1982-04-28April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on April 28, 1982, at 7:30 P.M. in Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 21, 1982.
Presens: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher, Mr-. J. T.
Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.
Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Fisher.
The meeting was called to order at 7:32 P.M. by the Chairman,
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-82-5. Horace G. Brooks. To locate a mobile home on 1.01 acres
zoned RA Rural Areas. Property located on Route 616 about 1/10th mile southeast from the
inter~ection of Route 685 and Route 616, Tax Map 080, Parcel 1.3lA, Rivanna District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 2, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission on April 20, 1982, recommended denial of
this request and the applicant has subsequently requested withdrawal of the application
without prejudice. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss
Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Not Docketed.
Monday.
Mr. Fisher announced that Mr. Agnor had become a grandfather this past
Agenda Item No. 3. ZTA-82-3. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for hydroelectric
power generation by special use permit in'the RA District and in the floodway of the Flood
Hazard Overlay District, Section 10.2.2.3~, Hydroelectric Power Generation, and Section
30.3.5.2.1.6, Hydroelectric Power Generation, and additionally to add a new section to
Supplementary Regulations: -Section 5.1.26, Hydroelectric Power Generation. (Advertised in
the Daily Progress on April 14 and April 21, 1982.)
Mr-. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows:
At its meeting of March 2, 1982, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
of intent to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to provide for hydro-
electric power generation. Staff has prepared supplementary regulations designed
to promote environmental protection of rivers and streams while accommodating
this use in a reasonable manner. Submittal of comprehensive information would
be required of the applicant, including pre-application reviews by State and
Federal agencies. In addition to the proposed supplementary regulations, review
would be required under the'safeguards of the Flood Hazard Overlay District, which
address flooding, pollution and potential downstream damage. Staff recommends the
following amendments:
1)
Amend the RA district to provide for hydroelectric power generation by special
use permit:
2)
3)
10.2.2 #39 Hydroelectric Power Generation (reference 5.1.26).
Amend the Flood Hazard Overlay District to proVide for hydroelectric power
generation by special use permit in the floodway:
30.3.5.2.1 #6 Hydroelectric Power Generation (reference 5.1.26).
Add a new section to Supplementary Regulations:
5.1.26 HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION
a)
b)
These provisions are intended to encourage the use of water power as
a natural and replenishable resource for the generation of electrical
power. While serving energy conservation and natural resource goals,
these provisions are also intended to limit such use so as: not to be
objectionable in the area in which it is located; not to interfere with
the passage of boats, canoes, fish and other aquatic life; not to degrade
the riverine and aquatic habitat nor water quality, in general;
The applicant shall submit with his application for special use permit,
plans, profiles, studies, and other supporting information addressing the
issues in (a) above. No such application shall be approved until comment
and recommendation have been received from the State Water Control Board,
the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, and other appropriate Federal,
State and local agencies;
c)
Whether or not a site development plan is required, the applicant shall
submit to the county engineer a certified engineer's report as described
in section 4.14.8. In review of such report, the county engineer shall
be particularly mindful of the requirements of section 4.14.1, NOISE,
and section 4.14.7, ELECTRICAL INTERFERENCE;
Except as specifically permitted in a particular case, no auxiliary or
accessory method of power generation shall be permitted nor shall any
pump-storage or rechannelization be permitted'.
~Pril 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1982, voted
unanimously to recommend the amendments as set out above. He also noted that a letter dated
April 28, 1982, had been received from John K. Pollock, Chairman of the Virginia Hydro Power
Association. Mr. Fisher said he found paragraph (4) of Mr. Pollock's letter ("You will see
no more than six of these type projects built in Albemarle County, ever.") interesting and
assumed this statement is based on the type of streams in the County, plus other characteristi
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. C. H. Atkins, applicant for a hydroelectric power generation plant, was present to
speak in support of the proposed amendments. He queStioned some of the wording in proposed
Section 5.1.26, feeling that some of the stipulations are duplications of Federal and State
requirements. Specifically, he did not agree with the wording "not to interfere with the
passage of boats, canoes, fish...."', the term "certified" in paragraph (c); and "...be
particularly mindful of noise and electrical interference" in paragraph (c).
With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tucker said it
was not intended that anything would be required over and above what is required by other
agencies. Also, the word "certified" is the word used in the performance standards section
of the ordinance, same denoting a person who has passed state examinations to become a
certified engineer, "P.E."
Mr. Fisher said the wording in paragraph (a) "not to interfere with the passage of ·
boats, .... "sounds like a prohibition against any proposal that would interfere in any way.
He asked if the word "unreasonably" could be inserted after the words "not to". Mr. Tucker
said he felt that would be a~l right, and said he could understand Mr. Atkins' criticism,
but the staff was trying to cover anything that might conceivably happen.
At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to amend, reenact and add certain sections
to the Zoning'Ordinance by adopting the proposed amendments set out above but making the
following changes: add the word "unreasonably" after "not to" and before "interfere with
the passage"; add the word "unreasonably" after the words "not to" and before "degrade the
riverine" and change the word "nor" to "or". The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler.
Miss Nash noted that this amendment did not cover such things as rehabilitation of old
water powered mills, which was mentioned in Mr. Pollock's letter. Mr. Fisher said that
using hydropower that is not converted into electricity, but is used directly for milling
or some other operation, is not covered by this amendment. Mr. Tucker said that was correct.
The staff was basically looking at the request brought' to it by Mr. Atkins. Mr. St. John
said he did not think the amendments are disastrous, but he feels that they might cover
broader aspects of this question than are intended, and he may want to bring this language
back for refinement at a later date. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that the language could be
tightened up, but he felt that since approval of such a facility is given through the
special use permit process, the Board has discretion to place some controls. Roll was
called at this time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. SP-82-7. C. H. and Josephine Atkins. To locate a hydroelectric
power generating plan on five, plus or minus acres zoned RA Rural Areas, in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.38 and Section 30.3.5.2.1.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property located at
intersection of Routes 743 and 641,in Advance Mills. County TaX Map 20, Parcel 15A and
part of Parcel 14, Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 14 and
April 21, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's~report, as follows:
"Request:
Acreage:
Zoning.:
Location:
Hydroelectric Power Generating Plant (10.2.2.38; 30.3.5.2.1.6)
+ Five acres
RA Rural Areas
Property~ described as Tax Map 20, Parcels 15A and 14 (part), is
located on the North Fork Rivanna River at Advance Mills.
Character of the Area
The applicant proposes to upgrade the existing dam and raceway structures and
replace power generating equipment. Dwellings are remote from the dam; the closest
dwelling is about 500 feet away. Low flow elevation of the North Fork is 382 feet
below the dam, while the 100-year flood level is about 410 feet (i.e., bridge level).
Staff Comment
The applicant's description of the project (follows) anticipates minimal construc-
tion and therefore should not be detrimental to downstream conditions. The County
Engineering Department has received favorable preliminary comment from various
agencies and has recommended approval, subject to final reports and approvals of
appropriate agencies. Additionally, the Engineering Department has recommended
favorably in regard to Section 4.14 Performance Standards.
Staff has reviewed this application in relation to proposed Section 5.1.26 and
recommends that:
1)
2)
3)
the use will not be objectionable to other uses in the area;
the use will not degrade the downstream riverine, nor aquatic habitat nor
water quality in general;
with appropriate conditions of approval, interference with the passage of
boats, canoes, and aquatic life could be minimized.
Staff recommends approval, subject to the, following conditions:
[79
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
t. The following conditions shall be met prior to issuance of a development
permit by the Zoning Administrator as required by 30.3.3.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
a) Staff approval of a portage trail and appropriate signage;
b) County Engineer review and approval of final reports from appropriate
State and Federal agencies. In such review, the County Engineer shall be mindful
of the provisions of 5.1.26 and may require such measures as deemed appropriate to
accomplish the objectives of 5.1.26, including but not limited to upgrading of the
fish ladder, installation of fish screens and the like;
c) Any construction or other improvements within the one hundred year flood
plain shall be accomplished in compliance with 30.3 of the Zoning Ordinance."
APPLZ'C~NT~'S. REPO~RTi~..ON AI~ZANCE MILLS
HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT
The owner proposes to use the existing dam and appurtenant structures on the North
Fork of the Rivanna River at Advance Mills in Albemarle County, Virginia, to develop
electric power.
The concrete dam and raceway were constructed in 1925 and are in good condition
except for some leakage at the spillway and gates. These will be repaired by
sinking piles and additional concrete at the spillway and the installation of new
gates. There is a functioning fish ladder in the dam. The dimensions of the dam
are 125 feet long, three feet wide at the top, and 12 feet high. The flume is
200 feet long, nine feet wide, and six feet in depth. The reservoir area is about
two acres and provides little storage.
It is proposed to repair or replace the old turbines, install a generator with the
necessary controls, and connect with the VEPCO lines which pass over the project
area. The generator and controls may be sheltered either directly over the turbines
or nearby on the high ground. In either case, the house will be about 10 x 12 feet
in plan and 10 feet in height. It will be used only for an attendant to observe
and adjust controls for less than one hour per day.
The turbines will be connected to the generator either by V-belts or by an enclosed
differential speed gear. The noise will be minimal--probably less than that of the
water pouring over the dam. Should this estimate be wrong, the housing could be
noise-proofed. The nearest residence to the generator housing is about 500 feet away.
The turbines will discharge into Marsh Run and then into the river about.275 feet
below the dam. This is a non-consumptive use of water. It will not reduce the
downstream flow. Neither will the discharge raise the temperature significantly or
increase the pollution in the river. There are a few catfish and suckers above and
below the dam, but the proposed use of the water will not significantly affect
migratory fish or any endangered species.
Stream flow records of the State Water Control Board are available for the North
Fork of the Rivanna at Proffit and for the Rapidan near Ruckersville. The watershed
at Advance Mills appears more comparable to that of Ruckersville. The records at
Proffit are for 10 years, and those for the Rapidan are for 35 years. A regression
analysis of the monthly flows indicates a correlation of 0.994. In view of this, the
design of the turbines and generator will be based on the flows of the Rapidan
adjusted by the drainage area ratios of Advance Mills to Ruckersville station of
101/114 square miles, or 0.886. The average flow of the Rapidan for 35 years is
164 CFS. Adjusted to Advance Mills, this gives an average flow of 145 CFS. This
is within the 20/30% of exceedence flow to be used in the design of the turbines
and generator. On this basis, the power capacity is about 115 K.W. In view of
the extremely dry months and lower efficiency of equipment, however, the design is
to be based on a 100 K.W. capacity.
The electricity produced will be supplied to VEPCO. Thus, the generator and controls
will be specified and approved by that utility. This will prevent any electrical
interference to users or hazards to maintenance personnel. This project should
produce about 575,000 K.W. per year based on an average of 80 K.W. for 300 days of
operation.
Approvals are being requested from the following agencies having an interest: Albemarle
County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors; State Health Department, Water
Control Board and Fish and Game Commission; Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting, of April 6, 1982, approved SP-82-'
with the conditions recommended by the staff.
Mr. Lindstorm asked how the dam itself will function and if the dam will preclude water
from passing into the downstream. Mr. Tucker said there is a gate which will control the
water going into the raceway and then into the turbines, however, he was not sure whether
this is an automatically or manually controlled gate Mr. Lindstrom asked if the dam can
be operated in such a way as to substantially' change the amount of water passing into the
downstream or the amount of water impounded upstream. Mr. Tucker said if the gate is not
controlled, it is possible that there would be an effect on the pooled area. Mr. Lindstrom
asked what made the staff feel that the operation would not degrade the downstream, etc.
Mr. Tucker said that based on the information Mr. Atkins furnished, the staff did not feel
that the flow of water through the gates would be controlled so there should be no change
in the flow of the river to any extent. Mr. Fisher referred to Mr. Atkins report which
stated that the operation will not reduce the amount of the downstream flow. Mr. Fisher
A~ 1___982 (Regular Night Meeti__ng!
said the County has a water intake facility downstream at Camelot and it is in the CountY's
interest that the water flow not be shut off. This is just a diversion of the normal water
floW through the raceway and then back into the stream. He asked if State or Federal
agencies control this procedure so that the County does not have to be concerned. Mr. Tucker
said he felt they do. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt a pump-flow storage situation could be
created during periods of low flow. Mr. Tucker said the water will only be diverted through
a gate, down the raceway, through the turbines and then back into the stream. He did not
think there is any way for Mr. Atkins to create further storage upstream.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. Atkins noted the requirement for a
fish ladder in condition (b). He said there is a fish ladder in existence and the Fish
and Game Commission has not questioned this. He noted that under condition (a) he will
have to get approval for signs. He said there is only one place above the dam where a
person can get a boat onto the river unless they go through fences and over private property.
The dam has been in existence for over 50 years and he does not know why he should be
burdened with this extra cost. Mr. Atkins explained about the controls. There is an invert
at the bottom of the raceway about five feet below the top of the dam; the fish ladder is
right beside it. During the operational phase, the gate will be opened (he expects it to be
a manual operation) and it will remain open as long as there is sufficient water coming down
the raceway to operate the turbines. At normal speed, the turbines operate at 180 revolutions
per minute. The generator will be operating at between 1,000 and 1,200 so that means that
the water can't be drawn down below 25 cubic feet per second or the turbines will stop.
Once the flow gets that low, there will be a float or something to stop the turbines, or the
turbines themselves, will stop the flow. The minimum consecutive seven day flow on that
stream for the last ten years has been 5.3 cubic feet per second. Mr. Atkins said he is
designing for 130 cubic feet per second and feels he can operate about 300 days per year.
Mr. Henley asked if anybody uses the river for boating now. Mr. Atkins said he had
seen the first person try it after he made this application. Below the dam, a half dozen
people may have gotten onto the river.
With no one else rising to speak for or against the application, the public hearing was
closed. Mr. Fisher said he feels the Board should encourage the generation of electricity
by water flow and he agrees with Mr. Pollock that there are not many places in the County
where there is enough water for such generation. He does not feel that applications such as
Mr. Atkins will be a problem. The problems will probably come from people wanting to build
new dams. That is the reason he feels the zoning text amendment was drawn as presented.
Mr. Fisher said it is clear that Mr. Atkins proposal will have minimum impact, so if approved
he hopes it will be recognized that this particular dam has been in existence for a long
time and is just being restored. Mr. Fisher said he would be concerned if someone wanted to
build a new dam.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if all of the conditions listed in the supplementary regulations
have been complied with. Mr. Tucker said the county engineer has not received final reports
from all of the agencies. Mr. Lindstrom asked what will happen if the Board approves this
permit before the county engineer has completed his review. Mr. Tucker said the applicant
would have to comply with the conditions before the permit is issued. Mr. Atkins said the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission requires that it receive approval from all of the
agencies involved. The County's ordinance makes it impossible to comply with that requirement.
How can the county engineer get a report from the FERC before he approves the report and
sends it on to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said it seems that there is a difference
between the county engineer receiving reports and his having to review and approve those
reports which creates another uncertainty in the whole approval process. Mr. Lindstrom said
if the county engineer should receive a report that showed a problem and the county engineer
only has authority to review that report, that will not do the Board any good in terms of
approving a special use permit. Mr. Tucker said a problem arises because the Federal governmen
is requiring local approval before they will give approval. He agreed with Mr. Lindstrom
that Board approval of a special use permit should satisfy the Federal requirement and even
though there are conditions attached to that permit, he felt the Federal government would go
ahead and act.
Mr. Lindstrom said since this is the first permit application under the new ordinance
provisions he would like to adhere closely to that ordinance in approving this permit. He
felt the language would allow Mr. Atkins to go forward, but yet not commit the County to go
forward without any ability to deal with problems that may arise. Mr. Lindstrom then offered
motion to approve SP-82-7 with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Butler.
Mr. Tucker recommended that the words "if deemed appropriate" be added at the end of
Condition l(a) based on what Mr. Atkins said about the frequency of canoeists on that part
of the river. Mr. Lindstrom amended his motion to include that language. The amendment was
accepted by Mr. Butler. 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.
Agenda Item No. 5. SP-82-10. Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Inc. To subdivide 125.83 acres
zoned RA RUral Areas into 15 lots with an average lot size of 8.39 acres in accOrdance with
Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property off north side of Route 660 about 1 3/4 miles
southwest of intersection of Route 743 in Earlysville. County Tax Map 30, part of Parcel 27,
Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 14 and April 21, 1982.)
(Mr. Lindstrom announced that he would abstain from participation in this request
because his firm represents the applicants. Mr. Lindst~om then left the room.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows:
181
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
"Request:
Zoning:
Location:
To divide 125.83 acres into 15 residential lots with an average
lot size of 8.39 acres (Blue Ridge Forest, Phase 2)
RA Rural Areas
Property, described as Tax Map 30, Parcel 27 (part), is located
on the north side of Route 660 approximately 1-3/4 miles southwest
of Route 743.
Character of the Area
This property is predominantely wooded with the easternmost portion in pasture.
Fishing Creek runs through the property for a distance of about 2,300 feet. The
average slope of the property is 19 to 20 percent.
Comprehensive Plan
Since this property is within the South Rivanna Reservoir watershed, the Compre-
hensive Plan recommends a density of one dwelling per ten acres. This area is
also recommended for agricultural conservation with a density of one dwelling unit
per five acres.
When Comprehensive Plan standards for hillside development are applied, the recom-
mended density resulting is one dwelling unit per two acres with various restrictions
recommended in terms of coverage, grading, tree removal and the like.
Applicant's Proposal
Development by-right under the RA district would yield 10 parcels. The applicant
is proposing 15 parcels to be served by a private road. In addition, the applicant
has proposed an 11 acre lake as a major feature of the development. While not a
rezoning, Staff has viewed the preliminary plan in the nature of a proffer and has
accordingly incorporated conditions based on this plan.
Summary of Land Uses in the Area
Criteria #4 and #5 of the special use permit review address the character of the
land uses within a one-mile radius (about 2,000 acres) of the subject property. In
this particular case, as is provided in the criteria, Staff has considered a smaller
area (1,500 acres) as more reasonable for consideration.
Land Uses Acreage
% Study Area
Parcels less than 5 acrea (developed land)
Parcels greater than 5 acres (undeveloped land)
Preferential tax - forestry
Preferential tax - agriculture
3O3 2O%
166 11
702 46
365 24
TOTAL 1,536 acres 101%
Special Use Permit Criteria
Since this property is within a reservoir watershed, review under all nine of the
RA criteria is required. Mark F. Osborne, P.E., has submitted for the applicant
a study addressing Criteria #1, #2, #3, and #9, which the Staff has incorporated
directly into this report.
1. The size, shape~ topography and existing vegetation of the property ....
The proposed Blue Ridge Farm Subdivision occupies about 126 acres of land which is
1.23 miles upstream from the South Rivanna Reservoir. The topography of this area
is distinctly rolling. Maps of the area show that about 12% of land has slopes of
less than 7%. If the flood plain of Fishing Creek is not considered, then this
figure drops to 5% of the area. Commonly, the slopes are found to be approximately
20% and the maximum slope is about 30%. The steepest slopes and most of the 20%
slopes are in woodland. This amounts to about 80% of the parcel or 100 acres. In
contrast, the flood plain which is nearly level has few trees but is almost entirely
of broom straw and of tall coarse grass. Presently the land use of the flood plain
appears to be dormant. The remaining six acres of open land appears to be of an
intermittant pasture type use. There are no cultivated lands. The character of
the woodland is a moderately dense, young forest. The average age of the timber is
about 20 to 40 years. Few of the trees have diameters greater than 12 inches.
Generally the degree of agricultural or forestal use is largely dependent on the
soil.
2. The actual suitability of the soil for agricultural or forestal production ....
An examination of the Soil Conservation Service soil maps shows Hayesville and
Brandywine to be the predominant soils on the parcel. These are some of the best
agricultural soils in the county and generally good soils for the production of
timber. However, due to the overall steepness of the parcel, the agricultural suit-
ability of these soils is severely diminished. Taccoa, the soil found in the flood
plain is a prime agricultural soil which could be used quite easily. However, there
is less than 18 acres available and it may be uneconomical to work a small area such
as this. Overall, the best use of the tract would be for timber, although at present
there is not a significant number of trees ready for harvest. Pulpwood and firewood
are available uses now.
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
3. The historic commercial agricultural ....
The property of interest was known as the Durrier~Farm. It was farmed as a cattle
operation. The open land is only usable as pasture and that has been its use. The
woodland which makes up the majority of the property remaining is 35% softwood and
56% hard. It is only a fair stand of timber. Most of the open pasture was previously
divided as lots and sold off. The planning for and actual division of the old farm
started in 1976 when the boundary was surveyed and two parcels divided off for the
Durrier sons. In 1977, eight lots including the home place were subdivided. In 1979,
seven more lots were subdivided. In 1980, eight more lots were cut out. The present
division will consitiute subdividing the entire 126 acre residue. The land has been
on the market for over a year in its entirety but has not sold. It is anticipated
that subdividing will make the land salable and increase its value.
If located in an agricultural or forestal area, the probable effect of the
proposed development on the charac't'er of' the area ....
Staff has used preferential land use taxation as a measure of agricultural and forestal
activity in an area. In this case, about 70% of land in the study area is under
preferential taxation. Most of this land is north of the proposed subdivision with
forestal lands directly adjacent to it.
Under the applicant's proposal, an increase of five lots is requested. Staff would
not expect the increased residential usage to significantly interfere with agricul-
tural or forestal activities in the area. Agricultural lands are somewhat remote
from the site. Staff would expect the major direct effects on forestal activities
to be complaints from new residents and imposition of additional zoning restrictions.
Generally speaking, the indirect effects are related to the expectation of continued
development in the area, resulting in the impression that agricultural/forestal lands
are in transition. Indirect effects include: reduced or marginal production; dis-
investment in equipment, livestock and other aspects of farming/forestry requiring
large and/or long-term investment; and idling of farmland.
5. The relationship of the property in regard to developed rural areas ....
Under Criteria #4, this property should be considered within an agricultural/forestal
area. Major subdivisions in the area are Blue Ridge Forest (19 lots; 2.1 acres
average lot size) and Fairgrove (50 lots; 2.7 acres average lot size). Smaller
divisions add about 40 lots for a total of about 110 lots. Staff would note that
only four of the proposed 15 lots would be considered as "developed land" under this
criteria.
The relationship of the proposed development to existing and proposed population
cent'ers',ser'Vi'c'es'~a~d e~p'lOy~e~t c'ent'ers ....
This property is about 1 3/4 miles from the Earlysville Village as described in the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore is not in proximity to a growth area. However,
access by Route 660 is direct to Earlysville and to commercial and employment
centers (Crouse-Hinds is about a mile from the site).
The probable effect of the proposed development on capital improvements program-
ming in regard to incr'ea'sed pr'o'Vi's'iOn of services·
Impact on schools would be slight with a total projected enrollment of about nine
students. Students would be bused to Broadus Wood Elementary School, Henley Middle
School and Western Albemarle High School. Fire protection would be provided by the
Earlysville Volunteer Company with a response time of about five minutes.
8. The traffic generated from the proposed development ....
The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation provided the following comments:
"An adequate entrance is under construction for a previous phase of development of
this same property. The 1980 traffic count on this portion of Route 660 indicates
that this road is nontolerable due to the pavement width, however, additional traffic
generated from this development would not appreciably increase this problem."
...for land lying wholly or partially within the boundaries for the watershed
of any public drinking water impoundment ....
The 126 acres will be divided into 15 lots. The size of six of these will be from
4.2 acres to 6.7 acres. Those remaining will be from 9.0 acres to 12.1 acres. Each
of the lots will contain a single-family dwelling.
It is anticipated that the maximum average size of the first floor plan of these
houses wiil be about 1200 sq. ft. The necessary clearing of woodland expected to
site a.typical house and driveway is about 1 1/2 acres.
Since only 11 of the 15 proposed lots are in woodland, the expected loss of ground
cover is about 16.50 acres. This represents about 13% of the total parcel.
The acount of impervious development associated with the home building is expected
to be about 4800 sq. ft./home. This includes a 12 foot by 300 foot driveway.
Additionally, a private road is proposed to extend through the development which
consists of about 92,000 sq. ft. Together the total amount of new impervious area
is 164,000 sq. ft. or 3.76 acres. This represents slightly less than 3%.
183
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Studies show that a relationship exists between the amount of impervious cover and
water quality. In general recognition of this and the ecological sensitivity of
the South Rivanna Reservoir which is nearby, the proposed development includes an
11 acre pond on Fishing Creek. The pond will provide recreation, some flood control
and silt removal.
Preliminary study indicates that the existing sediment load of Fishing Creek, com-
prising 2290 acres of drainage basin in the South Rivanna Watershed, is about 824
tons/year. By introducing the pond, an average removal of 247 t/yr is expected.
This represents, conservatively, the reduction of 1.48 t/yr of phosphorous.
Sources such as the "Rivanna Reservoir Restoration Project" by F. X. Browne and
Associates corroborate the preliminary study results with independent work on a
pond in simular circumstances. Phosphorous removal efficiencies were found as high
as 72% for the Browne pond which is proportionately smaller than the proposed Blue
Ridge Forest pond.
Without regard to the proposed pond, the runoff control ordinance requirements were
applied to this development for further study.
In regard to harmful bacteria it is most likely that exclusion of cattle should
provide substantially more benefit than the inclusion of drainfields can do harm.
This is particularly true of this proposed development because of the light dwelling
density of 0.12 dwelling units/acre and the large lots, average 8.4 acres. The size
of the lots provide plenty of room for drainfield setbacks~. Around the proposed
pond the road also creates further setback since it separates the lots from the water.
In most the edge of the road is no closer than 80 feet to 100 feet from the normal
pond surface.
Naturally, soils affect the efficiency of a drainfield and suitability of use. Except
for Toccoa, found exclusively in the flood plain, the soils in this development are
moderate to good regarding perc-rate and overall suitability.
The actual construction development will consist of the pond construction and the
private road construction in that order.
It is expected that with good weather the entire work may be accomplished in about
two months. The pond will be constructed first to ensure the capture of any sub-
sequent construction erosion. Ail work will have the necessary erosion control
devices as required by state regulation. The construction firm of Hatey, Chisholm
& Morris has an outstanding history of controlling soil erosion losses during construc-
tion work.
In regard to the design and construction of the pond dam, the requirements of the
USDA Soil Conservation Service will be followed. Particularly SCS, TR-60, Earth
Dams and Reservoirs will be used among other design publications.
The pond dam will be designed as a class "B" structure which is suitable for use in
a rural subdivision. The peak design storm which the dam must safely pass has a
duration of six hours and a direct precipitation of about 15 inches of rain. This
is greater than a 500 year recurrence frequency. In comparison, the 100 year storm
has six inches of rain.
The principal spillway riser pipe will be designed to convey the ten day 100 year
storm. This will provide that the private road which extends over the dam and
through the emergency spillway will not be inundated by a storm of less than a 100
year recurrence.
Staff Comment
In addition to review under the Rural Areas criteria, staff sought cooperation from
the Watershed Management Official, County Engineering Department, Soil Conservation
Service, and the applicant in an analysis of the proposed ll acre lake for its
effectiveness as an in-stream pollutant control device. The applicant's engineer
evaluated the site under the Runoff Control Ordinance and compared the proposed lake
to the "Browne study pond" ("Rivanna Reservoir Restoration Project" report prepared
by F. X. Browne & Associates). Based on this and reviews by the Watershed Management
Official and County Engineering Department, staff opinion is that approval of this
special use permit insuring the construction of the lake, would be in the public
interest since existing sediment and nutritive loadings to the reservoir would be
reduced.
Staff recommends approval subject to the following contitions:
1. Development limited to fifteen lots consistent with the preliminary plat
"Phase Two, Blue Ridge Forest" by William Morris Foster, dated 2-25-82.
County Attorney approval of deed restrictions:
a. Requiring adherence to a plan approved by the Runoff Control Official
to limit tree removal to the lake site, private roads, driveways and
designated building sites as required by Section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance;
b. Requiring that any area of earth-disturbing activity be stabilized and
seeded as soon as work is completed;
c. Providing for the maintenance of the lake by the homeowners and providing
for access to the lake by the Run-off Control Official or other designated
County agent for periodic monitoring of the lake.
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
[84
It is the intent of the County that all reasonable measures be taken to maintain
water quality during construciton. To this end, the applicant Shall obtain all
approvals for construction of the private road and lake prior to submittal of a
final plat for Commission approval. Approving authorities should be particularly
mindful of the County's intent and of the comments of the Watershed Management
Official and County Engineering Department in making such reviews."
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 6, 1982, recommended
approval of SP-82-10 with the conditions recommended by the staff, but changed 2(a) to read:
"Notice of provisions of Conditions #4 and #5 of this permit;" and added the following
conditions:
Vegetation removal and land-disturbing activity to be limited, sUch that
maximum suspended solids loading and maximum total phosphorus loading
measured at ~ishing Creek below proposed dam do not exceed loadings in
existence before development.
No clearing, grading or other land-disturbing activity~without permit from
the Zoning Administrator, in compliance with provisions of Condition #4.
The public hearing was opened. Mr. Ed Bain was present to represent the applicant. He
noted that Mr. Mike Boggs and Mr. Mark OSborne were also present. Mr. Bain said they feel
the preliminary plan is a good plan for the land and the increase from ten to fifteen lots
is offset by inclusion of the lake.
Mrs. Peggy Van Yahres was present and referred to her letter of April 19, 1982:
"I am writing in reference to the site plan of Haley, Chisholm and Morris, Blue Ridge
Forest II~(SP-82-10). My brothers and I have an interest in the adjacent property
listed as Donald L. Fitzhugh (my father died, leaving the estate in trust to the
three of us).
We are concerned about the proposed 11.10 acre lake. Studying the topography map
of the site, I noticed that the lake is set at elevation 430, with the result that
it would flood some of our property. The drawing does not indicate this, but
following the contours, it certainly would be on our land.
A sentence on page 10 of the Staff Report particularly concerns us. 'Based on
these documents (the runoff calculations) and reviews by the Watershed Management
Official and County Engineering Department, Staff opinion is that approval of this
special use permit insuring the construction of the lake, would be in the Public
interest since existing sediment and nutritive loadings to the reservoir would be
reduced'. We want to make certain that this proposal is not approved with the
requirement of a lake of this elevation and size, because we have not given per-
mission to the developers for the use of our land.
We have spoken to Morris Chisholm, and he said that they would observe the property
line when constructing the lake. We, nevertheless, want to make certain that the
public record is correct. Thank you."
Mr. Mike Boggs said this development will not encroach on Mrs. Van Yahres' land without
her permission.
With on one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Fisher said he had a couple of comments about Mr. Osborne's comment on page 9 of
the staff report "exclusion of cattle could provide more benefit than inclusion of drainfields
could do harm". He was not sure that this is a one to one correlation and took exception to
the statement. Mr. Fisher also mentioned a statement in the staff's report about the
"expectations of continued development in the area" He said he had been worried about this
very thing when the zoning ordinance was adopted and felt it could be done by denying an
application, but he felt that this particular application had a lot of merit. He asked how
this expectation could be eradicated for other parcels in the County, Mr. Tucker said that
in reviewing such applications on their merits, if the applications do not meet the criteria
set out in the RA district, the application~ should be denied. In reviewing this application,
the staff took into account comments made by various people that the lake would have more
benefit than just development of ten lots without the lake. Mr, Fisher said he is inclined
to think that the lake is the primary reason the staff looked favorably on this application
and probably the reason the Planning CommisSion recommended approval. However, condition
2(c) provides only for maintenance of the lake, but does not refer directly to replacement
of the dam. He suggested that the words "and repair or reconstruction of the dam" be added
after the word "lake" and before the word "by" in Condition 2(c).
At this time, Mr. Henley offered motion to approve SP-82-10 with the conditions recom-
mended by the Planning Commission, and with the amended language recommended by Mr. Fisher.
The motion was seconded by'MisS Nash and Carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs..Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None. /
ABSTAINING: Mr. Lindstrom.
At 9:22 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:33 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZTA-82-5. Amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide certain activities
in the Natural Resource Overlay District by secial use permit. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on April 14 and April 21, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report as follows:
t85
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
"On February 10, 1982, in view of recent amendments and changing circumstances, the
Board of Supervisors suggested that additional review of the Natural Resource text
may be appropriate. Subsequently, on March 2, 198'2, at staff request, the Planning
Commission adopted a resolution of intent to amend certain provisions, of the Natural
Resource district.
Drafted in 1978, the Natural Resource provisions basically address the familiar
activities of quarrying, sand and gravel extraction and the like. These provisions
are not tailored for activities such as oil, natural gas and uranium mining. A major
problem in attempting a comprehensive revision of the Natural Resource district at
this time is that state regulations for many mining activities are uncertain (i.e. -
under study/revision; non-existent). When there is a resolution of the problem at
the state level, a re-evaluation of the Natural Resource text may be appropriate.
However, at this time, staff recommends the following amendments as interim mearsures:
1) Amend Section 30.4.2.1, By Right, as follows:
Except as otherwise expressly provided in Section 30'.4.2.2, removal of soil,
sand, gravel, stone or other minerals be excavating, stripping, quarrying,
or other mining operation.
~e~a~e~e a~e~a~ ~e ~a~a~ ~eee~ee e~ae~e~ ACcessory uses to a
use permitted by right such as blasting, washing, grading, sorting, stock-
piling, grinding and the like; provided that such operations are located on
the site of the a~e~a~ ~a~a~ ~eee~ee e~ae~e~ main use.
2) Amend Section 30.4.2.2, By Special Use Permit, by adding the following uses:
3. Mining and milling of uranium or other radioactiVe materials.
4. Extraction of oil and natural gas.
5. Coal mining.
6. Deep mining.
e
Accessory uses to a use permitted by special use permit or ~off-site acces-
sory uses to a use permit'ted by right Such 'as b'IaSt~i'ng,' W~s~i~g, grading,
sorting, stockpiling, grinding ~nd ~the 'l'ike.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 15, 1982, voted to
recommend to the Board the above amendments. The public hearing was opened. Mrs. Peggy
Van Yahres, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, said the Council sponsored
these amendments, so certainly supports same. There was no one else present to speak, so
the public hearing was closed.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to amend and reenact the
zoning ordinance as set out above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-82-6. To amend Section 30.4.3, PERMIT REQUIRED, of the Zoning
Ordinance as it relates to Title 45.1 of the Code of Virginia. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress of April 14 and April 21, 1982.)
Mr. Tucker said this amendment is recommended only to bring references in this section
into line with state enabling legislation. He noted that the change would be in the third
sentence of this paragraph by changing the words "Section 45.1-182.1" to "Title 45.1 of the
Code" and in the next two sentences to change the reference to "Chapter 16 of the Code" to
"Title 45.1 of the Code". Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended
approval of the amendment.
The public hearing was opened. No one was present to speak, so the public hearing was
closed. Motion was. then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve ZTA-82-6
as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
'NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 8. Approve 1982-83 Albemarle County Budget. Mr. Agnor said he had
received a memorandum this date from Dr. William Barton, Education Department, indicating
that on April 27, 1982, the School Board had approved a budget totaling $23,176,920 which is
an increase of $16,786 over the amount advertised for public hearing purposes last week.
Dr. Barton indicated that there is no request for an increase in local funding, but that the
entire amount will be absorbed through additional state funding. Dr. Barton also indicated
that the School Board has not completed work on individual categories and is requesting a
"lump sum appropriation" at this time. The School Board has not completed its work because
of a concern regarding the compensation of classified personnel and the administrative staff
has been directed to develop a merit pay system for non-instructional personnel similar to
the merit program for general government employees. The School Board has indicated that it
will be better able to make a determination of the funds necessary for each budget category
after issuance of contracts to instructional personnel. Dr. Barton also noted that the
School Board requests permission to issue employment contracts before the end of the school
year and also requests permission to award contracts for the purchase of school buses before
the end of this fiscal year. Bids have been taken by the County and if the buses are purchased
immediately, the cost will be approximately $35,000 under the appropriation in the proposed
budget. Mr. Agnor also requested permission to proceed with the purchase of Sheriff's
automobiles for the same reason.
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor said he has discussed with the County Attorney and the Director of Finance
the fact that the total of the County budget now exceeds the amount advertised for public
hearing and it is recommended that the Board adopt a resolution approving the budget only in
the amount advertised, with appropriate changes being made at the time the appropriation
ordinance is adopted and the tax levies are set.
Miss Nash said she hoped the Board would consider adding $6,242 to the budget for the
Youth Servies category. From reading a letter just received from Ruth Wadlington, along
with a list of goals and objectives, it appears that this group saves time and money in
other categories.
Mr. Butler said with the economy the way it is, and with the problems that face so many
youth, maybe the Board should consider funding this group for the next year to see how
effective its programs are. At this time, Miss Nash offered motion to include $6,242 in the
1982-83 County budget for the Youth Service Center. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler.
Mrs. Cooke asked if this group actually provides jobs. Mr. Agnor said that information
received with this request indicates that the Center will provide counseling, job training
and placement services. Mr. Butler said he feels that there is enough training going on in
the community and in that respect the Center might be duplicating services, but other items
listed give an opportunity to do some good services. Miss Nash said there is no training
involved, it is mostly coordination.
Mr. Fisher said this conversation just illustrates the problem the Board has had all
along, no one seems to know what this group really does. Mrs. Cooke said she was bothered
because this group did not have any statistics to show the results of its efforts. She
asked how long it had been in existence. Miss Nash noted that correspondence shows July,
1980 as the beginning date. Mr. Lindstrom said he will vote for this request only because
the County money will trigger an additional $18,726 in state matching funds, and one and
one-half years of operation may not have been long enough to provide sufficient evidence
about programs, but at the end of the next year the Youth Center should provide information
showing how many school drop-outs were helped. Miss Nash amended her motion to include this
stipulation. The amendment was accepted by Mr. Butler. Mr. Henley said the whole thing
looks like a mechanism to create programs; out of 16 projects handled in the last two years,
five were developing plans and three were researching. Miss Nash said the League of Women
Voters gave the program a strong recommendation. Mr. Butler said he understands that, but
the Board really needs to know what has been accomplished when it gives the taxpayers money
away. Mrs. Cooke said she felt the "goals and objectives" furnished are good, but the
bottom line is results and no information on these has been furnished to the Board.
Mr. Fisher noted that there was a motion on the flosr to add $6,242 to the budget .for
the Youth Services Center. Mr. Agnor requested that this item be advertised and incorporated
into the appropriation ordinance at a later time. Mr. Henley said he would have supported
this request if the School system or the Sheriff's Department had brought someone in to say
that this organization had helped with drop-outs, but it appears to be just a bunch of
people sitting around answering phones and developing plans and there is enough of that
already.
Mrs. Cooke said her only reason for giving this item any consideration is because the
organization has been in operation for such a short time. Mr. Fisher said he will vote with
Mr. Henley. He said the Board had asked the County staff to evaluate such requestsiand he
feels that they did a good evaluation and he will stand by it. Roll was called at this
time, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Henley.
Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that
the operations budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1982, be
approved as follows:
General Management and Support
Human Development
Public Safety and Justice
Refunds
Education
Debt Service
Capital Improvement
TOTAL
$ 2,994,380
3,068,998
2,806,388
1,632,350.
23,160,134
2,060,067
1,163~406
$ 36,885,723
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County School Board has permission,
as requesBed, to issue contracts to personnel in advance of the 1982-83 school year,
and that 6he Department of Finance may proceed with the purchase of school buses and
vehicles for the Sheriff's Department as provided in the approved budget from funds
to be available in the 1982-83 Fiscal Year.
AYES:
NAYS:
The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. Motion--Ordinance, re: Hunting, trapping. Motion was made at the
April 21 meeting by Mr. Henley as follows: "Not to take any action on a request to adopt a
new hunting law re: trapping near highway rights-of-way because Mr. St. John feels the
problem is already covered by another law." The motion was tabled until this meeting because
of the lateness of the hour. It was noted that this matter had been brought to the Board
by Mr. Butler for some constituents who are members of the Keswick Hunt Club. Mr. St. John
said he understands that this new enabling legislation is calculated to curb illegal trapping,
but there is already a state law which prohibits hunting within 100 feet of any state highway
and Section 18.2-132 prohibits trapping on the lands of another without written permission.
This new law applies within fifty feet of the shoulder, not the right-of-way, of any highway
and it does not apply if the trapper has the written permission of the landowner. Under
current law, in order to trap a person needs a license and obtaining that license is much
more complicated than obtaining a hunting permit; the trapper also has to put his name on
each trap and must have the written permission of the landowner. Mr. St. John said he
believes the subject is already covered very well by existing laws. Mr. Henley agreed that
the existing laws are easier to understand. Mr. St. John said he had talked with Senator
Tom Michie but Senator Michie did not know the reason for this new law.
At this time, roll was called on the motion made at the April 21 meeting to not take
action on this request, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 10. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of July 8,
1981, and found no errors. Miss Nash had read the minutes of August 5, 1981, and found no
errors. Motion was offered by Mr. Butler, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to approve the minutes
as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a
letter from a group of engineering and management consultants encouraging the Board to hire
them to do an analysis to see if Albemarle County should run its own road system. He asked
how he should reply. No one on the Board expressed an interest in the proposal.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a memo dated March 30, 1982, from Mason Caperton, Planning
Department, indicating that the University of Virginia has submitted preliminary site plans
for three major developments; an engineering/research building on McCormick Road, a Stadium
Road student housing project, and Newcombe Hall addition, Phase II. It was noted in the
memo that the plans would be filed, but would be available for review. Mr. Fisher said he
thought the Staff and Planning Commission were to review such plans and make comments to the
University as soon as possible after receipt of same. Mr. Agnor said he would check into
the meaning of the memo.
Mr. Fisher noted a memo from the Clerk inquiring as to vacation schedules of the Board
members and noting that the annual meeting of the National Association of Counties is the
first of July. He noted that it has been the custom of the Board to cancel a meeting during
the summer to allow the members time for vacations. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Miss Nash, to cancel the regular meeting scheduled for August 18, 1982. The
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a lette~-='~rom'Dr]-R{~d~-~. Prindle, Director, Thomas
Jefferson Health District, dated April 19, 1982, in which Dr. Prindle explains the funding
of the Health Department; a question which arose during budget work sessions. Mr. Agnor
noted that he is working on a report on this subject which should be ready for the May day
meeting.
Mr. Fisher noted that the Board of Zoning Appeals had heard an application from the
Town of Scottsville (AP-82-01) regarding an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator that
borrow sites for the extraction of fill material to be used on a construction site located
on a different parcel than the borrow site would require rezoning the borrow site to NR
Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District. The Board of Zoning Appeals had reversed the
Zoning Administrator's determination in this instance. Mr. Fisher said he is not making any
recommendation, but would like to call to the Board's attention that if this decision needs
to be appealed to the Circuit Court the time on the appeal started running on April 20 and
runs for thirty days. He asked Mr. St. John his opinion of the decision and whether he felt
it had broader implications than just this one case.
Mr. St. John said 'he would study the decision and determine if an appeal should be
noted. In the event of a time crunch, he would note the appeal to stop the time from running,
and asked the Board's authority to do so if necessary. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom,
seconded by Mr. Butler, to grant the County Attorney the authority to note an appeal to the
Circuit CoUrt on AP-82-01, Town of Scottsville, should he feel an appeal'is necessary. 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.
April 28, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting)
Mr. Agnor noted that the Buildings & Properties Committee will meet on Monday, May 3,
1982, at the Old Scottsville School to hold a public hearing and discuss the future of that
facility.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had seen today a copy of the Attorney General's opinion, requested
by Senator Tom Michie in behalf of the County, as to whether the Annexation and Revenue
Sharing Agreement between the City and County is valid. Mr. Fisher asked that copies be
sent to all Board members.
Ag~da Item No. 12.
adjourned at 10:35 P.M.
With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was
Ch~rman