road tax and that would provide some funds to help with these problems. She said another problem is mud ponds. These ponds are large and can contain chemicals and salt and cause damage to anything growing in the area. She said that Phillips Petroleum Company, who has done all the leasing in the West Virginia area, have said that the ponds in this area could be up to two acres in size. She also noted that the Company stated the rigs would weigh about one million pounds. Another problem from the activity is the noise from the drilling which could go on for five months, Fe_~brua~r~~ular Da~ Meet ing~ twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week. She said the rigs are very visible. Quite a few people in West Virginia were forced to leave their homes because of the mud and noise in particular. Mrs. Norma Diehl asked if there was some legal separation for soil and sand. Mr. Fisher said soil removal and exploration would not be covered by this ordinance. With no one else present to speak for or against these amendments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. St. John did not feel there was a need to put "soil'~ in the definition. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission but changing "100 feet" to "125 feet" in the exploratory drilling definition and changing "the" to "a" in the last line of the same definition and amending the natural resource extraction definition to include "borings" between "pit" and "or" and "other" between "any" and "underground". Miss Nash seconded the motion. Roll was then called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler AN ORDINANCE T© AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 3 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE ADDITION OF TWO DEFINITIONS AND TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 10 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY THE ADDITION OF EXPLORATORY DRILLING AS A USE BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE RURAL AREAS DISTRICT KNOWN AS SECTION 10.2.2-38 BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted by the addition of the following two definitions: Drilling, Exploratory.:. The process of excavation, drilling, boring, or core boring of wells or other holes in the earth, by any process whatever, for purposes of determining the presence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals, other than water, and not including the extraction of any soil, rock or other material except for purposes of analysis. The term "exploratory drilling" shall be deemed to include all activities appurtenant or accessory thereto, including, without limitation, the construction of access roads and disposition of drilling spoil, but it shall not be deemed to include drilling of holes not more than 125 feet in depth, designed solely to determine the geologic suitability of a site for the construction of structures. Natural Resource Extraction: The process by which coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals is removed from any open pit borings ~or any other underground workings and produced for sale, exchange or commercial use and all shafts, slopes, drifts or inclines leading thereto and including all buildings, structures and equipment above and below the surface of the ground used in connection with such process. Natural resource extraction as defined herein shall not be deemed to include exploratory activities designed to determine the presence of coal, petroleum, natural gas, sand, gravel, ore, or other minerals, including, but not limited to, excavation, drilling, boring or core boring; nor shall the term natural resource extraction be deemed to include the drilling or boring of wells for the purpose of obtaining water. AND, FURTHER BE IT ORDAINED that Section 10 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended and reenacted by the addition of exploratory drilling as a use by special use permit in the Rural Areas District known as Section 10.2.2-38. Mr. Lindstrom then asked that the planning staff consider a natural resource extraction district because such is infl'exible once it is adopted. Mr. Fisher said if the planning staff and planning commission feel additional amendments are needed in the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District in order to take care of some things which have been discussed today, that such recommendations be brought back to the Board for consideration at a later date. Mr Lindstrom also felt that the suggestion in the memorandum from Mr. Tucker about the amendment to the Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District to allow uranium mining only by special use permit should be considered by the Planning Commission as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher then extended appreciation to the staff for the work done on this matter. Agenda Item No. 13. Consider Moratorium on Uranium Exploration and Mining Activities. Mr. Fisher said there are some bills pending before the General Assembly relating to a moratorium on uranimum exploration and mining activities. He has asked Mr. William Norris, Watershed Management Official, to do some research on the bills and the question in general because at the January 20, 1982, meeting the Board was requested to consider such a moratorium. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Norris was present and said Senate Bill 179 and House Bill 583 generally set a statewide moratorium on uranium exploration and mining activities to be effective until July 1983. Howe~er, there is a difference in the wording of the two bills because the House Bill says it shall "be unlawful to explore for, mine or mill uranium in this Commonwealth prior to that date" and the Senate Bill states that "permit applications for uranimum mining shall not be accepted by any agency of the Commonwealth prior to July 1, 1983". Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that the House Bill lets everything continue and in some ways reduces the effectiveness of the moratorium. Mr. Norris said both of the bills are now being reviewed by the Committee on Mining and Mineral Resources. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to urge the Board to adopt a resolution supporting Senate Bill 179. The bill essentially provides a process for obtaining permits for exploration and a moratorium on the processing of other permits until such time as the state has had an opportunity to further evaluate this type of uranimum mining. Mr. Lindstrom said in the interest of the County's citizens, the state should be urged to approach this carefully and cautiously. He said this bill also provides that this legislation will not in any way supersede local authority granted under other chapters of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution supporting Senate Bill 179 and urge the appropriate commi6tee and the House of Delegates to adopt the Senate Bill in this session of the General Assembly. Miss Nash seconded the morion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. WHEREAS the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors is concerned as to whether the mining of uranium can be conducted safely in this County, and is particularly concerned about the potential hazard of pollution to public drinking water supply impoundments in the event exploration for uranium or the mining or milling of uranium should take place. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does support the passage of Senate Bill 179 which will encourage and promote the safe and efficient exploration of uranium resources within the Commonwealth, and to assure that uranium mining and milling will be subject to statutes and regulations which protect the environment and the health and safety of the public. AND, FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors is hereby directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Honorable Thomas J. Michie, Jr. and the Honorable James B. Murray and the Honorable Mitchell~ Han Yahres and to the Honorable Donald A. McGlothlin, Chairman of the House Committee on Mining and Mineral Resources. Agenda Item No. 14. Request from Industrial Development Authority. Mr. James B. Murray, Jr., Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present. He said there are two items for the Board to consider. One, is an amendment to the Industrial Development Authority Ordinance to allow one additional bond issuance. The bon~ issuance is for the Augusta Lumber Company on which an inducement resolution was approved by the Authority on January 12, 1982. Mr. Murray expressed his feelings of pleasure in presenting this request because it is the sort of project for which Industrial Development Authority bonds were created. Augusta Lumber Company is truly an industrial project and will create new blue collar jobs for existing residents of Albemarle County. He noted that Augusta Lumber Company is a buyer of wood products and a wholesale distributor. The company currently has three sawmills--Augusta County, southern Albemarle County and in Warrenton. Mr. Murray noted that the company purchases green wood and the wood must be dried for export. As he understands, the need for the drying of the wood has increased in recent years because of a fungus or bacteria discovered that has led the principal foreign importers of white Oak, namely West Germany, to demand that any wood exported to them be dried to a greater degree. Therefore, Augusta Lumber Company would like to construct a wood-fired kiln at their southern Albemarle County facility (North Garden). Mr. Murray said the company is currently exporting green wood from that facility to other parts of the state and Pennsylvania to have it dried and then shipped back to Norfolk or other ports where it is exported overseas. Mr. Murray said the company can operate more efficiently if they build their own kiln at a cost of 1.3 million dollars and dry the wood here. Augusta Lumber has three different places to locate the kilns but for their own reasons, they have chosen to locate the kiln in Albemarle County. Mr. Murray said he understands that there would be no problem in obtaining industrial bond financing from Augusta County for this facility. Mr. Murray said the facility would create six blue- collar jobs with the workers coming mainly from the Scottsville District. Mr. Murray said this facility would add about 1.3 million to the county tax base, $900,000 of which would be from purchase of equipment. Presumably jobs would be created, the tax base enlarged, and without creating any new growth. Mr. Murray said the inducement resolution was approved by the Industrial Development Authority by a vote of 4/0 with two abstentions. The Authority members who abstained did so because they are concerned with the Board's recent attitude toward recommended projects. Next to speak was Mr. Howard Carr, manager of the three Augusta Lumber Company saw mills. He said there was a question when he appeared before the Industrial Development Authority about whether this would give Augusta Lumber Company any unfair advantage over its competitors. Therefore, he had requested Mr. Montie Pace, from the sawmill on Route 20 North, to be present today and express his opinion of the mat~ter. February 10, 1982 [Regu!ar Day Meeting) Mr. Montie Pace was present and said Mr. Cart has been a buyer of raw products fr~om his sawmill for a long time. Therefore, he could not see any reason why approval of this request would not be a big help to all those associated with Augusta Lumber Company at this time. He also felt the request would be an asset by providing more industry in the area and creating more jobs. Mr. Carr said the major advantage of the kiln is that his company would have a tool to compete with outside companies who are now buying raw materials from the loCal farmers. One of the greatest benefits is that it will enable his company to pay landowners a more competitive price for standing timber. Mr..Fisher then asked if there were any other kilns in Albemarle County. Mr. Carr said yes, Barnes Lumber has kilns in Crozet and Charlottesville. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Carr if he used the kilns at Barnes. Mr. Carr said sometimes, but if Barnes has its own lumber in the kiln, or if the kiln space is needed, then he has to wait. Mr. Fisher said the was concerned that an additional kiln could mean a layoff of people already working. Mr..Carr said his company has occasionally used both kilns, but the majority of the use has been just a favor. Mr. Fisher asked about the control of smoke emissions~ Mr. Carr said in reading literature on this matter, it is his understanding that there is no problem. The burning is so hot it is almost total combustion so there is just. about no emission in the air. Mr. Lindstrom then asked what would happen if Mr. Carr used conventional financing. Mr. Carr said he has been told that if these industrial bonds are approved~ he should be able to get the money sixty to seventy percent of the prime rate. If not approved, his company cannot afford conventional financing. Mr. Fisher said he had asked the planning staff to present an outline of the land use issues on this matter. Mr. Tucker said this mill has been in operation for some time and is a nonconforming use in the district in which located. The nonconforming sectio~ of the Zoning Ordinance requires that if there is any expansion ~of a nonconforming use, the use would have to be brought into conformity with the ordinance. Mr. Tucker said in the RA district, sawmills and woodyards are permitted by special use permit. Therefore, in order to build the kiln, a special use permit would have to be obtained. Mr. Fisher said if the request today is approved, it has to be with the understanding that this approval in no way effects the validity of any zoning action. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any evaluation had been made of a request for a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said no. Some of the supplementary regulations such as setback may be a problem. He noted that the sawmill is located southeast of North Garden on Route 712. Mr. Henley said the existing mill has a setback problem and asked if Mr. Carr would have to change what exists now. Mr. Tucker said the ordinance states that anytime there is a nonconforming use and it has to be brought into conformity then it has to adhere to the existing regulations for the type of use or get a variance. Mr. Murray then noted an earlier application from Barnes Lumber Company in Crozet for Industrial Development AuthoritY bonds. However, Mr. Barnes withdrew his application because the combinati~n~ of private financing and a favorable rate from the bank made it just about as cheap for him to finance outside of the Authority. Mr. Fisher said the first question before the Board is whether to amend Section 2~2 of the County Code to increase the number of bond issuances from six to seven. He suggested March 10, 1982, for a public hearing on the question if desired. Miss Nash then offered motion to advertise for public hearing on March 10, 1982, an ordinance to amend and reenact Section 2-52 of the Albemarle County Code by increasing the number of bond issues of the Zndustrial Development Authority'from "six" to "seven". Mrs. Cooke seconded'the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom (said he was willing to vote to Set a public hearing to increase the number of issues but was no't committing himself to vote for the expansion.) and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Mr. Fisher noted that aside from the land use issues and the zoning questions, he was inclined to support the request. Miss Nash said she was favorable to the request. Mr. LindStrom again stated that felt this is a private enterprise and approval would open up an entire area. However, he felt this was one of. the best requests made but he had serious reservations about taxpayers across the country supporting a private enterprise. Mr. Murray then introduced Mr. Frank McCulloch, member of the Industrial Development Authority. He also noted that'Mrs. Peggy Hancock, member of the Authority who could not be present today had also abstained. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Fisher requested that the scheduled executive session include legal as well as personnel matters. At 12:33 P.M., motion was.offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. The Board reconvened into open session at 1:58 P.M. and continued with the agenda. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting~ Agenda Item No. 16. Certificate of Appreciation. Mr. Thomas Hurlburt, DePuty Superintendent of Education, was present to make a presentation on behalf of the Board. He presented a certificate of appreciation to Mrs. Gaynelle Loftin, an employee for twenty-five years in the Education Department. He also noted that she has been employed in the central office of the education department longer than any other employee. Mr. Hurlburt expressed his appreciation for Mrs. Loftin's service to the County and said he was very proud of her. Mr. Fisher extended, on behalf of the County, appreciation to Mrs. Loftin for her employment with the County. Mrs. Loftin expressed her enjoyment in working for the County and said she was looking forward to many more years of service with the County. Agenda Item No. 17. A.H.I.P. Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Oliveria, employee with the Albemarle HouSing Improvement Project, was present and gave the second quarter report for Fiscal Year 1981-82 which involved three major and three minor rehabilitation jobs. He then presented a slide presentation of the seven families served during the months of November and December 1981. Mr. Fisher extended the Board's appreciation for the work which AHIP has done and the services provided to County citizens. Agenda Item No. 18. Appeal: Mountainwood Site Plan. (Plat described as Mountainwood Site Plan, owner is Wellagain Partnership, Ltd., zoning is CO, Tax Map 76, Parcel 46A, 6.6025 acres, Scottsville Magisterial District, drawn by Wyant Associates, dated October 21, 1980, and revised December 3, 1981, and January 11, 1982, and approved by the Planning Commission on January 26, 1982.) Mr. Fisher read into the record the following letter of appeal dated February 3, 1982, from Mr. Bruce Rasmussen: "On behalf of the Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association, please note an appeal from the action of the Albemarle County Planning Commission taken on January 26, 1982, in approving the above amended site plan. We hereby formally request that the amended site plan be reviewed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. The Association feels that the existing and proposed landscaping is inadequate to screen the proposed facilities from adjacent properties. The Board of Supervisors approved the special use permit for this parcel on October 15, 1980. As a condition to approval, the applicant was required to maintain to the maximum extent practical the existing trees in this area. The Homeowners Association believes that this condition has been violated. The amended site plan extends the treatment facility further toward Sherwood Manor. The proposed extension causes the building to project over a ridge line and is therefore more visible from the property owned by the Association and its members. The Association objects to the extension of the buildings. Old Lynchburg Road (State Route 780) is presently designated as intolerable. The Association objects to the proposed entrance to the treatment facilities off of Route 780. This would make an intolerable situation worse. The proposed entrance is directly across from the main roads leading into Sherwood Manor and this would create a dangerous condition because of the number of vehicles entering and exiting Route 780 at this point. The Association prefers that the entrance to the subject parcel be placed on Stagecoach Road (State Route 631). The Association requests that as a condition to any site plan approval provisions are made for appropriate security on the premises. The facilities are to be used for the treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics. The Association does not desire chainlink fences or other outwardly visible means of security. Nevertheless, reasonable security measures can be taken by the applicant. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I would appreciate notice of the hearing date set for review by the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report (Mountainwood Site Plan, formerly Residential Treatment Center): "Location: Parcel 46A on tax map 76, Scottsville District. Located on east side of Route 780, north of Route 631, south of 1-64 and across from the Sherwood Manor Townhouses. Acreage: 6,6025 acres. Zoning: Commercial Office History: SP-80-60 was approved by the Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1980, and the site plan for the 80 bed facility was approved on December 10, 1980. A site plan for a temporary facility (20 beds) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1981, with a six-month limit. On October 27, 1981, the Commission denied the applicant's request to extend the approval for the temporary facility. 5¸7 February 10., 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Proposal: To amend the previously approved plan for the permanent facility by relocating and phasing the facility. The Phase I proposal is for 20 beds in the one story, 5,264 square foot building. Topography of Area: Gently rolling. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 780 carries 1,428 vehicle trips per day and is considered to be nontolerable. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that soils on the site are moderately deep with hard rock at forty inches. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located within Neighborhood Five of the Urban Area and is recommended for low density residential use (1-4 dwelling units per acre). Type Utilities: Public water and sewer available. Construction~plans are currently being reviewed by the Service Authority. Staff Comment: The County Engineer's office has approved the revised storm- water detention, drainage plans and the pavement specifications. The Fire Official has given preliminary approval of the plan but has reserved final approval until he reviews the building plans. The Highway Department is currently reviewing the application for the commercial entrance. Staff feels that the landscaping shown is sufficient to screen the site from adjacent properties. The plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: ae de Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; Final Fire Official approval; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval, of the commercial entrance; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. A Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I will be processed when the following condition has been met: Ail landscaping and recreational facilities shall be completed or bonded. Staff review and approval of the plans for Phase II when requested by the applicant." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at its meeting on January 26, 1982, approved the Mountainwood Site Plan with the following changes: Condition 2(1) to read 2(a) "Landscaping to be substantially completed;" and 2(b) "Ail recreational facilities shall be completed or bonded." Condition 3 was changed by deleting the word "staff" and inserting "Planning Commission". Added Condition 4 to read: 'No further cutting within the existing tree line along Route 780." Mr. Fisher asked if the future alignment of Route 631 is shown on the site plan. Mr. Tucker said yes and pointed out same on the site plan. Mr. Tucker said there is an adequate fifty foot right-of-way on Route 780 and such is the minimum required for Route 780. Mr· Mark Gelder, representing the Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association, was present. He said the major concerns of the homeowners in Sherwood Manor is the lack of security for the facility, additional traffic on Route 780, and the entrance to the facility. He noted that the original request of the homeowners was for the entrance to be off of old Stagecoach Road and he was not sure if that is shown on the revised site plan. Mr. Gelder also noted that Phase II of the project will be very visible to the owners in Sherwood Manor and that is of great concern of the homeowners. Mr. Bruce Rasmussen, attorney representing the Sherwood Manors Homeowners Association, spoke next. He said there was to have been an additional sixty foot right-of-way and a one hundred foot setback if Old Lynchburg Road was to be improved and realigned. If that is followed through, the amount of barrier left will be diminished. Mr. Rasmussen also noted that the existing tree line was to be maintained to the maximum extent possible. The cutting of trees a year ago has left the site bare. Therefore, Mr. Rasmussen felt the conditions placed on the special use permit have been violated since the area has been substantially cleared of vegetation and trees. Mr. Rasmussen said there is a tremendous amount of traffic turning and stopping where the entrance and exit to Mountainwood is proposed. The homeowners prefer that the entrance and exit be off of old Stagecoach Road. Mr. Rasmussen also emphasized that as the project goes into the second phase, the facility will move closer to Sherwood Manor and the visibility of the facility will be more intensified. Mr. Rasmussen then noted concern about the lack Of security and felt restrictions should be imposed in order to maintain the welfare and health of the entire community. Mr. Rasmussen noted that in October, 1980 he understood that the request was presented as an emergency situation due to Western State closing down its detoxification centers. He questioned how much of an emergency it could have been since nothing has been built on the site. Mr. Rasmussen felt the site plan presented and approved by the Board a year ago was preferable instead of the one being presented now since it was less detrimental to Sherwo.od Manor. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meaning) Speaking next was Mr. Fred Russell, representing the applicant. Mr. Russell said when temporary structures proved not to be feasible because of objections from the adjacent residents, the site was restudied with the possibility of doing the facility in two phases. Mr. Russell said as relates to the objection about invasion of the tree line, that was necessary in o~der to get to the public sewer system. As for the proposed access onto Stagecoach Road, this parcel has no frontage on Stagecoach Road. The Highway Department has indicated that Stagecoach Road will have to be relocated some day and asked that the partnership dedicate the strip for use of expansion in the future. Therefore, the land has been dedicated and noted on the site plan. Mr. Russell then introduced Mr. Tom Wyant, architect for the project, and Mr. Bill Heischman. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to clarify the dotted dash lines on the site plan which show Phase II. He asked why a blanket approval was given by the Planning Commission when it is not known where the building is to be located. Mr. Tucker said the dashed lines are where Phase II is now and that is where the Planning Commission expects the building to be located. Mr. Tucker said in some instances, the Planning Commission gives the staff authority to approve phasing when a final site plan is submitted. However, with the concerns of the neighborhood and the concern of the landscaping, the Planning Commission felt they should see the final plans. Mr. Tucker also noted the condition relating to landscaping being substantially completed prior to a certificate of occupany being issued for Phase I. With that condition, a determination could be made if the landscaping appeared adequate for screening, and if not, the Planning Commission may be able to adjust the location of the facility or recommend additional landscaping. Mr. Fisher said questions were raised by Mr. Rasmussen about whether the site plan complies with special use permit approval relative to setbacks. Mr. Tucker was not sure. He did point out some of the items which there had been confusion about. He then read the conditions dealing with the right-of-way and noted that there is a one hundred foot setback requirement from Route 780 and he pointed out that setback on the site plan. He also noted a condition of the special use permit relating to the realignment of Route 780 and pointed out compliance with that condition on the site plan. Mr. Tucker said the relocation of the one hundred foot setback of the new alignment of Route 780 is also shown on the site plan. Mr. Fisher then asked that the special use permit conditions be read into the record. (See Minute Book 19, pages 354 and 355) Mr. Lindstrom asked about condition 3 which read "Site plan approval to include provision of access to proposed realignment of Route 631"; specifically, if the site plan shows the access as the condition requires. Mr. Tucker did not feel that was directly shown and noted that some extensive grading will have to be done. He said t~at may not be possible at this time because the horizontal and vertical alignment of Route 631 is unknown. Mr. Tucker continued reading the conditions and noted condition 7 which reads: "Site plan to be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors showing road improvement, visual barriers, one hundred foot setback and new and old road alignment, main entrance location and on-site parking location." Miss Nash said those items were shown on the site plan in December 1980. She recalled that the Board requested that when those changes were made, that the site plan be returned to the Board, and this has never occurred. Mr. Fisher said it appears that the first site plan has not been used. Mr. Tucker said it has not. The reason it was not used was due to incorrect topographic data, particularly the contours. The problem was corrected and that necessitated a new site plan. A discussion followed on the landscaping aspects of the plan. Mr. Tucker noted that when Phase II is submitted for Planning Commission consideration, this can be examined further before a certificate of occupancy is issued. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this site plan today contains the same items as the first site plan. Mr. Tucker felt it essentially contained the same items but the condition of providing access to the new realignment is not shown. However, the issue of the trees within the existing tree buffer has been substantially addressed. Mr. Lindstrom said he was not sure two conditions are really effective, but he felt that they are the most cr~al to the property owners. Miss Nash said another question is whether the Highway Department will approve the new exit onto Route 780. Mr. Tucker said a commercial entrance permit is being reviewed by the Highway Department. Mr. Henley said he would like to state that if he had to sit and listen to things like this all the time, he would be an alcoholic too. He said there are houses and apartments on the hill and at one time that hill was covered with trees and someone did not like that clearing. If all the houses in Sherwood Manors were hid from each other, then he could support requesting that this facility be screened, but as long as there is some reasonable screening of the facility, he did not have any problem with the plan. A discussion followed on the security aspects for a facility of this type. Mr. Tucker said usually chain link fences are required, but in this instance such a fence is not desired by the adjoining property owners. Mrs. Cooke said this facility is not for criminals but rather for persons who are ill. Mr. Russell said it is a voluntary facility, a person can come and go as desired. Mr. Rasmussen asked for a clarification of the condition regarding the one hundred foot setback from the right-of-way of Route 780. He understands that Mr. Tucker interprets that to mean one hundred foot setback from the centerline of the present alignment of Route 780. Mr. Tucker said it is from the edge of the right-of-way. Mr. Fisher said the edge of the right-of-way seems to be shown on the plat as thirty-five feet from the centerline which indicates a potential seventy foot right-of-way. Mr. Wyant said the Highway Department requires thirty-five feet from the center!ine to the edge of the right-of-way and then one hundred feet from that edge to the closest part of any building. Mr. Russell said an effort was made to make sure that the lot line comes to the relocated road (Route 631). A brief discussion followed on the possible improvements to Route 780 and the fact that the Highway Department makes decision on exits and entrances. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher then noted that the basic problem has been that the adjoining proper'ty owners do not want this facility in this location. However, the site plan does conform to the special use permit and the Planning Commission feels it is a reasonable use of the property. Therefore, he did not see any basis on which the Board could deny the site plan. Mr. Fisher then asked if there was any way in which to arrange the buildings in order that they would not be so close to the road. Mr. Tucker said the applicant could propose a different location but more extensive grading would be required. H'e also noted that the applicant has stayed within the parameters the County set forth and the setbacks have been met. Mr. Tucker said the only thing which can be done is more intensive buffering because the conditions of the special use permit have basically been met at this time. A discu'ssion followed on the landscaping of the property and the types of trees planned. Mr. Tucker said white pines, four to five feet tall and maple trees with three inch caliper are planned. Mr. Fisher asked if there would be any problem with improving the screening since these trees will not provide a great deal of screening in the near future. Mr. Wyant said an attempt was made to maintain existing growth wherever possible and there is a lot of brush and poplar trees which lose leaves in the fall. Mrs. Cooke then asked if there was any objection to providing additional landscaping. Mr. Russell said no, if it is at a reasonable cost. Mr. Rasmussen addressed the issue of~whether the Board had any reason to deny the site plan. He felt that both site plans complied with the conditions of the special use permit and he had heard no reason today which warrants an amendment to the site plan which will extend the building closer to the road and be more detrimental to the adjoining homeowners. Therefore, he felt it is within the Board's discretion to deny the site plan since there has not been any changes to justify a more detrimental site plan. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Tucker if the incorrect topogra~ica! maps made the original site plan unusable. Mr. Tucker said he did not review the plan or overlay on the original plan but rather reviewed the site plan as a normal amendment to a site plan. Mr. Fisher said that is not unusual. Mr. Tucker noted that the square footage on the site plan is smaller. Mr. Rasmussen was frustrated with the fact that a topographical map could be so faulty that a new plan would be required. Mr. Fisher felt it would be unreasonable not to allow the amendment of the site plan. He was hopeful that the plan would be kinder to the environment and felt the only legal thing the Board could address at this time is the landscaping. Mr. Tucker said he would be happy to work with the applicant on that concern. He would suggest additional clusters of white pines and evergreens in the vicinity of the existing slopes be provided prior to Phase II. Mr. Fisher then asked.for a suggested condition. Mr. Tucker said the following condition could be added as l(e): Staff approval of amendment to landscaping plan providing additional screening adjacent to graded area near location of Phase II to provide screening from Doncaster Lane." Mr. Gelder asked if "landscaping to be substantially completed" means all the landscaping has to be done prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Mr. Fisher said that was for intepretati by the attorneys. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash to approve Mountainwood Site Plan with the following conditions of the Planning Commission and the addition of condition l(e) as stated by Mr. Tucker: A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: de Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; Final Fire Official approval; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; Staff approval of amendment to landscaping plan providing additional screening adjacent to graded area near location of Phase II to provide screening from Doncaster Lane. A Certificate of Occupancy for Phase I will be processed when the following conditions have been met: Landscaping to be substantially completed; Ail recreational facilities shall be completed or bonded; Planning Commission review and approval of the plans for Phase II when requested by the applicant. 4. No further cutting within the existing tree line along Route 780. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs· Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 19. Discussion: Meeting Room #7 Renovations. Mr. Agnor said at an earlier meeting the Board had discussed the following six items involving the facilities in Meeting Room #7: 1) Heat/air exchange. 2) Public podium is too large and recessed too far into the horseshoe table. 3) Front railing around the table is too high. 4) The chairs are too large and cannot be pulled to the table. 5) The bulletin board behind the Board table cannot be used because it is too close to the table. 6) Too many intense lights. Mr.. Agnor said three of the items, front rail, podium and heat/air exchange, were referred to the architect, Mr. Bryon Sample. The other three items are to be handled by County staff. Mr. Bryon Sample was present. He noted that certain controls will be replaced for the air conditioning system and a sound induction box will be installed in the duct work which should eliminate the noise. He noted that the railing can be lowered or removed whichever is desired by the Board. As for the size and location of the podium he did not understand the concerns because he was able to see the Board fine. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt there was too much distance between the Board and the public at the podium. Therefore, he felt the barrier should be eliminated. Mr. Hurlburt was present representing the School Board and noted that some of the School Board members find the room very distasteful. The largest objection is the barrier between the members and their constituents. He felt the lowering of the front rail would be a great help. The focal length from the podium to the bulletin board is also too great. Mr. Hurlburt said the basic objection is the barrier between the School Board members and the public. Mr. Hurlburt said some of the Board members have suggested holding School Board meetings in another location or building. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Tucker had left the meeting, but had asked that Mr. Agnor relate that the Planning Commission is having problems with the use of the bulletin board and the high backed chairs. Mr. Fisher asked if there had been any thought given to putting an additional bulletin board on the side wall. Mr. Agnor said yes, and also a permanent~tax map. Mr. FiSher then suggested that the chairs in Meeting Room #7 be moved to the Auditorium and low backed chairs be purchased for this room. Mr. Lindstrom suggested lowering the front riser so that the clerks would be sitting on the same level as the audience and the Board would be on a one-foot riser instead of the present elevation. Mr. Sample said the railing was built in sections and he did not feel there would be any problem lowering same. Mr. Agnor said the approximate price for the lowering of the railing to a four inch height is $5,000. A discussion followed on the lowering of the railing and the basic consensus was to lower same at least three inches. Mr. Sample then asked if eliminating the top of the podium would help. The Board felt it would. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board desired to have a permanent bulletin board on the left wall of the room. The Board acknowledged yes. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the lights over the audience could be changed, since the present bulbs have a bluish appearance. Mr. Agnor asked if the Board wanted to have prices brought back for these items and noted that anything over $2,500 has to be bid. The Board did not feel it necessary to review the prices. A discussion followed on the table and the chairs. Mr. Fisher said there are some nice things about the room, in particular the sound system and the visual contact. Agenda Item No. 6. Letters re: Central Virginia Electric Cooperative. Mr. Fisher said the following two letters were received and a response from the Board is requested: "January 28, 1982 Mr. W. L. Tucker, Jr., Manager Central Virginia Electric Cooperative P. O. Box 247 Lovingston, Virginia 22949 Dear Mr. Tucker: This will acknowledge receipt of copy of your January 21, 1982, letter to Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman, Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, advising that the State Corporation Commission is willing to mediate the matter of the construction of the transmission line in Albemarle County. This will confirm to both you and Senator Michie and to all other interested parties that the State Corporation Commission stands ready, willing and able to render all necessary assistance to mediate the dispute. We will await an expression of the desires of the involved parties. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) Preston C. Shannon Commissioner" "January 21, 1982 Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Office Building CharlottesviIle, Virginia 22901 Dear Mr. Fisher: I understand that the State Corporation Commission will use its good offices to mediate the matter of the construction of the transmission line in Albemarle County. The Cooperative is agreeable to this. Please ascertain the position of the Board on this matter and advise. Very truly yours, (SIGNED BY) W. L. Tucker, Jr. Manager (Central Virginia Electric Cooperative)" Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board request the County Attorney to correspond with the State Corporation Commission to express the County's willingness to work with the Commission in the mediation process concerning the Cooperative's proposed transmission line and respond to the Cooperative that such correspondence has been requested. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Agenda Item No. 20. over to a later date. Appointments. No names were offered and the item was carried Agenda Item No. 21. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted that a revision to the Route 29 North Bus Service contract will be submitted to the Board in the very near future. The revision is to have the thirty minute headways in the mornings, from 6:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M., and in the evenings, from 4:00 P.M. to 7:00 P.M.,dimin~shad to one hour headways. Therefore, only one bus per hour would be on the route instead of the two per hour. Mr. Agnor then noted a request dated February 7, 1982, from the Chairman of the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors, for support of House Bill 795 relating to the distribution of Alcoholic Beverage Commission profits to counties and cities in the Commonwealth. This bill proposes a distribution formula based on annual population estimates prepared by the Tayloe Murphy Institute on an annual basis rather than the census data which is updated once every ten years. Mr. Fisher requested support of House Bill 795. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to support House Bill 795 and that a letter of support be forwarded to the area legislators. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. Mr. Agnor also noted correspondence dated February 5, 1982, from Mr. James B. Oliver, Jr., County Administrator for James City County. The request is to urge local governments, especially counties, to support Senate Bill 6 which gives all counties the right ~o levy a two percent meals tax and to fight House Bill 469 which puts a moratorium on all cities and counties for both meals and taxes. The feeling of James City County is that counties should have the same rights for this taxation as cities and he urged support of the Senate Bill. Mr. Fisher said he had never been very excited about meal tax but the idea of having equal taxing powers as cities has been something he supported in principal. He felt if .the Board agreed with such, then the Senate Bill<should be supported in principal rather than indicating desire for a meal tax. Mr. Agnor felt that was the position of Delegate Van Yahres. Miss Nash felt Senate Bill 6 should be encouraged and offered motion to recommend the passage and support of same to the County's delegates. NO second was received and the motion died. Mr. Lindstrom discussed a concern of his about the setbacks for septic fields or wells from property boundary lines. He had been approached by a property owner who had lost ninety feet for the location of a drainfield on his property when the developer next door had placed his drainfield within five or ten feet of the boundary line. (There is a one hundred foot separation required between drainfields and wells.) Mr. Lindstrom said this could be a big disadvantage to adjacent property owners. After a brief discussion about revising the Zoning and/or Subdivision Ordinances to require a fifty foot setback from property boundary lines for all wells and septic sys~m~% Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to request the Planning Commission to study the possibility of such revisions and report its findings back to the Board. Mr. Henley said he did not think there was much of a problem. Miss Nash seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley (preempted his vote by stating that he thought the Board had a tiger by the tail), Lindstrom, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. February 10, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting) February 17, 1982 (Afternoon--Adjourned from February 10, 1982) Mr. Fisher noted that on Wednesday, February 17,~1982-,~there will be a public hearing on the revenue sharing agreement with the City. He then ~sked if the Board desired to hold a special meeting for consideration of appointment~.~~ Mr. Lindstrom was interested in interviewing persons. Mr. Fisher then suggested meet. i~ on February 17, 1982, at 4:00 P.M. for that purpose. Agenda Item No. 22. At 4:21 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to adjourn to February 17, 1982, at 4:00 P.M., inMeeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office Building. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, LindstrOm, and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Butler. February 17, 1982 (Afternoon'-Adjourned from February 10, 1982) An adjourned meetng of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on FebrUary 17, 1982, at 4:00 P.M., in Meeting Room 11, Fourth Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting adjourned from February 10, 1982. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R.~Butler, Mrs. ?atricia H. Cooke, Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICER PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County ExecUtive. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 4:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, HenleY, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. At 7:30 P.M., the Board reconvened back into open session and immediately adjourned.