1982-08-11August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 11, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in Meeting Room #7, of the Albemarle County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. James R. Butler, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Mr. Gerald E. Fisher,
Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. (arrived at 9:03 A.M.), Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:10
A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County
Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning.
Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order.
the Chairman, Gerald Fisher.
At 9:11 A.M., the meeting was called to order by
Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. Mr. Agnor presented an eight item consent agenda
showing one item for the Board's approval, and seven items for information only, bringing
special attention to a memorandum dated July 29, 1982, from the Planning Commission
regarding stormwater control in the Bennington Terrace area. Mr. Fisher stated his
concern that a memorandum such as this would be placed on the consent agenda. Mr. Fisher
said that if other Board members had no objections, a memorandum could be forwarded to the
Planning Commission informing the Commission that if an overall stormwater control plan is
approved, the areas of Bennington Terrace, Bennington Wood and Georgetown Court will be
included.
Motion was offered by Mr, Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, to approve the consent
agenda as presented and that a letter be written to the Planning Commission regarding
stormwa~er control plans for the Bennington Terrace area of the County. Roll was called
and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Item 2.1. Statement of expenses for the State Compensation Board for the Director of
Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of July, 1982,
were presented; said statements were approved as presented.
Item 2.2. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of June, 1982,
was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52.
Item 2.3. Report on audit for the District Home for calendar year 1981.
Item 2.4. Letter re: Public Utility. A letter dated August 3, 1982, was received
from the Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. to revise its tariff for services rendered on and
after September 2, 1982, before the State Corporation Commission in Richmond.
Item 2.5. Letter re: Final Allocations to the Interstate, Primary and Urban Systems
and Public Transportation and Six-Year Improvement Program, dated July 15, 1982, from
Commissioner Harold C. King, stating that these plans were approved as submitted to the
Commission in May, 1982.
Item 2.6. Letter dated July 29, 1982 from the Albemarle County Planning Commission
requesting a study of stormwater control in Bennington Terrace area.
Item 2.7. Letter from Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission re:
Virginia Landmarks Register dated July 21, 1982.
Edgehill placed on
Item 2.8.
July 30, 1982.
Letter from Karen L. Morris re:
Social Services 1982-83 Budget, dated
Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Miss Nash and Messrs. Butler, Fisher and
Henley reported having read the following minutes with no corrections necessary: March 4
(Afternoon), October 15, October 21, October 30, December 2, December 4, 1981, and January
5, January 6, January 14, February 3, February 17, March 24, March 31 and May 5, 1982.
Mr. Lindstrom stated that he had not read his assigned minutes of December 9, 1981,
and March 10, 1982. Mrs. Cooke and Mr. Henley also had not read the minutes of April 14
and May 19 (Afternoon and Night), 1982, as assigned.
Lastly, Miss Nash reported having read the minutes of April 5, 1982, with two cor-
rections necessary. On page 147, seventh paragraph, the sentence reading "library for
expenditures that were encumbered at the end of Fiscal Year 1981..." should actually read
"library for books that were purchased in Fiscal Year 1981..." Also, on that same page,
tenth paragraph, a sentence reading "full amount recommended by Mr. Fisher...", should
actually read "full amount recommended by Mr. Agnor..."
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash to approve the minutes of
March 4, 1981 (Afternoon), October 15, October 21, October 30, December 2, December 4,
1981, and January 5, January 6, ~anuary 14, February 3, February 17 (Afternoon), March 24,
March 31, April 5, and May 5, 19U2 with the corrections as stated. Mr. Fisher asked that
the minutes of December 9, 1981 and March 10, April 14, and May 19, 1982 be carried over
to the next meeting. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item NO. 4a. Highway Matters; Site Plan Appeal for the Institute of Textile
Technology. Mr. Fisher noted that this item has been removed from the agenda, at the
request of the applicant in the following letter:
"August 10, 1982
Re: Site Plan Appeal , Institute of Textile Technology
Please accept this letter as withdrawal on behalf of the Institute of
Textile Technology of the appeal which is set for review by the Board of
Supervisors tomorrow, August 11, 1982. The Zoning Administrator has ruled
that no site plan approval is required.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Joseph W. Richmond, Jr."
As a history to this matter, Mr. Lindstrom noted the following correspondence:
"July 28, 1982
Mr. Charles G. Tewksbury, President
Institute of Textile' Technology
RE:
Institute of Textile Technology Classroom Addition Site Plan
(TM 60, Parcel 28)
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 27, 1982,
approved the above noted site plan subject to the following conditions:
A building permit will be processed when the following conditions have
been met by the applicant:
Fire Official approval of the fire flow;
Albemarle County Service Authority approval of the plans for the
connection to public sewer;
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance improvements at the western entrance as
recommended in their letter dated July 16, 1982;
County Engineer final approval of drainage plans and specifications
for the new pavemenT, parking specifications and the service road;
Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance;
Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance.
(signed) N. Mason Caperton Senior Planner"
"July 20, 1982
Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
Dear Mr. Tucker:
A site plan was reviewed by the Albemarle County Planning Commission at its
meeting July 27, 1982, for a classroom addition at the Institute of Textile
Technology. The plan was approved subject to compliance with certain
conditions which we believe constitute an undue and unnecessary burden on
the applicant.
Please consider this letter as a demand pursuant to Section 32.7.6 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance for review of the application by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
Please advise me of the date when this matter will be heard by the Board of
Supervisors.
Very truly yours,
(signed) Joseph W. Richmond, Jr."
"August 10, 1982
Mr. Joseph W. Richmond Jr.
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Re: Institute of Textile Technology Site Plan
This is a follow-up of our conversation of yesterday concerning the above
matter.
Based on the fact that no additional parking is required, and there will be
no additional employees or students, I am ruling that no site plan is
required for the above site.
There is no intensification of use at this site and the Department of
Highways and Transportation does not become involved unless there is an
intensification of use as per my telephone conversation yesterday with Mr.
Roosevelt of the Highway Department.
Should you have any further questions regarding this matter, please contact
me at this office.
(signed) Jesse R. Hurt, Deputy Director of Inspections"
August 11, 1_ _ r_ 982 (Regular Da~ Meeting)~
Miss Nash said she attended the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1982, and
stated that the Commission had concerns about the entrance, capacity of the septic system
and whether or not this facility should be connected to the public water and sewer system,
the aesthetic appearance of the site since the stonewall would be removed; and the affect
of an additional drainfield on the watershed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John for his opinion on the Zoning Administrator's
ruling, and asked if any site plan at all was required. Mr. St. John asked for time to
review the correspondence just noted by Mr. Lindstrom and the ordinances involved in such
a ruling.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation stated
that if the requirement for a site plan is waived, then improvements to the entrance on
this site will be impossible to obtain. Mr. Fisher said he has spoken to Mr. Charles G.
Tewksbury of the Institute and was informed that the plans would include a new building
and the moving of the present parking lot to another location on the property. Mr. Fisher
said this seemed to be an intensification of use. Mr. St. John said according to the
ordinances, an intensification of use only occurs if the entrance to the property changes
or if additional parking is required. Mr. Agnor noted that there are presently ninety
parking spaces on the property, and it is proposed that when the improvements are com-
pleted there will still be ninety parking spaces. Mr. Fisher said he was extremely
concerned that such drastic changes could be allowed to occur without having to file a
site plan. Mr. Fisher again asked Mr. St. John to check further into this situation and
report back as soon as possible during this meeting.
Agenda Item No. 4b. Other Highway Matters: Mr. Roosevelt said with regard to the
site proposed for Crozet Library, he would recommend one way traffic through the site in a
clockwise direction. Mr. Roosevelt said he had a copy of a sketch which he would deliver
to Mr. Tucker for incorporation into the architects report on this proposed site.
Mr. Agnor reported that a staff member had attended a conference in Richmond con-
cerning the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission study of the allocation of
construction funds for Virginia's roads and highways. Mr. Agnor said it was reported that
there are about twenty factors being considered for allocation of funds. Mr. Fisher said
he has felt a "definition of need"'should be included in the allocation formula based on
population growth. Mr. Fisher said additional pressure should be placed on the JLARC
Committee to use the most current population figures, rather than the census reports which
are updated only once a decade.
It was the consensus of the Board that Mr. Agnor attempt to encourage the JLARC
Committee to use the current population figures, rather than the census figures when
preparing allocation of funds procedures.
Mrs. Cooke requested Mr. Roosevelt to fill a "very deep hole" at the crossover on
Route 29 directly in front of the Real Estate III building. Mr. Roosevelt said he Would
have his crew look at the problem.
Mr. Butler noted receipt of a copy of a letter from Mr. Roosevelt to Mrs. Carol
Huffman regarding requested road improvements. Mr. Butler said he would like to find a
way that people living on very rural roads could obtain road improvements.'
Agenda Item 4a. Highway Matters Re: Site Plan Appeal Institute of Textile Technology
(continued). Mr. St. John said he has just completed speaking with Messrs. Tucker and
Hurt regarding this site plan. Mr. St. John said he was informed by Mr. Tucker that the
original site plan filed had an error which indicated there would be fourteen additional
parking spaces constructed. Since there will be no additional parking spaces, no site
plan procedure'is required.
Mr. Lindstrom said that conditions such as fire official approval of fire' flow,
compliance with Runoff Control and Soil Erosion Ordinances and drainage plan specifications
are all "triggered" by obtaining a building permit; but he was concerned about adequacy of
the existing drainfield and possible connection to the public water and sewer system. Mr.
St. John said that absent a mandatory connection policy or a very clear health hazard,
there is nothing the County can do to require water and sewer hookup.
Miss Nash asked about the new requirement in the Zoning Ordinance for an alternate
septic field location. Mr. St. John said that requirement cannot be applied in this
situation.
Mr. Lindstrom suggested that possibly the definition of the term "intensification of
use" should be redefined to include areas other than parking or entrance requirements.
Mr. St. John noted Zoning Ordinance Section 32.2.1(e), which sets out conditions under
which no site plan is required. Mr. St. John said the. Board would have to stay within the
scope of the exemption from the zoning process of nonconforming/preexisting uses which are
exempt from the zoning process. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if a nonconforming use could be
exempt from the ordinances if it was intended to construct a whole new facility even if
for the same purpose. Mr. St. John said there are laws which cover the expansion of a
nonconforming use and gave the example of the Monticello Memory Gardens request for a
mausoleum. Mr. Lindstrom then referred to Section 32.2.1(e) of the zoning ordinance which
refers to entrance improvements recommended by the Highway Engineer based on intensification
of use. Mr. Roosevelt said he has recommended improvements to the entrance, but would
have done so even without the intensification of use. Mr. Fisher said he could not under-
~tand how a 5,000 square foot structure and a new parking lot was not considered an
intensification of use. Miss Nash said this proposed structure is really a change in use
because it will be used for conferences, not for classrooms. Miss Nash also stated her
concern about saturation of the present septic system and the recommendation by the
'60I ~d ¢60~ ~oo~ p~
u~ ¢~ZI~A~@~oz~MD jo ~0 ~M~ jo ~noo ¢~no~D ~M~ jo ~o~jjo
~IO ~M~ u~ p~p~oo~ ¢696I ¢9~ @unf p~p p~p ~q ~uno~
@I~m~qIV jo p~o~ Ioo~ ~unoo @~ o~ p~uoo ~@do~d jo
uo~od ~ ~u~@q pu~ ~0~I ~d ~0g~ ~oo~ P~@G u~ ~II~@~oI~q0 jo
uoy~o@~ ~poo ~TuT~A o2 ~u~ns~nd ¢~unoo ~I~@qIV jo p~o~
oma JO ~Td wo (~j ~nb~ L~-00~¢gZ) so~o~ Z~9'T ~uTuT~uoo ~
:p~@p Mons o~ y~s s,@I~@qIv jo E~unoo ~M~ x~jj~
-$oI~MO jo E~YO ~M~ o2 E~do~d p~qy~os~p ~oy~q @M~ ~uyE~uoo p~p ~
o~ pgz~oq~n~ s~ s~os~@dn~ jo p~o~ o~ jo u~m~O oq~ ~
~@I~mgqIV jo ~unoo oq~ jo s~osyA~gdn~ jo p~o~ 9q~ ~q G~A~0~ZH ~I ~
X&H,~OHg HIOAH.WW,WH X~HO %A! ~O,~ ~WDXVHDX.W
NV ,~O .I, HV~ WV .W~IqIAW~,I,,I, OqHVHO ,~O %~I0 ~WH&
:s~oIIOJ s~ Egugo$~v E~unoo ~q~ jo 9o!jjo @q~ mo~j uoy~nIoss~ ~j~p ~ jo ~d$@o9~ ps~ou
uo uoy2ow pyas ~sMsyg '~ 'uoyss@s usdo o~uy ~o~q p@usAuoo@~ pg~o~ ~q~ '~'V ~:0Y ~V
'9uox
'qs~X ssyX pu~ ~o~spuyq ¢~@IU@H {~gqsyg 's~ssoX ¢@~oo0 's~X ¢~@I%n~
:WXVX
:W~XV
uoy~9II~ I~@I oq~ %~q~ g~oq o~ uoyss~s oAy~noox9 ~oj uoy~om ~q% ~oddns PlnO~ oq pyas
~og~spuy% '~X 'g@t~n~ 'gX Xq p~puoo~s s~ uoy~om @q~ 'sgs~m I~sI ~uyssnosyp jo ~sodgnd
sM~ ~oj uoIss@s sAI~nosxs o~uI ugno~p~ o% uoy~om sM~ @~m PInO~ ~q pyas ~sIUSH
· pgssnosyp 9q uoy~s~nb uy m@Iqogd I~I 9q~ jo 9~n~u oyjyoods oq~ uoyssnosyp 9q~ jo
~ss~no ~q% ~ ~q~ uoy~ypuoo sq~ uo sAy~nosxs o~uy ~uyo~ %~oddns pIno~ sM pyas
· g~ 'puy~ syM~ jo uoy~ssnb ~u~ goj @gnp@oo~d ~dogd ~ sq pIno~ ~M~ ~I~J ~q pyas uqof
· ~ '~ -uoyss@s @Ay~no@xs jo ~no yo~q ~moo o~ ~uYIIY~ sq pIno~ sM s~y~do~dd~uy
uoyssnosyp sM~ jy ~nq Cuoyss@s @Ay~nosx@ o~uy o~ o~ ~uYIIY~ s~ sq pyas ~sIUSH
'~M~Y~ II~ sy ~$ uoq~ uoy~ygdogdd~ 9q~ jo X~!I~oI oq% o~ p~9~ M~Y~ sy aY JY ~nq
uqof '~W '~ 'noyes@nb @q% s! ~q~ pyas gs~gy~ 'g~ 'uoy~gs 9Ay~noox@ ~oj uoyssnosyp
jo ~@~ 9~i~!~oI ~ s! ~y uoq~ Cuoy~ssnb uy sy JIOS~y uoy~y~dogdd~ @q~ ~o poq%@m
$o X~yI~91 9q~ jy ~q~ ~IoJ ~nq Cuoyssnosyp syq~ jo ~uyuuy~@q @q~ p~oq ~ou p~q @q
uqof '~S 'g~ -spunj jo ~jsu~ pu~ @ou~u!p~o noy~y~dogdd~ sq~ uy ~u~qo ~ ssnosyp o~
uoyss~s-@Ay~no@x~ u~ ~uy~s~nb9~ ~noq~ uoyuydo syq goj uqof '~W 'g~ P@~ gsqsy~
('X'V 80:0I ~ ~uy%oom 9q~ o~ pougn~s~ uqof -~S '~X)
~ ~ syq~ ~I@J @q pyas mog~spuy% .g~ '9ou~u!p~o ~q o~ suoy~y~do~dd~ pu~ go~m I~@I ~
s! @ou~uypgo u~ uy o~u~qo ~u~ ~q~ ~I@J oM pu~ suoy~oyIdmoo I~@I omos o~o~ 9~oq~ ~IsJ 9q
~q~ ¢oIIqnd uy sg@~m @sgq~ ssnosyp o~ qsy~ ~ou pyp sq pyas ~oqsy~ -~ 's9~n~qo ~9~pnq
pssodogd 9sgM~ mo~j ~Insg~ ~q~ym qoyq~ uoy~y~yi 9Iqyssod ~o ~nypu9d ~u~ jo 9g~ ~ou
s~ @q pyas mog~puy% 'g~ 'pgAIoAuy suos~gd uy~9o jo s~uyIssj 9M~ 9A~s o~ XIuo uoyssgs
SAy~n09x@ O~Uy O~ O~ @~ygdogdd~uy ~y ~I9J sM pu~ o$Iqnd uy s~s~%~m I~you~uyj ssnosyp o~
~yIyqysuods9~ ~ s~q p~o~ @q~ pyas mo~%spuy~ .~ 'I~9I u~q~ onssy I~Iou~uyj ~ @gom
uoIssnosyp goj gs%%~m sq~ ~I@J oM ~q~ p~pp~ mog~spuy~ 'gX 'uoys~nosyp ~oj P@Inp@~os
9Ay~nosx@ 9q~ goJ pouoysyAu9 ~9qsy~ 'g~ %~q~ o~ns ~ou s~ sM pyas mo~spuyq
ssy~Inoyjjyp sM~ ssnosyp pInoqs p~o~ sq~ ~I@J sM pyas gsMsyg 'gX 'uoy%o~sue~ Ie~sI ~
sw~ ~IsJ sM MoYM~ ¢@ou~uypgo uoy~y~dogdde sq~ u7 @~u~qo ~ s~eAy~d uy ssnosyp o% ~@p~o uy
· s~uompu@~V %9~pn~ pu~ s~gjsu~g~ Csuoy~y~do~ddv ~od@H
I~you~uyg ~86I ¢0~ sunf sM~ jo uosssnosIG '~'~ pu~ cg'~ ¢~.~ ~y.~ 'oM sms~I ~P~s~V
('~'V ~0:0I ~ ~uI~oo~ 9q~ ~J@T uqof
'~W '~X) 's~osyAgodn~ jo p~o~ @q~ Xq po~ynb@~ sy uoy~o~ ou pu~ CT~odd~ 9q~
~II~m~oj s~q ~u~oyIdd~ oq~ ~IInU somoooq uoyssymmoD ~uyuu~I~ oq~ Xq u9~ uoy~o~
Cpg~ynb@~ ey u~Id @~ys ou ~q~ PoIn~ s~q ~o~s!uympv ~uyuoz 9q~ oouys ~q~ pouy~Idxo uqof
'~S 'gX 'g@~m syq~ ~uyp~o~ uo~ @q o~ psposu sy uoy~o~ ~q~ poys~ ~@qsy~
M2I~@H @q~ '~@~sXs oy~dgs ~usso~d @q~ q~y~ ~zy~ smoIqo~d Ru~ jy ~q~ p@pp~ uMof '~
· 2ss sq ~ouu~o dn~ooq gs~@s oIIqnd ~Uy~ynbs~ uoy2ypuoo ~ 'ps~ynb@g sy u~Id @~ys ou
pyas uqof '~W 'g~ '~@~ss o!Iqnd o2 dn ~ooM PInoMs ~@dogd syq~ ~q% uoyssyur~oo
(~uyq. oo~ ~'~q ~In~) 886I 'II ~sn~n¥
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the deed papers have been drawn~up by the City of
Charlottesville for transfer of property near Ivy Creek to Albemarle County. Mr. St. John
said those papers have been prepared and are in order.
Motion was then offered by Miss ~Nash and seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the
resolution as presented. There was no further discussion, roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 6. Visitors Bureau' Annual Report. Ms. Betty McLemore and Mr. Michael
Ludgate were present representing the Visitors Bureau. Mr. Ludgate presented a detailed
written annual report to the Board (on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of
Supervisors) and then highlighted some of the more significant accomplishments. Mr.
Ludgate said that since 1980 tourist dollars spent in the Charlottesville area have
increased by 57% while those same dollars have decreased by 33% throughout the remainder
of the State. Mr. Ludgate noted that great efforts have been made to recruit bus tours to
the area and also to divert some of the tourists enroute to the World's Fair at Knoxville.
Lastly he noted that the Visitors Center has begun charging a fee of fifty cents to see
the movie "Mr. Jefferson's Legacy" and that proceeds are averaging $500 per week. Mr.
Fisher commented on behalf of the Board that members of the Visitors Bureau were doing an
excellent job.
Agenda Item No. 7. Property Committee Report on Scottsville School. Mr. Agnor
reviewed his memorandum dated August 6, 1982, to the Board of Supervisors as follows:
"The Property Committee has held a public meeting in Scottsvitle to hear the
citizen's request and recommendations on the future use of the former school
property. Additionally, a committee of five Scottsville area citizens has met
with the Property Committee and staff to discuss the ~ommunity's concerns, and
consider several alternative uses for the property. Miss Nash has participated
in a number of other discussions and-meetings with citizens on the matter.
The first priority of the community is to retain the recreation facilities and
programs which utilize the gymnasium and the ball fields around the school. The
second priority is to convert the building (classroom and office areas) to a
productive use through lease, sale or gift to assure that the property will not
remain vacant and be a liability to the community. The uses proposed included
housing, commercial or industrial use, church and church school, day care
center, and a center for the arts.
The Property Committee recommends the following:
1) The gymnasium wing (which includes two classrooms, cafeteria and rest
rooms) and adjacent land be retained for community uses.
2) The ball fields, one of which is on Uniroyal property, be continued in the
County recreation program. Representatives from Uniroyal have indicated their
willingness to provide the land for this purpose.
3) The remainder of the school building and adjacent smaller buildings be
sold.
4) To begin the sale process, that authorization be granted the staff to
employ an appraiser to establish the fair market value.
The property should be sold for no less than fair market value. That value can
be established by appraisal or by auction. The Property Committee was not in
favor of the auction process, and recommends that, if approved for sale, the
property be sold by advertisement for bids by interested purchasers.
There are several potential purchasers, primarily interested in converting the
property to housing for the elderly. Surveys of the Scottsville area indicate a
need for that housing and trips by staff toJother localities where vacant
school buildings have been converted to elderly housing projects with reser-
~hi~n of a portion of the property for community recreation uses, indicates
such conversions work'well. If the Board desires to stipulate the use in the
sale of the property, they can do so. Such restriction would probably affect
the market value. The property could be appraised with the restriction and
without the restriction, to determine the effect on its marketability, if the
Board so desires."
Mr. Fisher said he agreed that the building should be appraised, but.requested that
before any bids are solicited the public should be given an opportunity to investigate the
possibility of converting the structure into low income housing for the elderly or some
other semi-public use. Miss Nash agreed that the possibility of low income elderly housing
seemed the most feasible. Miss Nash said the construction of a dyke along the James River
would also have an affect on the appraised value'of the school building. Miss Nash then
offered motion to authorize the appraisal of the Old Scottsville School property for full
potential value, for use as low income elderly housing, both with and without the dyke in
place. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Roll was called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
331'
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Proposed Crozet Library Building. Mr. Agnor reported
that in accordance with instructions given by the Board of Supervisors, the.Perry Founda-
tion conducted a structural study of'the building as well as a study of the land use
management. Mr. Agnor said the building is architecturally sound and feasible for use as a
library. The land area is sufficient for parking, and the Perry Foundation is discussing
potential additional land for extra parking if required in the future. The Highway
Department has given it's approval of property ingress and egress. Mr. Agnor reported
that the Perry Foundation is continuing negotiations with the property owners, and if all
goes well, the Foundation will hire the architect and the architect will consult with the
Library Board of Trustees regarding the conversion of the property. When the project is
completed and ready to be occupied, the Perry Foundation will transfer ownership of the
property to the County of Albemarle.
Mr. Agnor then noted~ that the depot building will need to be connected to the new
sewage disposal system in Crozet, and that it is possible that the existing sewer pipes
may be able to be used to switch from the old system (which emptied into the Lickinghole
Creek) to the new package treatment plant installed by Windham, Inc. Mr. Agnor said the
Perry Foundation has requested that the Board consider incurring the expense of connecting
to the sewer system. Mr. Agnor said this might involve the cost for new pipe and the
payment of a connection fee to the Service Authority.
Mr. Fisher asked if the depot could legally be connected to the system. Mr. Agnor
explained that the depot building had been requested to be hooked to the Windham system,
but chose to close down the depot instead. Mr. Agnor said the estimate of costs, including
the connection fee, would be approximately $7,000.
Mr. Henley asked if the C & 0 Railroad (present owners of the building) would be
willing to grant an easement for placement of sewer pipes. Mr. Agnor said the Railroad
has agreed to grant an easement for the sewer pipe, even if it requires boring under
the track to install new pipe.
Mr. Fisher asked if any problems were foreseen in meeting site plan requirements or
land use ordinances. Mr. Agnor said if the impervious covered area is increased, there
may be some difficulty in meeting runoff control ordinance requirements, which might
result in the present parking remaining unpaved. Mr. Fisher asked if there were any way
to improve runoff in that area. Mr. Agnor said the architects are studying the possibility
of additional landscaping and grass areas to help control water flow from the area.
Mr. Fisher asked about noise from the trains and potential hazards of children
crossing the train tracks. Mr. Agnor said noise and frequency of trains passing the
building has not been studied in depth, but it is generally felt that it will create no
problem. Mr. Agnor said the Railroad will require a fence to be built on both sides of
the track for the full length of the property with a gate.at the point of crossing. Mr.
Agnor said there should be little need for people to cross the tracks, because adequate
parking will be available beside the building.
Mr. Agnor said the Perry Foundation is requesting the Board's approval of their
proceeding with this project. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the
following resolution:
WHEREAS, the Perry Foundation has offered to purchase or lease the
former Chessie System Railroad Depot property with Foundation funds,
including the renovation of the building for library use; and
WHEREAS, the Perry Foundation has further offered to transfer the
renovated property to Albemarle County for use as a library to serve the
Crozet community,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors that the proposal by the Perry Foundation is accepted with the
following understandings:
1. that all County Ordinances will be observed and fulfilled;
that the County of Albemarle agrees to pay connection fees and
costs of pipe installation or repair of presently existing pipes,
directly related in the connection of the Chessie System Railroad
Depot building to the Windham, Inc. package sewage treatment
plant, as required in Special Permit 80-59, approved by the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on October 15, 1980 (Minute
Book 19, page 352).
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby expresses its appreciation to the Perry Foundation
Trustees for assisting in providing these facilities for library services
to the citizens of Albemarle County.
Mrs. Cooke asked if an indepth study has been conducted as to the exact library needs
of the Crozet community. Mr. Agnor said the Perry Foundation has not conducted such a
study. Mr. Lindstrom offered to amend his motion to include a statement that the Library
Board concur in the suitability of this building for this purpose. Mr. Agnor said the
Library Board has agreed to the proposed buil-ding. Mrs. Karen Hayden, a member of the
Library Board, said the Library Board adopted a resolution accepting the offer of the
Perry Foundation. Mr. Lindstrom said he wished his motion to remain as originally stated.
Mr. Henley agreed to second the motion as originally stated. Roll was then called and the
motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Mr. St. John presented wording to amend Sections 32.7.6 and 32.2.3 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance and Section 18-4 of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance and adding
a new Section 18-17.1 to the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. St. John stated that these "house-
keeping measures" have been discussed with Mr. Tucker, and must be brought before the
Planning Commission. Mr. St. John requested the Board to adopt a resolution of intent as
follows:
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, intends to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
and the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance to redefine the term "person
aggrieved"; and
FURTHER REQUESTS the Planning Commission to hold public hearing on
said proposals to amend the County Zoning Ordinance and County Subdivision
Ordinance and report back to this Board at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Lindstrom asked for an explanation of the wording proposed for Section 18-17.1.
Mr. St. John explained that it will be required that the Planning Commission notify the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors upon approval or disapproval of any plat showing a
public facility as indicated in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. St. John explained that the
way the ordinances are presently worded, the Board of Supervisors would not be aware of
any such approvals unless a citizen appealed the plat.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adopt the resolution
of intent as requested by Mr. St. John. 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. 10. Discussion: Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional
Areas. Mr. Fisher said he thought this item was scheduled for public hearing today. Mr.
Fisher was informed by the Deputy Clerk that the legal advertisement requirements had not
been met and readvertisement would be necessary.
Mr. Agnor asked the Board to consider an emergency situation which has been in
existence for a number of months. Mr. Agnor said property owned by Mr. James T. Graves,
located on Woodburn Road, known as Tax Map 45, Parcel 27B, has been without water for a
number of months. Mr. Agnor said the public water line runs immediately adjacent to the
rear of the property and Mr. Graves would be eligible to connect to public water if the
jurisdictional· areas (project areas) map were amended as advertised.
Mr. Lindstrom asked the best way to solve Mr. Graves problem. Mr. St. John said the
entire project areas map could be revised as ordered advertised and adopted on an emergency
basis, or this single parcel could be delineated and granted hook up to the Service
Authority water line on an emergency basis. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to
extend water service as an emergency measure to property owned by Mr. James T. Graves,
located on Woodburn Road, known as Tax Map 45, Parcel 27B.
Mr. Fisher asked if anyone was present regarding the amendment to the project areas
of the Albemarle County Service Authority, or the property of Mr. James T. Graves. No
one was present wishing to speak either for or against the proposed amendment or emergency
measure. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Graves knew that this water line connection is only for
the presently existing structure and would not pertain to any new buildings. Mr. Agnor
said this was explained to both Mr. Graves and his attorney.
AYES:
NAYS:
The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Fisher said with regard to rescheduling the public hearing to amend the Albemarle
County Service Authority Project Areas Map, it could not be rescheduled for the day meeting
of September 8, 1982, because no quorum will be present. Mr. Fisher suggested the meeting
of September 8, 1982, be officially cancelled and rescheduled for September 15, 1982, and
then any public hearings set for September 8 could be rescheduled for September 15.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to cancel the regular day
meeting of the Board of Supervisors, scheduled for September 8, 1982, and reschedule same
for September 15, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
MOtion was then offered by Mrs. CooMe, seconded by Mr. Butler, to readvertise the
public hearing for amending the Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas Map for
September 15, 1982. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
333
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Agenda Item No. 11. Report: Berkeley/Four Seasons Flooding. Mr. Maynard L. Elrod,
County Engineer, was present and delivered the following report of drainage problems in
the Berkeley/Four Seasons Area, as written in his memorandum to the Board dated August 5,
1982:
"Statement of Problem
The major drainage problem in the subject area is the flooding that occurs
from Route 29 to a point on Four Seasons Drive approximately 1700 feet
upstream of Route 29. (Attached to report are three maps, which are on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.)
Cause of the Flooding
There are four structures in this reach of the stream that contribute to
the flooding. (Note: This study is preliminary and does not determine
which structure, if any, is the initial or primary cause of the problem.)
1. The culvert at Route 29 causes a back up of water to the red line
shown on the map.
2. The culvert at Commonwealth Drive backs up and causes flooding over
Commonwealth Drive and Four Seasons Drive.
3. The double line of culverts that crosses Four Seasons Drive 350 feet
upstream of Commonwealth Drive causes a back up that overtops Four Seasons
Drive. This overflow travels down the street section to Commonwealth
Drive, across Commonwealth Drive and across the Stark's property.
4. The dam at Four Seasons Lake overtops and the flow travels down Four
Seasons Drive.
Discussion
All of the above structures and the channels that connect them were de-
signed to carry the flow from a ten-year storm and seem to be adequate for
that storm. The ten-year criteria is an accepted engineering and economic
practice for secondary roads. What is acceptable for roads however, is not
adequate for homes and businesses.
Possible Solutions
Alternate A: Detention Basins. The total drainage area that drains to
Commonwealth Drive is 312 acres. Approximately two-thirds of that area is
already fully developed with no room left for detention basins (although it
may be possible to modify Four Seasons Lake to provide some detention if
the owner agreed). The runoff from the rest of the area, which is now
undeveloped, could be controlled as it develops, however, the present
Stormwater Detention Ordinance would not make an appreciable improvement
for the one hundred year storm since it only provides for some detention of
the ten-year storm.
This study is too preliminary to go further than stating the writer's
opinion that detention basins in the area upstream of Commonwealth Drive
will help the situation but will not solve the flooding at Commonwealth
Drive.
Alternate B: Channel and Culvert Improvements. A very preliminary study
was made to determine the size of channels and culverts that would be
required to control the one hundred year flood through the Commonwealth
Drive area. These structures are shown on map III. The estimated cost
range is $175,000 to $200,000.
No improvements were proposed for Route 29 since the back up from the
culvert does not affect Commonwealth Drive. These improvements would not
place any additional burden on the culvert at Route 29 since there is
really no ponding or detention occurring at Commonwealth Drive now.
The improvements through the Stark's~property would consist of a concrete
channel that would be five feet deep and fifteen feet wide. Some regrading
of the yard would be required but the lot and house would not be disturbed.
Conclusions
A. Detention basins above Commonwealth Drive will help but not solve the
flooding problem at Commonwealth Drive.
B. The use of the Stark property as a detention basin would not help the
problem at Route 29 because the volume of water that could be stored there
is far too small to be effective.
C. The only feasible way of controlling the one hundred year storm would
be a series of concrete culverts and channels that would cost $175,000 to
$200,000 and which would allow the Stark's home to remain.
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Elrod noted that if detention basins are constructed along with future develop-
?ment, the costs for improved culverts and channels could be redUced.
Mr. Fisher asked if there were adequate ordinances, etc. to require detention basins
in the new areas as they are developed. Mr. Elrod answered no, that he would require a
complete drainage study of the area, which would allow computer analysis of the problem
and possibly offer some solutions. Mr. Elrod said the stormwater detention ordinance only
speaks to a ten year storm and that it was his feeling that regional basins would be
required rather than having same on the site. Mr. Elrod said once a general detention
basin plan is established, developers could be required to follow those plans and con-
tribute toward their costs. Mr. Fisher asked who would be responsible for the maintenance
and inspection of those structures. Mr. Elrod felt it would be a public responsibility.
Mr. Fisher expressed concern that if channels are constructed in the Four Seasons/Berkele
community, it would cause fast moving water to flood other areas further downstream. Mr.
Fisher asked if the Four Seasons Lake were improved, would it retain sufficient water to
help improve the drainage situation. Mr. Elrod said the lake is only five acres, and
would make no noticeable improvement in severe storm situations. Mrs. Cooke asked if
there was anything which would help improve the situation at the Starks residence. Mr.
Elrod said the $200,000 in improvements just reviewed would be the only thing he could
recommend with any certainty of effectiveness.
Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the problem was far more widespread than just the flooding
which occurred at Berkeley/Four Seasons and the Starks property, and that it will take far
in excess of $200,000 to correct.
Mr. Fisher said he was not willing to expend that sum of money for the benefit of so
few people. Mrs. Cooke asked if the proposed improvements would only benefit the Starks
property and that of one adjacent neighbor. Mr. Elrod said improved culverts and channels
would only directly benefit those two families, but that such improvements would.leave the
roads in that area open and therefore benefit many. Mr. Lindstrom said he could not
justify the expenditure of even $100,000 to make these improvements. Mr. Lindstrom said
there are many problems of similar severity throughout the County and he could not justify
correcting the problem at Four Seasons for the benefit of so few people. Mr. Lindstrom
thanked Mr. Elrod for conducting the study because the information presented allowed him
to make a clear decision. Miss Nash said she agreed with Mr. Lindstrom and added that
another storm of this severity may not hit again for a very long time, and then it may not
affect the same area of the County. Mrs. Cooke said if this report had shown that the
$200,000 would completely solve the problem of flooding experienced by the Starks family,
she would fight to have it done. Mrs. Cooke said she cannot support that expenditure
because it will not solve the problem.
Mr. Elrod said he felt the conclusion shown in his preliminary study is that if the
channels and culverts are constructed, it will protect the Starks home from a one hundred
year flood. Mr. Agnor said nothing could ever be totally guaranteed because if a tree
fell and blocked one of those improved culverts, it could still create a severe flooding
problem. Mrs. Cooke said in view of this clarification she would offer motion to make
this proposal the first part of the overall county drainage study. Mr. Lindstrom said he
would second that motion with a qualification that he is supporting the entire overall
study, not specifically work to correct the problems of flooding being experienced by the
Starks family.
Mr. Elrod said such an overall study would be accomplished in two steps; first to
gather all the physical data, second to analyze that data via computer.
Mr. Agnor asked for a clarification of the motion asking if it was intended that when
the overall drainage plan is approved, that the Berkeley/Four Seasons area will be the
first area to be studied. Mr. Fisher said that was correct, that this motion was not
approval of the overall drainage plan study. Roll was then called and the motion carried
by the following recorded vote:
AYES:NAYS: Mr' None. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
At 12:28 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested motion to adjourn into executive session for the
purpose of discussing personnel matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by
Mr. Lindstrom, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
At 2:40 P.M., the meeting was reconvened back into open session.
Agenda Item No. 13. SP-82-38. Edward D. R. Naude. In accordance with Section
5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, request for a special use permit in order to locate a
mobile~home on 14.690 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property located two miles east of
Route 29 South on the north side of Route 633, County Tax Map 109, Parcel 47H, Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 12 and July 19,
1982.)
Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report and the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as follows:
Request: Mobile Home
Acreage: 15.49 acres
Zoning: RA Rural Areas
Location: Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcel 47H, located about two miles
east of Route 29 South on the north side of Route 633.
3 35
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Character of:the Area: This property is heavily wooded. Two dwelling
units are in the immediate vicinity, a single-family dwelling to the
west and a mobile home across Route 633. Other properties are wooded.
Staff Comment: This application comes before you due to complaint from M &
B Partnership, which owns five other undeveloped lots in the area.
(In selling this property to the applicant, M & B Partnership agreed
to removal of language from the deed which prohibited mobile homes.)
Staff opinion is that the mobile home, properly located, would be
effectively screened from adjoining properties and from Route 633.
Should the Commission and Board choose to approve this application,
Staff recommends the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
Maintenance of a 100 foot tree buffer around the perimeter of the
property except as necessary for access to Route 633.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on July 27, 1982, voted to recommend approval
with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Naude was present
and if he had any comments. Mr. Naude said. he would like to know more about the require-
ment of a one hundred foot tree buffer around the perimeter of the property. Mr. Naude
asked if this buffer was required of all mobile homeowners. Mr. Tucker said this is not a
typical requirement set by the Planning Commission, but felt it was most likely set to
retain the majority of the tree cover. Mr. Naude asked that the second condition be
removed, unless it is al~standard requirement of all mobile homes.
No one else wished to speak either for or against this special permit request, and
Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-82-38 with only the first condition,
stating that he felt all mobile home applications should be treated equally. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher asked if condition one would require some screening under Section 5.6.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said yes, that a representative'of the Inspections
Department visits the site and determines where and the amount of screening required.
There was no further discussion, and motion to approve SP-82-38 with the one condi-
tion requiring compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, was approved by the
f011owing recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 14. Final Report of 208 Watershed Management Study of the South
Rivanna Reservoir and Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of Runoff Control Permit
Applications. Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the 208 Technical Advisory Committee, and
Dr. Frank X. Browne were present to give this final report. Mrs. Cromwell gave a brief
summary of the goals and recommendations of the study. (Mrs. Cromwell's comments are on
file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, in a memorandum to the Board
dated August 11, 1982.)
Dr. Browne presented a slide presentation and dissertation on his report dated May
1982 (Copy of this report is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Super-
visors.) Dr. Browne said six major areas of conclusions were reached following this
study, in the areas of reservoir water quality; pollutant sources; regional sedimentation
ponds; runoff control ordinance; watershed management plan; and institutional. Dr. Browne
presented charts and other data regarding the eutrophic condition of the reservoir and
data collected from 1975 through 1981.
Dr. Browne said he would make the following recommendations as a result of this
study:
RESERVOIR WATER QUALITY:
Annual water quality monitoring should be performed to evaluate long-
term water quality trends.
The Rivanna Wa~er & Sewer Authority should continue to operate the
reservoir aeration system to further investigate its effectiveness.
Another bathymetric survey should be performed in 1986 to calculate
the present reservoir capacity and compare it to the capacity measured
in 1976.
POLLUTANT SOURCES:
1. Treatment plant effluents from point sources in the watershed should
be monitored for total phosphorus.
The effluent from Del Monte Frozen Foods wastewater treatment plant is
presently monitored for total phosphorus. Both total and soluble
phosphorus should be measured in the plant's effluent.
/ /
August ll, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
3..3.8
Additional monitoring of the major streams should be performed to
refine the pollutant loading relationships developed during the peresent
study and to develop a priority system for implementing best management
practices throughout the watershed. A relatively inexpensive monitoring
system, relating phosphorus content to settleable solids, may be
feasible and would significantly reduce the laboratory analyses
required.
If additional water quality problems arise in the Crozet area, an
intensive groundwater monitoring study should be performed in the
Crozet area to assess the impact of septic systems on water quality.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Local officials should continue to implement the 1979 Watershed Management
Plan.
Albemarle County should adopt the revised guidelines and methodology
for the Runoff Control Ordinance.
The installation of regional sedimentation ponds upstream of the
Rivanna Reservoir should be considered when implementing watershed
management activities.
The Watershed Management Official should continue to coordinate
watershed management activities. He should periodically send a brief
update or progress report on watershed management activities to
agencies involved in watershed management activities.
A financial management study should be performed to determine the most
cost effective financial and institutional approach to watershed
management.
The Board of Supervisors should investigate whether partial or com-
plete funding assistance for performing a financial management study
is available from the State Water Control Board. Such funding may be
available through the Environmental Protection Agency's 205-J Clean
Water Act Program.
The Board of Supervisors should appoint a committee composed of one
member each from the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Soil Conser-
vation. Service, County citizen, farming interests and the Watershed
Management Official to:
a) Establish guidelines for administering the watershed management
program to encourage best management practices on farms in the water-
shed.
b) Investigate ways and means to implement and fund these management
activities.
c) Investigate the current Use Value Taxation program to determine
what measures could be adopted that would allow the County to tie any
such tax benefits to the landowners performance in maintaining and
continuing to implement a management program.
Following the completion of Dr. Browne's presentation. Mr. Agnor requested the Board
to accept this report and refer it to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Agnor
said the County Engineer would be involved in this review since Mr. Elrod is a member of
the technical committee.
Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to accept the recom-
mendation of the County Executive and accept the Final Report of the 208 Watershed Manage-
ment Study of the South Rivanna Reservoir and Guidelines for the Preparation and Review of
Runoff Control Permit Applications.
Mr. Lindstrom.asked.if the point source pollutants were eliminated or more effectively
curtailed, Wo6ld it reflect an improved water quality in the reservoir. Dr. Browne said
if a major point source of pollutants were removed, in time there is a good possibility
that there wouldbe a direct improvement to water quality.
There was no further discussion.. Roll was called and the motion to accept the report
as presented by Dr. Browne carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters. Mr. Fisher noted with regard to the proposed
Buck Mountain Creek Reservoir, that the Charlottesville City Council has not yet taken any
action on the recommendation from the Rivanna Water and Sewer~ Authority. Mr. Fisher also
noted that the moratorium on building on land-in the vicinity of the proposed Buck Mountain
Creek Reservoir is due to expire onAugust 13, 1982. Mr. Fisher said the staff has
prepared an emergency ordinance regarding extension of this.moratorium as follows:
337
August ll, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTION 5-B.1 OF THE
CODE OF ALBEMARLE DEALING WITH RESTRICTIONS ON
THE ISSUANCE OF CERTAIN BUILDING PERMITS
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County as follows:
(1) That Section 5-B.1 of the Code of Albemarle be, and it hereby is,
amended as follows:
section 5-.B.l. Rest~ric'~i'ons on issuance of certain permits~
No permit shall be issued for the construciton of any building within any
area identified with reasonable specificity in the comprehensive plan ~.- .__ L_
for acquisition for public use for the period of two years from the delineation
of such area on the plan, or amendment thereof, whichever shall be shorter;
provided however, that no such permit shall be issued within the area so iden-
tified in the plan for development of a public drinking water impoundment on
Buck Mountain Creek shall be issued prior to October 10, 1982. The foregoing
notwithstanding, the building official may issue such permit in order to prevent
unnecessary hardship in the application of this section. The standards set
forth in Section 15.1-495(b) shall apply to the determination of the existence
of such hardship hereunder mutatis~mutandis.
For purposes of this section, a building shall be deemed to be within the
area herein specified if the building, the sewerage system or any part of either
of~them shall~be located within the area so identified fOr acquisition.
Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to add to any rights which may be
acquired in any property subsequent to the expiration of any period of reserva-
tion set forth in the plan.
(2) The Board of Supervisors hereby determining that an emergency exists,
in accordance with Section 15.1-504 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
for foregoing amendment shall have effect immediately, but shall be enforced for
not more than ~ixty days unless readopted in conformity with the notice pro-
visions set'forth in such section.
Mr. St. John said this proposed ordinance simply extends the present ordinance (a
building permit moratorium in the area of Buck Mountain as presently shown in the Compre-
hensive Plan) until October 10, 1982. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the area described in the
Comprehensive plan IS the same as that presently being sought for the Buck Mountain
project. Mr. William K~ Norris, Watershed Management Official, presented a detailed map
of the proposed reservoir area. Mr. St. John said the Board should simply make this new
map an adopted part of the comprehensive Plan as an emergency measure. Mr. Fisher said he
felt the best way to handle the situation was to adopt this map as an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan on an emergency' basis, then adopt the resolution as suggested by the
County Attorney. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the emergency amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan showing as the Buck Mountain Reservoir the area on the map entitled
"Buck Mountain wa~t~rshed Management Map, August ll, 1982", for acquisition or easement. He
added for the record that the map shows the buffer area, the easement area, the easements
along the tributary streams and the pool area. The motion was seconded 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.
Mr. Fisher said the public hearing date to make the amendment permanent should be set at
this time. Mr. Agnor noted that the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must be heard by the
Planning Commission first. Mr. Fisher suggested October 6, 1982, as the date for the Board's
public hearing. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to
hold a public hearing on the above amendment to the Comprehensive. Plan on October 6, 1982, and
to adopt the folIoWing resolution:
THE Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, has this date
amended the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan by the addition of a new map
showing the area proposed for a water supply reservoir on Buck Mountain Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle C~ounty Planning
Commission is directed to hold a public hearing on this emergency amendment
to the Comprehensive Plan and to return its recommendation to the Board before
October 6, 1982, .the date scheduled by the Board for a public hearing on this
amendment.
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.
Miss Nash offered motion to adopt the ordinance offered by Mr. St.~ John entitled "An
Ordinance to amend Section 5-3.1 of the Code of Albemarle dealing with Restrictions on the
Issuance of Certain Building permits", but that the first sentence of the ordinance be
amended to read "NO permit shall be issued for the construction of any building within any
area identified with reasonable specificity in the Comprehensive Plan as amended for
acquisition .... "and striking the words "shall be issued" after the words "Buck Mountain
Creek". The Board members agreed with Miss Nash's suggestion. The motion was then seconded
by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
338
Mr. Fisher said a public hearing will have to be held within sixty days of this date
or the ordinance will expire. Mr. St. John stated that this ordinance will be heard at
the same hearing, in case this also needs to be extended.
Mr. Fisher said he wished to emphasize his strong desire that this matter be resolved
as soon as possible. He said the property owners in the Buck Mountain area need a final
decision. (At 3:45 P.M., Mr. Henley left the meeting and did not returns)
Agenda Item No. 12. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said he wished to nominate for
consideration by the Board, the' name of Mr. L. Glyndon Morris, Jr., for appointment to the
Youth Services Commission. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Morris is entering the tenth grade at
Western Albemarle High School, with a straight "A" grade average, and he has expressed
interest in serving on this commission.
Motion was offered by Mr. Butler to appoint Mr. L. Glyndon Morris, Jr. to the Youth
Services Commission for a term to begin immediately and end on February 1, 1984. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and MiSs Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of
the following letter from Mr. James Morrisard, dated August 3, 1982, of General Electric
Company in Charlottesville:
"The purpose of this letter is to request that the Board of Supervisors for
County of Albemarle opts for and passes an ordinance that grants property tax
exemption to 'Certified Pollution Control Equipment in the County' - specifi-
cally, Industrial Waste Treatment Facilities installed and operated by the
General Electric Company on Route 29 North at Route 606.
Section 58-16.3 of the Code of Virginia, 1959 (as amended 1972) states that
certified pollution control equipment, as defined therein, is declared to be a
separate class of property and constitutes a classification for local taxation
separate from other such classification of real or personal property and such
property. The governing body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance,
exempt or partially exempt such property from local taxation. It is hereby
requested that the County of Albemarle adopt such an ordinance exempting such
facilities from real and property taxes.
The C~mo~w~~a~%~i~inia State Water Control Board in a latter dated March
17, 1982, certified that the subject facility should be classified as 'Pollution
Control Equipment and/or Facility'. A copy of the correspondence related to
this certification is attached for yaur information."
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board wished to have the staff review this request and make a
recommendation to the Board. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to
have the staff review this request by General Electric Company,~ and bring a recommendation
back to the Board as soon as possible. Roll was called and the motion carried by the
following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Leonard Burnley, Chairman of the Thomas
Jefferson Planning District Commission, commending the Board of Supervisors and the Char-
lottesville City Council for their efforts to study consolidation. It was suggested in
that letter that an analysis of various alternatives be made of how such possible con-
solidation would affect other area local governments. It was noted in the letter that the
Planning District Commission's staff would be available to help in such an analysis.
Agenda Item No. 4.1. Discussion of the June 30, 1982, Financial Report. (Note: At
3:55 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting.) Mr. Ray B. Jones was present, and summarized
his memorandum.dated July 29, 1982, as follows:
"Attached is a copy of the June 30, 1982, financial report. The County books for
the fiscal year 1981-82 were held open through July 27 to account for all revenues
and expenditures in the proper year. The auditors will accrue all revenues and
expenditures after the above date in the annual report. The following comments
are applicable to the various categories.
REVENUES
Property Taxes: There was a 2.3% over-collection of the estimated amount or
$330,281. Generally the annual estimates were on target.
Other Local Taxes: The over-collection in this category was 9.32% amounting to
$522,386. Included in this category is the Utility License Tax which brought in
$193,248 which was imposed through adoption of a new ordinance during FY 81-82
and not budgeted. Also, rate changes on Business and Professional Licenses
increased net revenues from this source by approximately $240,000. However,
local sales tax was over estimated by $76,465. The economic situation has
affected this source significantly especially during the last quarter of the
fiscal year. If this trend continues, local sales tax receipts in the current
fiscal year will be far under the budgeted estimates.
339
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Permits and Fees: This major category was the hardest hit of all categories.
Only 61.6% of the estimate was reached.
Recovered Costs: There were paybacks or refunds in recovered costs, i.e., Ivy
Creek Natural Area, Health Department, etc. that produced $200,000 of revenue,
most of which was not budgeted.
The category of Local Revenue in General Fund revenues was $1,008,772 over-
collected. However, this does not present the total revenue picture of the
General Fund because there were shortfalls in some State sources.
State Revenues of the General Fund:
1. Shared expenses were short by 7.25% of the estimate; shortfall of $83,137.
shortfall of 25% or $304,046 due primarily to
cut-backs in Social Service Programs.
Net shortfall of State revenues for General Government amounted to $309,742.
Appropriations from General Fund Balance: The combined total of special appro-
priations through the year from the General Fund amounted to $429,115. The net
result of the over-collections in local revenue, shortfalls in State revenues,
and appropriations during the year, is $110,764. If you deduct the appropria-
tions of $429,115, the General Fund over-collected $539,879.
SCHOOL REVENUES
State Revenues of the School Fund: There was a net shortfall of $260,331
primarily in State Sales Tax ($131,700), Special Education ($113,697), and
Vocational Education ($29,521), from State sources. There were other over-
collections to off-set these three shortfalls to create the net amount above.
Federal Revenues of the School Fund: The Federal revenues were over-estimated
'$'285,442 which was due to the cut-backs in the Federal Programs.
Total: The combined shortfall in Revenue flowing directly to the School Operating
Fund was $590,849.
EXPENDITURES
General Operations: There was a net unexpended balance in the forty-one various
departments and functions in General Operations amounting to $718,086 or 2.85%.
Of these, only three had over-expended balances which resulted from leaving the
books open into July.
School Operations: Of the twenty-five various functions in the Department of
Education, the unexpended balance is $697,396. The three over-expenditures can
be handled by transfers. Those transfers will be submitted to the School Board
on August 9, and to the Board of Supervisors on August 11, along with a transfer
request to cover those in General Operations. Of the unexpended balance, the
largest amount ($285,109.35) was in Federal School Programs and energy related
functions such as Pupil Transportation ($87,275.62) and Fixed Charges ($203,580).
Also, I have sent a memorandum to Dr. Gutierrez on the School Fund Advance which
was reduced by $248,806.61 from $1,036,141 to $790,339.39.
SUMMARY
The County ended the fiscal year in a strong financial position as had been
predicted sometime ago in a report on funding the Capital Improvements Budget.
However, there are several areas where caution should be exercised.
Many of the unexpended balances came about by the cost of gasoline going from
$1.I6 to $.86 during the year. However, the cost of gas rose back to $1.06 in
the last ninety days of the fiscal year, an 18% increase.
Electricity costs are expected to increase ten percent for the year beginning
July 1, according to my conversation with representatives of the VAC0-VML and
VEPCO negotiating team. The same prediction is true of natural gas costs.
The State Deputy Secretary of Finance is predicting a five percent cutback in
State funding from the original allocations for FY 82-83. This applies to
categorical aid in Education and general government. If this occurs, there will
be a shortfall in revenues for Education amounting to approximately $200,000
with an equal amount of shortfalls in the various state supported general
government operations.
From a local revenue standpoint, there is currently a 'leveling off' trend in
sales taxes, business receipts, permit fees, etc. The revenue growth projected
for these sources in FY 82-83 may not be reached because of the current state of
the economy.
These current circumstances are mentioned to make everyone involved aware of the
fact that some areas where cost savings were experienced in FY 81-82 may not be
there in FY 82-83."
August 1i, 1982 (Regular DaY Meeting)
(Note: At 4:05 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom~r~turned to the meeting.)
"TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez, Superintendent
Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance
School Fund Advance
The fiscal year 1981-82 books were closed on July 27, 1982. Revenues and expenses
'known and measurable' were accounted for in the proper period with the exception
of FICA costs on those eleventh and twelfth month salaries of ten-month contract
employees. This was not accrued because it is not payable until August and
September and also it would have meant showing thirteen months of costs for FICA
in the same fiscal year. We did account for all salaries and fringe costs on
the regular June payroll.
Even though there were some shortfalls in Revenues and slight over-runs in three
expenditure functions, the Department of Education operated in the 'black' to
the extent of a $248,801.61 reduction of the advance to the School Fund from the
General Fund.
The School Fund advance of $1,039,141 for fiscal year 1981-82 was reduced to
$790,339.39. Additional accruals by the Auditors may change this figure slightly
but I do not think there will be a~significant change.
I have discussed with Dr. Barton the need to make transfers for over-runs in the
following functions:
17A Administration $ 2,288.09
17C1 Attendance & Health Services 1,271.93
17F2 Fixed Charges 26~850.95
$30,410.97
Dr. Barton plans to bring this before the School Board on August 9 as a transfer
from another function which had adequate unexpended balance on June 30, 1982,
such as 17D1, Pupil Transportation ($87,275.68) or 17Fl', Operation of School
Plant ($78,514.02). He plans to request approval by the School Board on August
9 and I will follow up with a request to the Board of Supervisors on August 11."
Mr. Jones said this report is based on figures through June 27, and that these figures
will also be accrued by the audit process. Mr. Jones said normally there is not a signi-
ficant moving of figures during the 45 day accrual period. Mr. Jones then noted that
gasoline costs have increased by 18%, electricity increased by 10%, and natural gas has
also increased. These utility increases, along with the predicted 5% cutback by the State
for education will create added problems in the coming fiscal year.
Mr. Fisher asked if an official communication has been given to the School Board
about the 5% cutback. Mr. Jones said Dr. Gutierrez has been notified. Mr. Fisher recom-
mended that the School Board be notified directly. Lastly, Mr. Jones stressed that the
figures he has presented are subject to change by the audit and are not yet considered
firm.
Agenda Item No. 4.1. Reappropriations. Mr. Jones said this request results from a
program or project not being completed within the fiscal year in which the funds were
initially appropriated.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash to adopt the following resolution:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia,.
that $6,220.24 be, and the same hereby is, reappropriated from the General
Fund as follows:
1101-3002.06
1101-3002.09
8101-3006
9103.1-5627
Central Police Dispatching Study
Risk Management Insurance Study
Binding of Records
Visitor's Bureau
$ 87.00
3,000.00
1,700.00
1~433.24
$6,220.24
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr.-Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4.3. Transfers within the Grant Fund. Mr. Jones noted that the
following transfers from the Esmont Health Center and the Crozet Elderly.Housing Project
to the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program have been received and approved by State and
Federal officials.
Motion was offered by Miss Nash to approve the following transfers within the Grant
Fund:
From:
9302-5844 Esmont Health Center $6,981.41
9302-5845 Crozet Elderly Housing 1,465.99
To: 9302-5843 Albemarle Housing Improvement
Program 8,447.40
The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
NAYS:
ABSENT:
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meeting)
Mr. Jones next requested the transfer of $4,562 from Personnel to three categories
within the general fund for fiscal year 1981-82. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to
approve the following transfers within the General Fund:
From: 1203 Personnel $4,562.00
To: 1204 Legal Services 1,411.00
2106 Clerk of Circuit Court 1,315.00
2201 Commonwealth's Attorney 1,836.00
The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Agenda Item No. 4.4. Budget Amendments. Mr. Jones requested the Board of Super-
visors to advertise the following budget amendments and appropriations for public hearing
to be held on September 15, 1982, as shown in his memorandum dated August 5, 1982, as
follows:
"Pursuant to the ruling by the State Auditor's Office, you are hereby requested
to advertise the following for public hearing and authorize the appropriation
after a public hearing.
REVENUE
9302-9999.99 Unallocated Fund Balance (Proceeds of Grants)
$157,115.53
EXPENDITURES
9302-5843
9302-5842
9302-3011
9302-5847
9302-5855
Albemarle Housing Improvement Program
Solid Waste
Driver Training
Community Diversion Program
Protective Services (Juvenile Court)
$ 16,540.73
1,816.86
2,425.94
135,400.00
932.00
$157,115.53
For FY 82-83, the budget did not include anticipated grants. It was decided to
add them upon final allocation and approval due to the uncertainty of Block
Grants earlier this year. The money has been received for AHIP and Solid Waste.
Official notice of approval on Community Diversion and Protective Services has
been received by the County."
Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to set September 15,
1982, as the date of public hearing, and that the above appropriation requests be properly
advertised for that hearing. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT: Mr. Henley.
Mr. Jones requested the Board of Supervisors to advertise the following budget amend-
ment for public hearing to be held on September 15, 1982, as shown in his memorandum dated
August 5, 1982, as follows:
"Funds have been received in the amount of $4,079 for the Charlottesville
Albemarle Clean Community Commission Grant. You are hereby requested to
advertise the following for public hearing and authorize the appropriation.
REVENUE
102404.070
Charlottesville Albemarle Clean Community Commission $4,079.00
EXPENDITURE
9302-5840
Charlottesville Albemarle Clean Community Commission $4,079.00"
Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to set September 15, 1982,
as the date of public hearing, and that the above appropriation request be properly
advertised for that hearing. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Mr. Jones next presented the following memorandum dated August 4, 1982, for the
Board's information:
"Block Grants for Juvenile Court Service Units and Sheriff's Allocation for
Former Division of Motor Vehicle Services
Notice was received dated May 26, 1982, of a Block Grant in the amount of $932
for the fiscal year 82-83 to provide Protective Service for juveniles through
the Juvenile Court. These programs include various services ordered by the
Court such as psychoanalysis, psychiatric analysis for juveniles. In previous
years, these services were ordered by the Juvenile Court and the State of Virginia
paid the bill.
August 11, 1982 (Regular Day Meetin~g)
Ms. Cookie Scott at the Juvenile Court has said that the 1981-82 annual cost
amounted to only $960. In her words, "the $932 annual allocation will only
cover one Juvenile". As of this date, we have received the first quarter's
allocation in the amount of $233.
The question is: when the Court orders Ms. Scott to provide these services, if
the cost is in excess of the State Funding, who is liable to pick up the excess
costs. No funds were appropriated in the County Budget for this purpose. ~
In the case of another action by the General Assembly, the Sheriff was allocated
$3,600 by the Compensation Board for the entire year for part-time help. The
Sheriff was allocated $3.00 for regular service and $12.50 for surrender of
license for the Division of Motor Vehicles. Last year this work was done by a
DMV Marshall and probably cost the State $30,000 or more in Albemarle County
alone for one person's salary, fringe costs, uniforms, vehicle, etc. I notice
in the newspapers that Fairfax County's Sheriff is taking legal action on this
matter. In many instances, a deputy will have to make several trips. Three
dollars will not cover one-fourth hour's salary not to mention the cost of
travel, fringes, etc. During July, the Sheriff was requested by DMV as summons
to pick up twenty-three licenses. About one-half or more of the DMV summons
have incorrect addresses and are returned to DMV with a lot of effort resulting
in no final action.
I bring these two examples to your attention to point out how the General
Assembly has recently~gotten credit for "support of locally-operated pro-
grams" whereas in the end, it has been used as a tool to pass on some of the
former costs of State Government to the localities."
Agenda Item No. 15. Other Matters Not On The Agenda.
following letter dated July 21, 1982:
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the
"On Tuesday, July 13, 1982, Chris Hicks, a thirteen year old resident of Camelot
Subdivision drowned while rafting in the Rivanna River, just south of our
subdivision. Although Chris was a good swimmer, the undertow caused by water
falling over the dam pulled him under resulting in his drowning.
There are no signs in the area to warn of the very dangerous conditions.
Several years ago the area below the dam was dredged, leaving the deep hole at
the foot of the dam with the dangerous undertow.~
The residents of Camelot Subdivision ask that an investigation be made to
determine what can be done to correct this matter."
Mr. Fisher asked if the Board has any recommendationS concerning this letter. Mr.
Agnor said he would recommend forwarding a copy of this letter to the staff for study and
recommendation at a later date.
Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following memorandum dated August 11, 1982, from
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, regarding a Housing Rehabilitation Study:
"The Department of Planning, in cooperation with the Albemarle Housing
Improvement Program, will be conducting a sample housing and income survey
in several areas of the County during the next two weeks. The information
is needed in order to apply for a Community Development Block Grant -
Housing Rehabilitation Program from the State.
Localities across the State that are applying for these funds will be
conducting similar surveys in the next few weeks, as U.S. Census infor-
mation will unfortunately not be available until the winter of 1982. The
survey will be a sample type and will consist of only three or four questions.
If you or any residents in your district have any questions concerning the
survey, please give me or Keith Mabe a call. We are informing various
organizations and churches in the areas to assist in the participation."
Mr. Fisher said he hoped that when requests were made for specific salary figures,
that the citizens understand that such answers are voluntary and confidential,
Mr. Agnor presented a letter dated July 6, 1982, from the State Water Control Board
regarding a public hearing to be held on August 31, 1982, at 9:00 A.M., in the Executive
Motor Inn, 5215 West Broad Street, Richmond, Virginia. This public hearing regards the
administering of Federal Grant funds for financial assistance in the construction of
municipal wastewater treatment works. Mr. Agnor noted that the Rivanna Water and Sewer
Authority's Crozet Interceptor line is listed as number nine on this priority list.
Mr. Agnor said he has gotten a summary of statutes from Mr. Roger Wiley, City Attorney
for Charlottesville, regarding mergers, for the Consolidation Committee.
343.
Aug~_ust 11, 1982 ~Regular Da~ Meetin~
Miss Nash said she has received telephone calls from citizens complaining about a
Garage on Route 53 which is presently operating under a court order. Mr. Agnor said the
Inspections Department makes regular inspections of this site and if the operation is
found in violation again, the problem will be brought back to court.
Agenda Item No. 16. At 4:59 P.M., motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs.
Cooke, to adjourn to 2:00 P.M., on September 1, 1982. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash.
None.
Mr. Henley.
Chairman