Loading...
1982-09-15 rescheduled day mtgSeptember 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) · ':364 A rescheduled meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 15, 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 (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 9:08 A.M.), Mr. Gerald E. Fisher~ Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:19 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, Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:12 A.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. Consent Agenda. The consent agenda containing two items requiring approval by the Board, and seven items for general information, was presented. Motion was immediately offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to accept and approve the consent agenda as presented. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Item No. 2.1. Statement of Expenses for the Director of F~nance, Sheriff, Common- wealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of August, 1982; approved as required by the State Compensation Board. Item No. 2.2. Lottery Permit. Application for a lottery permit for the Broadus Wood P.T.A., Earlysville, Virginia, for games on November 12, 1982, was approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. item No. 2.3. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of July, 1982, was presented in accordance with Section 63.1-52 of the Code of Virginia. Item No. 2.4. Letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated August 17, 1982, was received. Attached was a copy of the Six Year Plan for Secon- dary road improvements in Albemarle County, which was adopted by the Board of County Supervisors on August 4, 1982. Item No. 2.5. Letter from C & P Telephone dated August 17, 1982, regarding an application for rate increase filed with the State Corporation Commission. Item No. 2.6. Letters from Centel of Virginia dated August 31 and September 1, 1982, regarding public hearing for an increase of rates before the State Corporation Commission. Item No. 2.7. Letter from the Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission dated August 16~ 1982, regarding the nomination of Mirador at Greenwood in Albemarle CounTy for the Virginia Landmarks Register. Item No. 2.8. Notice from the Army Corp of Engineers dated September 3, 1982, regarding issuance of a State Program regional permit for 1) Aerial transmission lines or other cables crossing over navigable waters of the United States and 2) Groins. Item No. 2.9. Copy of the Agreement regarding the Shared Services for handicapped students between the School Board of the County of Albemarle and the School Board of the City of Charlottesville, dated July 26, 1982. (This was requested by the Board at its meeting with the Albemarle County School Board on September 2, 1982.) Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Fisher said he found only one correc- tion necessary in the minutes of February 17, 1982, that being on page 70 in the last paragraph. Mr. Fisher said in order to be correct, the sentence should read as follows: "...property in the locality ~a~e had been appraised at its market value." Messrs. Butler, Fisher and Henley reported the following list of minutes to be correct as presented: April 7, April 21, April 28, May 13, May 19 (Afternoon), May 19 (Night), and May 24, 1982. Miss Nash reported she had not read her assigned minutes of May 12, 1982, and Mr. Lindstrom was not present to report on the minutes of December 9, 1981, March 10 and June 16, 1982. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to approve the minutes of February 17, April 7, April 21, April 28, May 13, May 19 (Afternoon), May 19, (Night) and May 24, 1982, with the correction as noted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 4a. Highway Matters: Request from Stromberg Carlson regarding vacation of right-of-way. (NOTE: Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 9:19 A.M.)Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the following staff report' "Stromberg-Carlson has requested that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors vacate a sixty foot right-of-way located between its site and Commonwealth Drive and that the property be conveyed to Stromberg-Carlson. A section of Jefferson Towne Apartments is located on the northeast side of the right- of-way and the Westfield duplex development is located, on the southwest. While at least one lot in Westfield has physical access to the right'of- way, all lots in Westfield have deeded access. Due to the proximity of the apartment and duplex buildings, Staff would recommend landscape buffering from the right-of-way. The Comprehensive Plan does not recommend a public road in this location. Should the Board choose to vacate this right-of-way and convey the fee to Stromberg-Carlson, Staff recommends the following conditions: Provision of six, eight-foot white pines, fifteen feet on center, along both sides of the right-of-way, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Provision of access easement and reconstruction of entrance (if necessary) to serve Westfield duplex lots to the southwest. Note: Should the right-of-way be vacated, the zoning designation of the property would become subject to interpretation by the Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with Section 34.2 of the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Fisher asked if any of the adjacent property owners were notified of this request to vacate the right-of-way. Mr. Tucker said the property owners have not been notified at~ this time. Mr. Dan Cook, representing Stromberg-Carlson, said several traffic surveys were taken in conjunction with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to attempt to improve the traffic flow from Stromberg-Carlson's parking lot onto surrounding roads. Mr. Cook said that currently, most of their employees use the exit on Greenbrier Drive. If this right-of-way onto Commonwealth Drive were opened, about 30% of the employees state that they would use this new exit, thus, relieving a great deal of traffic congestion in other areas. Mr. Fisher asked if the right-of-way were to be vacated, if the only people using this right-of-way would be the employees of Stromberg-Carlson and the residents of one duplex lot which presently has direct access onto this right-of-way. Mr. Cook said that was his understanding, that there are no other lots with direct access to this right-of- way. Mr. Fisher recommended that a public hearing be set for October 13, 1982, on this request and that written notification be sent to all adjoining property owners and that an advertisement be placed in the newspaper. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to advertise this request for a public hearing on October 13, 1982, as required by the Code of Virginia. 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. 4b. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Tucker reported on the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study (CATS). Mr. Tucker said there was very little public response to the proposal, and that the study will be before the Board of Supervisors for public hearing sometime in the near future. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said he received a complaint from a citizen about a dangerous manhole cover on Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Elrod said that in his investigation of the matter, he discovered that approximately 200 feet of this road has never been taken into the State Secondary Highway System. Mr. Elrod said he has spoken to Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and it was felt that the best solution to this problem would be for the County and the Highway Department to split the cost of bringing this portion of Greenbrier Road up to state standards and have it accepted into the State Secondary System. Mr. Fisher asked-how much the County's share of such a project would be. Mr. Elrod said the rough estimate was about $2,000 for the whole project. Mr. Agnor gave a brief history of this section of Greenbrier Drive. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Robert Warner, predecessor to Mr. Roosevelt, had recommended that this section of Greenbrier Drive be brought into the State System at the same time that the road from the Rock Store on Hydraulic back toward Greenbrier was completed. Mr. Agnor said that is no longer a possibility, since the road which was developed was cul-de-saced rather than made a connecting road. Mr. Lindstrom said to take in this portion of Greenbrier Drive with County funds would set a precedent, and he requested a list of all such roads from Mr. Elrod so the County would be aware of all possible future requests. Mr. Elrod noted that Mr. Ashley Williams, the Acting County Engineer prior to Mr. Elrod's appointment, had prepared such a list, but that the list needs to be narrowed down since it includes all such roads through- out the County, not just in the urban area. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Elrod if this problem on Greenbrier Drive was so urgent that it should be worked on immediately. Mr. Elrod said he feels there is great potential for an accident on this road and he would recommend that either the road be closed or repaired immediately. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that the County Engineer do whatever is necessary with County funds to make Greenbrier Drive safe. September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) 366 Mr. St. John asked who built the portion of Greenbrier Drive in question. Mr. Tucker said he did not know. Mr. Henley asked if there was any way to make the developer pay for the improvements. Mr. St. John said it should be explored before the County undertakes this project, because under the law, the County would be assuming a responsibility that the County presently does not have. Mr. St. John said the County should exhaust every means to hold the builder of this road responsible before the County undertakes what is actually the developer's responsibility. Mr. Fisher said he recalls that this has been attempted several times with no success. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there was a distinction in terms of liability as to whether it should be made safe or fixed to standards where it could be accepted into the State system. Mr. St. John answered that the road has been dedicated to public use and since the County has accepted the dedication as part of a subdivision, the County owns the fee. Mr. St. John said he felt the County should go ahead with the work and recapture the costs from whomever is responsible. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. St. John meant to only repair the road or bring it to State standards. Mr. St. John said the County should bring it to State standards. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the "safety hazard" statement by Mr. Elrod would avoid a precedent being set and thus forcing the County to fix all similar roads in the County. Mr. St. John replied no, that citizens could always argue that there are elements of safety involved with other such roads in the County. Mr. Lindstrom said since he did not get a second to his original motion, he would offer a new motion to adopt the following resolution based on the County Engineer's statements and concern about the safety of this section of Greenbrier Drive; that the County undertake improvements necessary to have that section of Greenbrier Drive brought into the State Secondary System on a participation basis of fifty-fifty with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and that the County Engineer get estimates on similar roads in the growth areas of the County. Also, if there is any basis for recovery against a private party, the County Attorney's office should attempt to recover those expenses. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke. Mr. Henley questioned the necessity of the County Engineer preparing a list of all roads not presently in the State System along with cost estimates for bringing those roads up to standard. Mr. Roosevelt said it should be noted that normally when roads such as Greenbrier Drive are brought into the State System through the "rural additions procedure", that road viewers are appointed to look at the road. Under State Code Section 33.1-229, the County Engineer is allowed to act instead of the viewers, so the $1,000 cost to be paid by the State will come from rural addition funds. WHEREAS, Greenbrier Drive serves as a through road and meets require- ments for addition to the State Secondary System of Highways under Virginia Code Section 33.1-72.1 in that the road was platted and opened to traffic prior to July 1, 1975; and WHEREAS, the County Engineer has recommended that this road be added to the State Secondary System of Highways under the requirements of Virginia Code Section 33.1-230; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby request the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to add Greenbrier Drive as described below to the State Secondary System for maintenance: Beginning at station 18+55 of Greenbrier Drive, a point 328.64 feet from the intersection of the centerline of Greenbrier Drive and the centerline of Whitewood Road, thence with Greenbrier Drive in a southeasterly direction 174 feet to station 16+81, a point 47 feet from the center- lines intersection of Greenbrier Drive and Commonwealth Drive, the end of dedication at this time, WHEREAS, the estimate for final construction of this portion of Greenbrier Drive is $2,000 and under Section 33.1-72.1, one-half of the cost of the improvement must come from other than Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation revenues; NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does agree to donate $1,000 for the improvement of Greenbrier Drive as required for addition to the State Secondary System of Highways; FURTHER, RESOLVED, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is guaranteed a 60-foot right-of-way as recorded in Deed Book 487, page 614. Roll was called and Mr. Lindstrom's motion carried by the following recorded vove: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Miss Nash asked the status of Lakeside Drive which is requested for addition to the System using Rural Addition funds. Mr. Roosevelt said he met with Mr. Daniel Lowe, one of the property owners, and gave an estimated cost of $59,000 and that the maximum available from the State was $20,000. Mr. Lowe is to report back to the Highway Department on the wishes of the property owners and that report has not yet been received. 38'7 September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked the status of the Georgetown Road Walkway project. Mr. Elrod said plans and specifications are ready to go to contract but that two easements have not yet been obtained. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Hathaway is not interested in donating the necessary easement and he feels the Board will have to make a decision on condemning the property. Mr. St. John explained that a formal offer for the land must be made before condemnation procedures can be instituted. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see this project under construction soon and wished to be kept advised on any progress to obtain the necessary easements. Agenda Item No. 5. Fieldbrook Road. (Abandon and Add Section) Mr. Agnor said this is on the agenda only to avoid the process of readvertising this request to abandon a section of road. Mr. Agnor advised the Board that Mr. William S. Roudabush, Engineer for the Fieldbrook Subdivision project, has advised that two more months will be required before final action can be taken. Mr. Agnor then requested deferral of this request to the November 10, 1982, Board meeting. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to defer the request on Fieldbrook Road to November 10, 1982. 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. 6. Appeal: Bennington Terrace (7 lots) Final Plat. (Subdivision Plat, Bennington Terrace, located off Georgetown Road, Charlottesville Magisterial District, dated June 14, 1982, revised July 19, 1982, as drawn by William S. Roudabush, Inc., file #5381) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the planning staff report and conditions of approval as set by the Planning Commission: Location: Parcel 32 on Tax Map 60A(i), Charlottesville District; located on the east side of Georgetown Road, north of Hessian Hills Subdivision. ~creage: 1.91 acres. Zoning: R-q, Residential. History.: August 16~ 1979 - The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors denied ZMA-79-28, a request to rezone 41,065 square feet from R-1 to R-3. August 16~ 1979 - The Board of Supervisors denied SP-79-41, a request to locate a nursery school on a portion of the property. April 20~ 1982 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission deferred, at the request of the applicant, the Bennington Terrace Final Plat. May 25~ 1982 - The Albemarle County Planning Commission denied the Bennington Terrace Final Plat on the basis that the landscaping provided on the land- scape plan was not sufficiently significant to justify the granting of bonus factors. Without the granting of bonus factors, the plat could not be approved as the density shown did not comply with the zoning. June 9~ 1982 - The Board of Supervisors upheld the Planning Commission's action on May 25, 1982, to deny the Bennington Terrace Final Plat. Proposal: To divide 1.91 acres into seven lots with an average size of 9,128 square feet and a density of 3.66 dwelling units an acre. Reason for Planning Commission Review: area. This property is located in the urban Topography of Area: Relatively flat. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 656 currently carries 7,003 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to be nontolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: High density residential with a recommended density of 11-34 units per acre. School Impact: impact. Total projected enrollment of three students with. a slight Type Utilities: Public water is available from a twelve-inch line on the opposite side of Georgetown Road. Public sewer is available to a line in Bennington Road. Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation has commented that a commercial entrance with adequate sight distance will be required. The Highway Department recommends construction of full frontage improvements along the property's frontage, including a twelve-foot turn lane, curb and gutter and storm sewer, as necessary. The Highway Department further recommends that the Planning Commission require an urban design placing the curb line twenty-six feet from the centerline of Georgetown Road. The County, however, has not required this improvement (26 feet from centerline) on previous developments and the Highway Department has noted that this could cause some problems. September 15, ~982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) The Highway Department has also commented that an urban street design should be used for Biltmore Drive. Road plans need to be developed for this street and the Highway Department strongly recommends that curb and gutter be installed around the cul-de-sac. In addition, the Highway Department recommends that the building sites be graded such that the overland flow of stormwater, should the design storm for the drainage system be exceeded, be designed to divert water around the dwellings. Stormwate~ and Drainage Plans: The applicant's representative, Mr. Tom Gale, was requested at site review to contact the County Engineer in order to discuss what measures needed to be taken for stormwater control on and off the site.. The Commission is aware of the history of problems with drainage and stormwater control in the Georgetown Court-Bennington Road area. The Engineering Department has worked with Mr. Gale and, due to information submitted by Mr. Gale, has been able to review this project on a prelim- inary basis. The County Engineer has examined both on-site and off-site controls for stormwater and drainage management. The County Engineer has noted in his attached comments that off-site channel improvement work in the Bennington Road area would cost appro- ximately $7,500. To begin to make any significant improvements to the channel, a minimum of $4,000 is required. The County Engineer has also noted that while, according to the Zoning Ordinance such on-site measures as stormwater detention ponds can be required, the County can only require the applicant to provide his pro-rata share of off-site improvements. Under Section 18-25 of the Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant's share would be approximately $400. Mr. Gale and the County Enginee~after discussing a variety of stormwater control measures such as on-site detention in a pond or off-site channel improvements, developed a number of recommendations. In a letter dated July26, 1982, Mr. Gale n~es the following proposals based on the Oounty Engineer's recommendations: a) Mr. Davis (the applicant) is willing to provide curb and gutter along Georgetown Road and the entrance; b) The applicant is willing to contribute $4,000 to off-site improvements in lieu of on-site stormwater detention and in lieu of providing curb and gutter on the rest of the new road (Biltmore Drive); c) The applicant is willing to pave the street with one and one-half inches of bituminous concrete (black top); d) The applicant is willing to provide lot grading plans for each individual lot on the final road and drainage plans. The Engineering Department feels that curb and gutter are always highly desirable in urban dense developments (where lot frontage widths are 75 feet to 80 feet or less) however, in this particular case the County Engineer feels that the off-site improvements are far more important than the on-site curbs since: (1) the amount of drainage on the proposed street is relatively small, (2) the lot density is not excessive for a road side, channel type of street design (there is only one lot on one side of the street), and (3) the street has a reasonable grade. For these reasons the County Engineer recommended to the applicant the four proposals listed above. Note: The applicant has also stated (see letter of July 26, 1982, from Mr. J. Tom Gale of William S. Roudabush, Inc.) that while he is willing to provide curb and gutter along Georgetown Road and the entrance as per the recom- mendation of the County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation he would prefer to have a "design consistent with the design of Georgetown Court Subdivision." Mr. Davis would prefer to install a shoulder and ditch section along Georgetown Road in lieu of the urban design with curb and gutter. Mr. Gale has noted in his letter that when Georgetown Court Final Plat was reviewed there was opposition to construction of an urban design (curb and gutter) in this area. As a result, curb and gutter were not required along the frontage on the Georgetown Court property, however, curb and gutter, sidewalks and a stormwater detention pond were required to be installed on the Georgetown Court property. The Planning Staff supports (a) through (d) above of the proposals made by the applicant, based on the County Engineer's recommendation. The Fire Official has reviewed the hydrant location for this proposal and has found it satisfactory. The Fire Official has recommended that the Planning Commission require 1,000 gallons per minute at 20 PSI (residual) fire flow. This plat will meet the requirements of Chapter 18, Subdivision Ordinance, and the Staff recommends approval subject to the following: September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met: a. Provision of a street sign; b. Construction of road and entrance according to plans to be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for acceptance into the State system and according to plans to be approved by the County Engineer (to include paving of road with one and one-half inches of bituminous concrete); c. Full frontage improvements along Georgetown Road to include urban curb and gutter as per Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation requirements; d. Approved soil erosion plan for roadway and for each lot in the subdivision; e. County Engineer approval of drainage plans; f. County Engineer approval of stormwater drainage requirements including off-site improvements; g. Fire Official approval of fire flow; h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; i. Provision of a certified check in the amount of $4,000 to be used for off-site channel improvements to be administered by the County of Albemarle in lieu of provision of curb and gutter and sidewalk on interior street and detention pond. On July 27, 1982, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved this final plat subject to the conditions recommended by the Staff as set out above, plus a condition (j) reading: "Planning Commission approval of final drainage plans." Mr. Tucker noted that this plat had been brought before the Board by the following letter~ "August 6, 1982 Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning Re: Bennington Terrace Final Plat This letter is an appeal of the final plat for Bennington Terrace approved July 27, 1982, by the Planning Commission. This appeal is made in response to concerns voiced by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation regarding waiver of curb and gutter on the cul-de-sac serving this project. Sincerely, (signed) C. Timothy Lindstrom" Mr. Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was present and stated that his concerns about this plat are strictly with the roads. Mr. Roosevelt said the lots are so small that the vehicles using this street will primarily be parked on the street, causing the usable width of the road to be less than required by the Highway Department. Mr. Roosevelt presented photographs of two other subdivisions using a rural cross-section where there are problems with the roads caused by the lack of curb and gutter. Mr. Roosevelt said if cars park on the shoulder or in the ditch, it will cause excessive rutting which will require extensive, regular maintenance which the Highway Department is not in the position to supply. Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, said that most of his concerns with this sub- division are with the drainage. Although he realizes he should have talked to Mr. Roosevelt about his feelings about trading off-site drainage improvements for the curb and gutter, he did not, but Mr. Elrod said he does not feel that drainage will be a problem if built to the Conditions set out in the Planning Commission's minutes. The question of vehicles tearing up shoulders and ditch lines is possible. Mr. Elrod said he supports curb and gutter in dense areas, but he felt it could be eliminated in this instance because there is only one house on one side of the road. On the other side of the road there is a storm sewer system that will drain the road and take away water coming to the property. Because of the way the subdivision is designed, there are only four driveway culverts. Mr. Elrod said he was concerned that this project might not be undertaken if there was too much cost involved, and he wanted the project to go because there is a drainage problem to the south of this property that the drainage project on this property will solve. It will also help with the channel further downstream. Mr. Elrod said he was, looking for ways to balance off the cost. The applicant applied for a subdivision with ten lots the first time, and that plat was denied. This plat contains seven lots, and yet the construction costs are the same. Mr. Elrod said he supports Mr. Roosevelt's recommendation for curb and gutter and if he had talked to Mr. Roosevelt before this meeting he would have withdrawn that comment. Mr. Fisher asked about on-site stormwater detention requirements if no waivers are granted. Mr. Elrod said a stormwater detention basin would have to be constructed on the lower two lots, but such a basin would not help the drainage problem in the area. Mr. Fisher asked how the drainage problem and road requirements got intertwined. Mr. Lindstrom answered that under current ordinances, the only off-site improvement which can be required of the developer is the $400 contribution mentioned in the staff report. Mr. Lindstrom said the staff was concerned with what the developer would voluntarily do over and above that $400; the way this was worked out was the cost of providing curb and gutter and the cost of providing the detention basin, generates the difference between the $400 and September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) 370 :. $4,000. Just giving up the detention basin did not get enough improvements downstream to b~ worthwhile, so the staff had to waive the street improvements, and that is how the money was generated, all voluntarily donated in consideration of a waiver for these other requirements. There is no way the Board can mandate that the $4,000 be paid. Mr. Fisher asked if the marketability of the lots is enhanced by not having a detention basin take up the back yards of these two lots. Mr, Elrod said he feels it would be. Mr. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, said he objected to Mr. Roosevelt's com- parison of Bennington Terrace to Georgetown Court because Bennington Terrace will be developed in single-family homes, not townhouses as in Georgetown Court. Mr. Gale said he acknowledges the potential for maintenance problems with the roads if no .curb and gutter is installed, but added that a paved ditch will be constructed between Bennington Terrace and Georgetown Court in order to reduce the flow of water. Mr. Fisher said it seems strange to trade off one set of problems for another set° Mr. Elrod said it was not his intention to trade one set of problems for another and that is why he is siding with Mr. Roosevelt now. Mr. Henley said the future residents of Bennington Terrace will have to learn to live with the limited parking and not park in the road side ditches. Mr. Henley said he was willing to support the original recommendations of the County Engineer and try to improve on the stormwater drainage problem. Mrs. Cooke said the fact that this development is a help to the overall drainage problem seems to be a contribution in itself. Mrs. Cooke referred to the statement "The applicant is willing to provide lot grading plans for each individual lot on the final road and drainage plans" contained in the staff's report. She asked if there is a legal instrument to insure that the. grading plans are not disrupted by the homeowners at a later date, which would then affect the off-site drainage problem. Mr. Elrod said that all drainage features constructed are covered by an easement; no one should do anything in that easement. Mr. Fisher said that if anything does occur in that easement, it is a problem trying to correct the problem. Mrs. Cooke asked if these things are written in deed restrictions so the homeowners know about them beforehand. Mr. Davis indicated that they are in the deed restrictions. Mrs. Cooke said it is the County's obligation to eliminate as many future problems for the homeowners as possible, that Mr. Roosevelt's recommendations are valid, and that the developer should not be requested to contribute to off-site improvements which he is not responsible for. Mr. Lindstrom responded that the developer will have to construct a detention basi~ on his property if the Board decides contrary to the County Engineer's approval. Mrs. Cooke said she did not realize he would be required to construct that basin. Mr. Lindstrom said either the developer voluntarily pays the $4,000 for off-site improvements or he constructs the detention basin which is all the County can require. He said this is just a trade-off of one condition for another. Mr. Lindstrom said he has some problems with the road recommendations, but he agrees with Mr. Henley that it is a problem that is controllable by the people who live in the subdivision. He sai~ there is a drainage problem in the area which has been created over the years by development. From what has been said by the County Engineer, downstream improvements will be more significant improvements than construction of a detention basin on this property. He then offered motion to support the Planning Commission's recom- mendation. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash on the basis that the $4,000 will not be the only thing the County will do downstream for those people. Mrs. Cooke_said it is her understanding that this amount of money just gets the project started. Mr. Elrod com- mented that homeowners along Bennington Road have expressed a willingness to contribute money in order to complete the entire project. Mr. Elrod said he will begin the project as soon as he receives the funds. Mr. Fisher said he has a serious concern about the staff recommendation of trading one set of problems for another. Mr. Fisher said he felt it may be a serious mistake to use this as a precedent for solving stormwater drainage in the urban area and that it might cause the trading off of other vital public requirements. Mr. Fisher ~said standard requirements for subdivision development should not be waived. Mr. Elrod ~said it was not a total trade-off because he has requested, an asphalt road rather than gravel. 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. Mr. St. John said the record should show that the condition requiring the applicant to pay $4,000 in off-site improvements was voluntarily agreed to by the applicant. (Mr. Tucker said there is a letter dated July 26, 1982, from J. Tom Gale of Roudabush, Inc., accepting the County Engineer's recommendation.~) ~ ~ Agenda Item No. 7. Appeal: Pantops Office Building Site Plan. (Plan of site development showing lots 3, 4 and 5, Pantops, tax parcels 63,. 64 and 65 on sheet 78, Rivanna District, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, Ltd., dated ~une 24, 1982, revised July 19, 1982 and August 16, 1982.) Mr. Fisher read the following letter dated August 26, 1982, from Mr. James M. Hill, Agent for Charles ~. Hurt:. "At their meeting on August 24, 1982, the.Albemarle County Planning Commission approved the sit.e plan for the above referenced project. One of the condi- tions of their approval will cause a severe hardship for the development of the plan. t was told that the commission had no choice regarding this condition because it was imposed by the particular type of zoning which applies to the property, t was also told that there is no.other property in Albemarle County with a similar zoning situation. It is the purpose of this letter to request that the board review the project and remove con- ~ dition "iG" from the approval. It is the further purpose of this letter to remove the burden of a like condition from any future proposal for the use of this property. 371 September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) Until the afternoon of August 23rd, we were told by the zoning department that all of the property in the area was zoned CommerciaZ Office. It now appears that the planning department belieYes the property to be zoned Planned Development-Mixed Commercial. Since the zoning PD-MC would have been imposed rather than requested and granted, none of the documents necessary to obtain that zoning have been prepared. Condition "iG" in- volves compliance with the requirements necessary to obtain PD-MC zoning. Compliance with those requirements will be very difficult, time consuming, and could prove to be impossible. We believe that two mistakes have been made: the land has been zoned incorrectly and the land-owners have not been properly informed. Had we been aware of the first mistake we could have acted to correct it before there was a potential for actual damage. However, not realizing that there was a problem, no corrective action was taken, and the situation could now cause a serious and expensive delay in our construction schedule." Mr. Tucker then read the Planning staff report and recommendations of the Planning Commission: Location: Parcels 63, 64 and 65, tax map 78, Rivanna District; located on the northwest side of State Farm Boulevard, south of Route 250 East. Acre. age: Lot 3, (parcel 63), 1.9168 acres; Lot 4, (parcel 64), 2.1776 acres; Lot 5, (parcel 65), 2.2358 acres. Zoning: PD-MC, Planned Decelopment - Mixed Commercial. History: The Pantops, Lots 2-10, Final Plat was approved by the Planning Commission on August 28, 1979, and the plat was signed by the County on September 25, 1979. Proposal: To locate three, two-story office buildings (5,000 square feet each floor) on each of the three lots. Topography of Area: Level to steeper slopes at the rear of each lot. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils on the site are deep, well drained soils with slopes ranging from two to eight percent. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: The site is located within Neighborhood Three of the urban area and is recommended for planned commercial use. Type Utilities: Public water and sewer are available. The water and sewer lines are in the process to be accepted by the Service Authority. At present, the twelve-inch sewer line is discharging into a septic field. However, the Service Authority anticipates that the utility lines will be accepted for maintenance soon. Staff Comment: The Fire Official has given verbal preliminary approval of the fire flow on the site. The current flow is acceptable if an early warning system is installed in the buildings. This system will not be necessary upon completion of the new Rivanna water storage tank at the Ashcroft site. The Highway Department commented that a commercial entrance should be constructed~ State Farm Boulevard has not been accepted into the State system and the Staff is recommending that the County Engineer approve the entrance design in accordance with the Highway Department's entrance standards. Staff is also recommending that provisions be made for the acceptance of State Farm Boulevard into the State system prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These provisions will probably take the form of an agreement between the developer, the County, and the Highway Department. The process of drafting such an agreement is currently underway. Article 32.5.8.01 of the Zoning Ordinance states that entrances within 500 feet of a crossover on a multi-laned, divided highway are not permitted. The Commission may waive this provision under the following conditions: 1) There is no other reasonably practicable access to the site other than within the 500 feet; 2) That no other reasonable alternate access is available to the site; and 3) That the provision for an access within the 500 foot limit is consistent with the public health, safety and general welfare. The Commission must find that all of the above items are applicable before the proposed entrance can be approved. Staff requested that the applicant submit a letter noting the justification for requesting the entrance between lots 4 and 5. This has not been received by the Staff. The proposed entrance is approximately 290 feet from the nearest crossover south of lot 5. None of the lots have frontage at a crossover. The entrance between lot 3 and the former Virginia Land Company building was in existence prior to the adoption of this article. For more _ Sept__ember 15~ i982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) 372 convenient access to the crossover, Staff recommends that an addi- tional access be established at the crossover to serve these three sites and that an easement be recorded to accommodate the roadway. Provisions for its maintenance must be approved by the County Attorney. The proposed landscaping plan does not fully comply with the general planting plan submitted by the applicant in 1979 for the State Farm Boulevard frontage. This plan shows street trees planted 100 feet on center with two ornamental trees planted 30 feet on center, 35 feet from each of the street trees. The Pantops proposal does not comply with this plan and the Staff is recommending that additional street trees be planted along State Farm Boulevard. In addition, Staff recommends that the landscaping around the buildings be revised and that screening in the rear of the building on lot 5 be provided subject to the approval of the Staff. Three possible locations for the location of the stormwater detention facility are being investigated. The County Engineer has given preliminary approval of these provisions, the drainage plans, the pavement design and the parking area design. The applicant is proposing to develop this site in three phases starting with lot 5 and ending with construction of lot 3. Each lot will have adequate parking to serve its site independently. Staff feels that the construction on lot 5 will tie in with the recommended provision of an additional access at the crossover on lot 6 shown on the Pantops plat. On August 23, 1982, the Staff discovered that the official zoning map designated the zoning of this property incorrectly as commercial office. The zoning adopted by the Board of Supervisors was PD-MC, Planned Development-Mixed Commercial. Section 8.5.6.5 (Planned Development Districts - Generally) states that when site plans are submitted in a PD-MC district, which was established at the time of the adoption of the ordinance without an overall plan, the requirements for establishing a PD-MC district must be met also. These requirements include the submittal and approval~by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors of a transportation analysis plan, a report noting that all property owners within the district are "unified" on the proposal and other plans and studies as may be required. Staff is recommending that the applicant submit these plans and reports prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plan will meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Building permits will be processed.when the applicant has met the following conditions: ae County Engineer final approval of the pavement specifications, drainage plans, parking area design and the stormwater detention plan; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; County Engineer approval of the design of the entrances in accordance with the Highway Department's commercial entrance standards; de Provide evidence that an easement is recorded (by separate plat or deed) between lots 4-5 and 2-3 for shared entrances and joint maintenance. An easement shall also be recorded for the travel- way that connects the three lots to provide continuous access across each of the three lots. Provisions for the maintenance of both shall be subject to the approval of the County Attorney. ee An additional entrance shall be provided and an easement recorded at the crossover at lot 6 of the Pantops Final Plat to serve this site; provisions for its maintenance shall be subject to approval by the County Attorney; re Additional landscaping shall be provided along the frontage of State Farm Boulevard around the building and in the rear of the building on lot 5; Compliance with the requirements of Section 8.5.6.5 (Planned Development Districts - Generally) and Section 25A (Planned Development - Mixed Commercial District). $ A certificate of occupancy will be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Fire Official approval of the fire flow; b. Provisions shall be made for the acceptance of State Farm Boule- vard into the State system. 373 ?© September 15~ 1982 (Rescheduled Da~ Meetin~_ Mr. Tucker noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 24, 1982, approved this site plan subject to the same conditions as recommended by the staff. Mr. George McCallum was present representing Dr. Charles W. Hurt. Mr. McCallum used a map indicating the locations of the lots in question as well as adjoining properties. Mr. McCallum said the requirements of condition "iG" for a Planned Development-Mixed Commercial District are being imposed on la~d that is not under ~singular ownership. Mr. McCallum said he is asking relief from cOn~dition "iG" for the' three affected lots only, relief for the entire plan from condition "iG" will be sought at a later date. Mr. McCallum said the major concern of the Board when the PD-MC district was imposed was the multiple entrances that could occur 'on Route 250. Mr. McCallum said these three lots front on State Farm Boulevard so no new entrance will be created on Route 250. Mr. McCallum said for the Board to require Dr. Hurt to present a complete transportation analysis plan for this PD-MC District would be almost impossible. Mr. McCallum lastly asked the Board to use the authority vested in them to grant a waiver from condition "iG". Mr. Fisher expressed-concern that a general transportation-analysis plan be created to insure that those properties to the west of lots 3, 4 and 5 have access in the future. Mr. Lindstrom asked how binding such a transportation plan would be on future development. Mr. Tucker said minor changes would be allowed, but that essentially the plan would be binding as presented. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the transportation analysis plan will be required for the entire PD-MC District unless condition "iG" is waived. Mr. Tucker said that was correct. Mr. Tucker added that at the Planning Commission hearing, it was asked if an analysis plan could be presented for only a portion of the district, and it was the opinion of Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, that such a plan could not be done parcel by parcel and must include all the properties shown in that district. Mr; St. John said he has spoken to Mr. Payne about this, and he feels the ordinance will not be en- forceable if it is interpreted to mean that no site plan or subdivision plat can be approved unless Dr. Hurt first gets all property owners in this di~strict to agree to an overall transportation plan. Mr. St. John said it could be enforced if the plan pertained to all the land owned by the applicant. Following some discussion of the map as to which lan~s were actually owned by Dr. Hurt and could be subject to a transportation analysis plan, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve this site plan with the conditions listed by the Planning Commission with the following two amendments: 1.g. Compliance with the requirements of Section 8.5.6.5 (Planned Develop- ment Districts - Generally) and Section 25A (Planned Development - Mixed Commercial District) with respect to all land under the unified control of the applicant to the west of State Farm Boulevard which is designated on the zoning map as PD-MC. 1.h. There shall be no entrance between lots 4 and 5. the Staff report.) (As recommended in There was no second to the motion. Mr. Tucker said condition "ID" would also need to be changed to correspond with condition "l.h.". Mr. Lindstrom agreed to Mr. Tucker's suggestion as part of his motion. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Miss Nash felt that condition "iG" did not clearly refer to the actual properties which must be included in the transportation analysis plan. Mr. Lindstrom said he would amend his motion to approve this site plan with the oonditions of the Planning Commission amended as follows: 1.d. Provide evidence that an easement is recorded (by separate plat or deed) between lots 4-5 and 2-3 for shared entrances and joint main- tenance. An easement shall also be recorded for the traYelway that connects the three lots to provide continuous access across each of the three lots. Provisions for the maintenance of both shall be subject to the approval of the County Attorney; 1.g. Compliance with the requirements of Section 8.5.6.5 (Planned Develop- ment Districts - Generally) and Section 25A (Planned Development - Mixed Commercial District) with respect to the land under the unified control of the applicant to the west of State Farm Boulevard which is designated on the zoning map as PD-MC, with the exception of the lot on which the National Bank & Trust Company Building (Tax Map 78, Parcel 61) is located, the dedicated easement to the south of the National Bank building and the lot to the south of that which is known as Tax Map 78, Parcel 62. l.h. There shall be no entrance between lots 4 and 5. (As recommended in the Staff report.) Mr. McCallum stated that the entrance between lots 4 and 5 was made part of the plan to allow for ease in reaching the more distant buildings from Route 250. Mr. McCallum said the applicant has no objection to the entrance located close to State Farm Boulevard, but would like to have all three entrances as originally requested. Mr. McCallum said the applicant is prepared to show entrances and basic road alignments for a transportation analysis plan as required by the ?D-MC District, but it is too speculative to attempt to predict percentages of traffic volumes, turning movements, traffic distributions to and from the sites on external roads, and improvements to existing transportation as required in Section 25A of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Jim Hill, also present representing the applicant, stated that it was part of the original subdivision approval that every other lot would have a joint '~-~.~' entrance (thus creating shared entrances between lots). Mr. Tucker said that provision was re- quired at the time these lots were subdivided along State Farm Boulevard and it was sub- sequent to that approval that the requirement for 500 feet between crossovers on dual- laned highways was adopted. Mr. St. John said he felt an approved subdivision is not September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) 374 affected by a subsequent regulation; that a regulation is effective from the time it is enacted. Mr. St. John continued by stating.that the Board does have the right to change what was approved on the subdivision plat by eliminating the entrance from this plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that based on Mr. Tucker's comments and recommendation, he would leave his motion worded as stated above. Mr. Henley asked if the applicant submits an estimate of-the traffic count, etc., if the applicant would be bound by those figures. Mr. Tucker said no, nothing is binding until final plans are submitted. Mr. M¢Callum stated his objections to having to submit the detailed transportation analysis plan on lots that have already been platted. Mr. Fisher said that waiving that provision would be defeating the whole point of the zoning. Mr. Lindstrom then restated his motion for the clarity of the record to approve this site plan with the conditions that follow: Building permits will be processed when the applicant has met the following conditions: ae County Engineer final approval of the pavement specifications, drainage pians, parking area design and the stormwater detention plan; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; County Engineer approval of the design of the entrances in accordance with the Highway Department's commercial entrance standards; de Provide evidence that an easement is recorded by separate plat or deed between Lots 2-3 for shared entrances and joint maintenance. An easement shall also be recorded for the travelway that con- nects Lots 3, 4 and 5 to provide continuous access across each of the three lots. Provisions for the maintenance of both shall be subject to the approval of the County Attorney; An additional entrance shall be provided and an easement recorded at the crossover at Lot 6 of the Pantops Final Plat to Serve this site; provisions for its maintenance shall be subject to approval by the County Attorney. Additional landscaping shall be provided along the frontage of State Farm Boulevard around the building and in the rear of the building on Lot 5; gm he Compliance with the requirements of Section 8.5.6.5 (Planned Development Districts - Generally) and Section 25A (Planned Development -Mixed Commercial~ District) with respect to the~ land under the unified control of the applicant to the west of State Farm Boulevard which is designated on the zoning map as PD-MC, with the exception of the lot on which the National Bank & Trust Company Building (Tax Map 78, Parcel 61) is located, the dedi- cated easement to the south of the National Bank building and the lot to the south of that which~is known as Tax Map 78, Parcel 62. There shall be no entrance between lots 4 and 5. A certificate of occupancy will be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Fire Official approval of the fire flow; Provisions shall be made for the acceptance of State Farm Boule- vard into the State Secondary System of Highways. Roll was then called and the motion to approve this site plan with the above listed conditions carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (Note: At 11:44 A.M., Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Sections 9-4 through 9-6 of the Code of Albemarle regarding the Building Official's and Code Adminis- trators (BOCA) Basic Fire Prevention Code, 1981 edition; also to amend and reenact Section 9-1 of the Code of Albemarle regarding the burning of refuse near buildings and fences. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Agnor said the reenactment of Sections 9-4 through 9-6 is-with regard to adopting the 1981 edition of the BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code. The amendment to Section 9-1 will require a distance of three hundred feet from another's structure for burning, rather than the present one hundred feet stated in the ordinance. 375 September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) Board members questioned how Section 9-1 would affect the leaf burning ordinance which is presently in force in the County. Mr. Zra Cortez, Fire PreYention Official, said section 9-1 does not affect leaf burning, only the burning of refuse. Mr. St. John recommended that a sentence be added at the end of the proposed ordinance stating that Section 9-1 does not apply to leaf burning as permitted under section 9-22.1 of the County Code. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against these proposed amendments, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Miss Nash to adopt the following ordinances: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 9-1 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE CONCERNING THE BURNING OF REFUSE, ETC. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Code of Albemarle be, and it is hereby amended, in Section 9-1 thereof, as follows: Sec. 9-1. Burning of refuseD etc.~ near buildings and fences. No person shall burn any rubbish, trash, garbage or other waste material in the county within three hundred feet of another's residence, garage, stable, outhouse or fence made of inflammable materials, unless such rubbish, trash, garbage or other waste material is confined in a closed container of galvanized iron or other fireproof material, or in an open container attended by an able- bodied person until the embers therein contained are burned out or the burning embers are extinguished. This ordinance does not apply to leaf burning as permitted under section 9- 22.1 of this Code. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 9~ ARTICLE II OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE ENTITLED"FIRE PREVENTION CODE" BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 9, ArticIe II, Sections 9-4 through 9-6 of the Code' of Albemarle be amended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 9-4. Adopted. The Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) Basic Fire Prevention Code, 1981 edition, is hereby adopted by reference pursuant to section 27-5.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Sec. 9-5. Copies on file. Copies of the Fire Prevention Code adopted herein may be obtained during regular office hours in the office of the fire official of the county. Sec. 9-6. Amendment. Article 28 of the BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code of 1981 is hereby amended to exempt from the provisions thereof, the sale and use in the county of those articles delineated in Code of Virginia, section 59.1-147, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the' following recorded vote: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr, Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing prior to the appropriation of monies for the following two categories as amendments to the Fiscal Year 1982-83 County Budget; 1) Increase allocations to the Clerk of the Circuit Court, and 2) allocate proceeds of grants. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Agnor summarized the appropriation requests, noting that four separate resolutions will be required. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There being no one present wishing to speak either for or against the appropriations as advertised, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. (Note: Mr. Lindstrom returned to the meeting at 11:52 A.M.) Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to adopt the following resolutions (explanations of each request are set out before each individual request): (In memorandum from Ray Jones, Director of Finance, dated August 5, 1982, he stated that the adopted 198285 County budget did not include any anticipated, grants because of the uncertainty of same. The amendments and appropriations requested cover funds already received, or funds for which notice of receipt has been received.) September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) 378 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $157,115.53 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and coded as follows: 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 AND FURTH~ RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to amend the Revenues section of the budget as follows: 9302-9999.99 Unaltocated Fund Balance (Proceeds of Grants) $157,115.53 (In memorandum from Ray Jones, Director of Finance, dated July 9, 1982, it was noted that the 1982 Session of the General Assembly amended the Code of Virginia so that the Board of Supervisors no longer sets the salary of the Clerk of the Circuit Court; the same now being based on population. Since this will make a significant change in the 1982-83 County budget and effect both revenues and expenditures, a budget amendment was requested.) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $13,310 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from.the General Fundby the following additions and adjustments: 2106 - Clerk-Circuit Court: 1001 Salaries $ 13,925 + 2001 FICA 1,867 + 2002 Retirement 1,643 + 2006 Group Life Insurance 141 + 3011 Workman's Compensation 316 + 9201 - Refunds: 5803.06 Excess Fees paid State Treasurer $ 4,582 - AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to amend the Revenues section of the budget as follows: 14104.010 General Fund Carry-over balance $ 13,310 + (Appropriation needed for Grant funds already received.) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $4,079 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the Grant Fund and coded to 9302-5840, Clean Community Commission; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to amend the Revenues section of the budget by adding $4,079 to Code 102404.070, entitled "Clean Community Commission". (In memorandum from Ray Jones, Director of Finance, dated August 23, 1982, it was- noted that a revision of the School budget was needed to make available funds which will be received under a federal block grant known as the Educational Consolidation Improvement Act (ECIA). Mr. Jones noted that although Dr. Gutierrez, Superintendent of Schools, says the program is reimbursable, the expenses will be incurred prior to funds being made available, thereby requiring an increased need for working capital. Also, apparently the salaries and fringe costs of several persons will be split-coded in payroll and accounting.) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $52,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and coded to a new code 17Y-Educational Consolidation Improvement Act, as set out on the attached line item budget, and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Director of Finance is hereby authorized to amend the Revenues side of the budget by the addition of $52,000 to code 23301..130 entitled "Block Grant - Chapter II, ECIA". 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. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom (was not present for discussion.) Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing to consider an amendment to the project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority in considering those parcels with water only project areas of the Service Authority's water utility system. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report as follows: September 15, 1982 (Rescheduted Day Meeting) "Early this summer, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors requested the Staff to prepare an amendment to the project areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority in order to eliminate potential confusion as to where service could be provided. Most of the questions raised were in areas where existing waterlines formed the boundary of a project area. Also, there has been a general consensus among the Board of Supervisors to serve existing parcels with structures which are contiguous to a Service Authority waterline. With these concerns in mind, the Staff has prepared an amendment which identifies all parcels contiguous to waterlines which have existing struc- tures for potential water usage. The Project Areas Map is proposed to be divided into four categories: 2) 3) Water Only. Water and sewer Waterline contiguous to parcels with existing buildings Water and/or sewer to public buildings or existing buildings only. This amendment should provide a more definitive boundary for the Service Authority's Project Areas. The attached list indicates the existing parcels and the existing structures contiguous to Albemarle County Service Authority waterlines. (List of parcels contiguous to waterlines iden- tifying existing structures as of August 1, 1982, attached to staff report.) Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. Mr. J. W. Brent, Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, said the Service Authority Board had no comments regarding the proposed amendments. There were no further comments from the public, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt a new map dated September 15, 1982, as~e~ project areas map of the Albemarle County Service Authority showing those parcels wit/.~~tures contiguous to an existing waterline which are to be added to the water only ~rS~ areas of the Service Authority's water utility system. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher. Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Requests for use of Jailor's House. Mr. Fisher said that several months ago this item was on the agenda; at that time, the Home for Homeless Alcoholics and O.A.R. National, were both requesting use of the building. The Board decided to wait until the City decided whether or not they wanted the building for the Homeless Alcoholics. Mr. Fisher said that a couple of weeks ago he saw the Mayor on the street and the Mayor said that the City was no longer interested in the building. Mr. Fisher 'said he had then requested that this item be placed on the agenda again. Mr. Agnor said when the County vacated the buildings on Court Square, the staff was directed to solicit interest from County-oriented agencies, or quasi-public agencies, offering the space at $3.25 a square foot plus utilities. This has been done three different times. O.A.R. has requested use of the Jailor's House for offices, saying they would more fully use the Jail for a museum and a training facility. For this space, O.A.R. offers $100 a month plus interior painting, and the exterior painting of the house which is needed at this time. They plan to continue their educational tours of the historical jail for various groups, and slate that their occupancy would provide a single tenant for the entire complex. Mr. Agnor said that he has also been contacted by Mr. John Conners of the Community Diversion Incentive Program, which currently subleases office space from the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; their lease expires on December 31, 1982. C.D.I. said it appears that the second floor of the Jailor's house would meet their needs for at least two years. Mr. Agnor noted that there is a possibility that these two organizations could share the building, but details for such a plan have not been discussed. Mr. Skip Mullaney of Offender Aid & Restoration was present and stated that O.A.R. would especially like to have the Old Jailor's House because of its proximity to the old jail which 0.A.R. has restored and is occupying as a museum/office building. Mr. Mullaney said he would be willing to negotiate with representatives of Community Diversion Incentive Program for the joint Use of the building as well as other office facilities. Mr. John Conners said it appears funding for the Community Diversion Incentive Program will continue for the foreseeable future. Mr. Conners said he is'interested mainly in the second floor of the Jailor's House which would very adequately meet the needs required. ~. Mr. Fisher said he felt these two organizations should meet to negotiate a joint occupation of the 01d Jailor's House and suggested that such a meeting take place and that any resulting lease be brought back before the Board. Board members were in agreement as well as Messrs. Mullaney and Conners. Mr. Agnor said in a similar matter, he has received an offer from the Monticello Area Community Action Agency for use of space in the building formerly occupied by the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Agnor said he has not tried to rent thiS building because it does not contain any restroom facilities. Mr. Agnor said that Mr Drewary Brown, Director of the Multi-Purpose Service Center, the Manpower component of MACAA, has requested use of this area as a classroom. In speaking with Mr. Brown, he did not feel that lack of restrooms would cause difficulties because MACAA's main facility is immediately adjacent and within easy walking distances to this structure. September 1~~5 1982 (Rescheduled Da~ Meetin~.~) _ Mr. Fisher said since the space is there and available, the matter should be investi- gated in greater detail. Mr. Henley suggested that some maintenance agreement be reached with MACAA to insure that the existing building is properly taken care of. Mr. Agnor noted that MACAA is willing to pay all utilities and upkeep, but that he would not re- commend taking rent for the space. Board members were in agreement with Mr. Agnor's suggestion that the space be leased free of charge, but that something be worked out for maintenance of the facilities; lease to be for a term to coincide with other leases on County properties in the area. Not Docketed. At 12:21 P.M., Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adjourn into executive session for discussion of land acquisition matters. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. At 1:38 P.M., the meeting reconvened. and St. John were not present. Mr. Fisher noted that Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom Agenda Item No. 15. Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Quarterly Report. Mr. Gary Oliveria, Director of AHIP, was present and noted that this is the year-end report for FY 1981-82. Mr. Oliveria presented slides showing fourteen rehabilitations, five minor rehabilitations and twelve housing repair jobs completed. Following the slide presentation, Mr. 01iveria reviewed the financial status of the program. Mr. 01iveria said as the result of an audit of FY 1981-82 records, $5,006.97 of unspent County funds used as operating money, are still on hand. Mr. Otiveria requested permission to retain these funds as part of the current fiscal year's Grants-to-Families fund. Miss Nash asked about the guidelines used by AHIP to determine eligibility for families. Mr. Oliveria said both Housing and Urban D.evelopment and Community Services Administration guidelines are used depending on the type of home improvement required, and that those guidelines are tailored as best as possible to the needs of Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor then recommended that the funds in the amount of $5,006.97 be carried over in the "Grant-to-Families fund" of AHIP as requested by Mr. Oliveria. Mr. Fisher asked if a public hearing process was required to accomplish this request. Mr. Agnor stated that the procedure would only need a motion to approve the request. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Miss Nash, to authorize the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program to retain $5,006.97 of operating monies from Fiscal Year 1981-82 which were unspent at the end of the fiscal year, adding same to the 1982-83 fiscal year's Grants-to-Families fund. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 18. 1) Public Hearing to Amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: ZTA-82-12, to amend the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance as they relate to building separation and side yard requirements in order to provide a minimum building separation of thirty feet: 4.11.1, 4.11.3, 5.3.3, 14.3, 15.3, 16.3, 17.3 and 18.3; 16.7, 17.7, 18.7; 19.8 and 20.8.5; 21.0 and 26.0. 2) ZTA-82-13 to amend Section 4.11.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to location of accessory structures to lot lines. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker said both of these zoning text amendments were deferred by the Planning Commission until early October. Mr. Tucker said the Board could either defer these items to the day meeting in October or defer indefinitely, whichever the Board wished. Mr. Fisher said that since this is the second time this public hearing has been deferred, he would recommend deferring the amendments indefinitely, readvertising same when they are ready to come back to the Board. Motion to defer ZTA-82-12 and ZTA 82-13 indefinitely was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. None. Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 17. Discussion of State Council on Long Term Care. Mr. James Elmore, Executive Director of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging was present and summarized his letter to the Board dated July 28, 1982, as follows: "On June 24th, representatives of human services agencies named in Senate Bill 219 (regarding State Code Section 2.1-373.3.8 and 3.2-76.1) recently passed by the General Assembly, and others, met to discuss the letter of April 29 by Secretary of Human Resources Fisher and the requirements of the legislation for the development of a plan to coordinate long-term care services to prevent inappropriate and unnecessary institutionalization and provide appropriate long-term care in home and community settings. We are contacting the Board of Supervisors on behalf of these agencies since the Virginia Department for the Aging was named coordinator at the state level. 3'7;9 September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) As a result of the discussion on June 24, we would like to recommend to local governments in Planning District Ten a process which will meet the requirements of the legislation. We suggest the following: 1. That a regional plan be developed covering all the localities in the Planning District since all affected agencies, except departments of social services, deliver services regionally. In addition, smaller localities may not have the necessary resources to begin a planning process. If this is agreeable, a two-stage process would begin. 2. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District commission would be named the facilitator for coordinating the plan development process with the parti- cipation of a representative from all agencies named in the legislation and any other local agencies which provide related services. 3. The draft plan will identify a lead agency as specified in Senate Bill 219 to implement the plan and coordinate the long-term care services pro- vided cooperatively by the above named agencies. This lead agency would not be the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. A draft would be ready by March, 1983, and a final plan ready by June 30, 1983, as required in the legislation. We will be contacting the Board of Supervisors shortly to learn if this process meets with its approval. The Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, Wayne Harbaugh, has agreed to make staff time available if you choose to proceed. The Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission will begin the planning process in concurrence with guidance from the newly organized state-level Council on Long-term Care created by Senate Bill 219." Miss Nash asked if the idea behind this bill is to make the same services available in the private home as are presently available in institutions. Mr. Elmore said it is far less costly to treat the elderly at home than to have them institutionalized. Ms. Karen Morris, Director of Social Services for Albemarle County, was present and stated her support for the regional concept as recommended by Mr. Elmore. Mr. Butler asked the difference between this new proposal and the methods presently being used by agencies. Mr. Elmore said the General Assembly wants assurance that there are communications among various agencies, prevention of duplication of services and assurance that the proper agencies handle each case. Mr. Agnor said he would reenforce the recommendation made by Ms. Morris, but emphasized that this is for the planning phase only, that a decision on the implementation phase would not come until the Spring of 1983. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mrs. Cooke, to endorse the re- commendations (listed as 1, 2 and 3 in Mr. Elmore's letter of July 28, 1982). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Henley and Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 19. Presentation from the Employment Research Commission. Mr. Francis Fife, representing the Employment Research Commission, read a proposal from this organization. The following is a summary of that proposal (Note: Copy of full proposal, as presented in written form by Mr. Fife, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors). The Employment Research Committee, appointed by the Charlottesville Develop- ment Group, has been exploring the employment situation in the Charlottesville- Albemarle area. Of immediate concern are those persons who are unemployed because of lack of skills or training and persons who hold minimum wage jobs. Although the city and county have a relatively low unemployment rate, there does seem to be a substantial number of unskilled workers. However, the area has few jobs to offer these individuals beyond retail and maintenance jobs. Another problem is the elimination or reduction of several federal programs which provide funding for training and employment to the economically disadvantaged. This raises the question of what role local governments, etc. can play in serving the people of this area. The Committee members identified another problem relating to employment, the lack of coordination between area businesses, industries, educational and training institutions in preparing students for future business needs. One of the Committee's tasks has been to determine whether or not the situation in our area calls for the creation of a high-level, city-county commission appointed by the two governing bodies. Such a commission should specifically be charged with: t. Fostering communication and coordination among all of the educational and training institutions and area business and industry; S~ptember 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) '3'80 2. Evaluating and advising the Board and Council and local School Boards on the progress made in closing the gap between the type of training provided in public schools and the specific needs of business and industry; 3. Encouraging economic development activities which will increase employment opportunities; 4. Encouraging involvement of businesses in bringing new employers to the area and expanding existing employment; and 5. Encouraging existing economic development groups to attract small, labor intensive industries and businesses that would recruit heavily from our area. We suggest the Commission consist of fifteen people appointed by the Board and Council to serve one year terms: --Six representing industry and small business; --Five representing educational and training institutions; and --Four representing the citizenry at large. We believe the existing staff of the City's Department of Community Development could provide the support services necessary for such an undertaking. The need for future financial commitment is not anticipated. However, if the need arises, the Commission will contact the Board and the Council. The Commission is not a permanent body and will complete its work in eighteen months to two years. In that time, existing agencies could carry out those plans which had been developed with the general support of the governing bodies, agencies and public. We believe that a united effort by schools, businesses and public is required if we are to have success in solving our unemployment problem. Without a maximum effort, some of our citizens could be denied employment. Without the coordination of our programs, the educa- tional and training institutions may not be able to prepare our people for the requirements of a rapidly changing technology. Mr. Fisher said the goal of this Committee that he agrees with most is the last one; to attract small, labor intensive industries. Mr. Fisher said everything these days has turned to high-technology which leaves the unskilled or low-skilled citizens jobless. Mr. Fisher said industry must be encouraged to provide employment for this area of the public. Miss Nash felt the attitude of the public and employers must be changed so there is a willingness to train people for specific jobs. Mr. Fisher said that since two members of the Board were not present, he would be hesitant to authorize the establishment of a new commission. He suggested that this matter be deferred until the October 13 meeting for a final decision. Mr. Fife said if the Board wishes, the committee could suggest names for possible appointment to the committee. (Mr. Henley returned at 2:45 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 11. State Water Control Board Resolution. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated August 18, 1982, from Mr. R. V. Davis, Executive Director of the State Water Control Board, asking for local support in an effort to control nonpoint source water pollution. (NOTE: Copy of Mr~ Davis' letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Agnor said a model resolution came with Mr. Davis' letter. He said such a resolution could be adopted singularly by the County, or jointly with the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Agnor said he and the staff would recommend the adoption of a joint resolution as follows: WHEREAS, it is recognized that pollutants from diffuse or nonpoint sources degrade the water quality of streams in Virginia; and WHEREAS, this degradation of water by nonpoint sources of pollution can restrict the beneficial uses of those waters by citizens of the Common- wealth; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth of Virginia has adopted a group of Best Management Practices to abate and control the amount of non~oint source pollutants from entering the surface and groundwaters of Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Commonwealth has endorsed a statewide voluntary program to implement these Best Management Practices in order to abate and control nonpoint sources of water pollution; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville beginning in 1975, have initiated several water quality studies, and have developed regional management plans and County ordinances to evaluate and minimize the effects of point and nonpoint sources of pollution; and WHEREAS, these management plans and ordinances currently utilize Best Management Practices. ' ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the Council of the City of Charlottesville, endorse the State Plan for reducing nonpoint source water pollution through vol- untary action and a nonregulatory program; and September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors and the City Council encourage all citizens within these jurisdictions to utilize Best Management Practices wherever practical; and FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors and the City Council direct the County Executive and the City Manager to insure that appropriate Best Management Practices are utilized by the County and City whenever practical. Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Butler, to adopt the resolution as recommended by the staff, same to be forwarded to Charlottesville City Council for their joint adoption. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 12. Delinquent Tax Attorney. Mr. George St. John summarized his letter of September 3, 1982 to Miss Letter E. Neher, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors, (Note: This letter is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) by stating that under Article 8, Chapter 21, Title 58 of the Code of Virginia, the procedure for judicial sale of real estate in satisfaction of delinquent real estate taxes requires the services of an attorney. Mr. St. John said some localities do this work in-house, while others contract the work out under Code Section 58-1117.2. Mr. St. John noted that until recently the law firm of Muller and White handled the County's cases, but Mrs. White no longer wishes to handle such cases. Mr. St. John said the firm of Fred Wood and Lecky Stone want the work and have educated themselves and considered this matter carefully before drawing up the contract being presented today. Mr. St. John said the contract has been reviewed by himself, Mr. Agnor and Mr. Ray Jones. Lastly, Mr. St. John noted that if an indenepdent attorney is hired to do the work, the statute allows that he be compensated out of the proceeds of the sale to the extent that the Court sets his fee. If the County Attorney does the work, the county will bear the entire expense and additional manpower will be required. Miss Nash said she has reviewed the paperwork regarding this request and believes the firm of Wood and Stone should be retained. Miss Nash felt their fee was very reasonable and they would be just in their dealings with the public. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke to authorize the County Executive to execute the agreement for the collection of delinquent taxes with the firm of Wood and Stone as follows: THIS CONTRACT, made this 15th day of September, 1982, pursuant to Virginia Code Section 58-1117.2, by and between the County of Albemarle ("County") and the law firm of Wood and Stone ("Attorney"), W I T NE S SETH : That the County does hereby employ Attorney and Attorney does hereby accept employment, as the County's Attorney for the purpose of collection of delinquent real estate taxes in Albemarle County, Virginia. Attorney shall be responsible for final advertisement of all delin- quent lands prior to institution of suit under Article 8, Chapter 21, Title 58, Code of Virginia. County will pay all expenses associated with such advertisement. County will pay Attorney a total fee of $250.00 for the service of advertising all the lands. Prior to the date stated in the advertisement, Attorney shall refer ail taxpayers who call regarding delinquent lands to the County for payment. Once the advertised date has passed, the County shall refer all remaining delinquent lands to Attorney and Attorney shall promptly institute suits to collect all such delinquent. taxes. County shall advise Attorney prior to the advertised date of any delinquent lands for which the County does not desire to file suit. County agrees to pay Attorney the sum of $1.00 for each collection letter sent to taxpayers prior to advertisement. As the Bill in Equity procedure for sale consists of distinct stages, the County agrees to pay Attorney a few for each suit filed based upon the stages completed prior to payment by the taxpayer. Once suit is filed, it is agreed that payment of the delinquent taxes may be made only as provided by law, to-wit: all delinquent taxes, penalties, interest and accrued expenses, including attorney's fee as approved by the Court. Attorney agrees to advise any taxpayer who desires to redeem his property of the amount of attorney's fees accrued to the date of payment. In the eYent that the taxpayer is unwilling to pay such fee in full, Attorney agrees to promptly submit his fee to the Court for approval and agrees to request the Court to approve his actual accrued fee in full. Attorney agrees to pro- ceed to sale in the event that full payment of all taxes, penalties, costs and attorneys fees is not tendered to the Court. County further agrees that no payment of any tax will be accepted by the Department of Finance once a suit is filed on the parcel to which that tax is applicable and further agrees to provide Attorney with any records or other evidence required to proceed to Court. County will reimburse Attorney for all expenses and be responsible for all Court and advertising costs. September l~5~_~_98~2~Rescheduled Da~yM~~ County agrees to pay Attorney for each completed stage of each suit as follows: Filing of Suit Entry of Decree of ReferenCe· Commissioner's Hearing Completion of Commissioner's Report Entry of Decree of Sale Sale $100.00 25.00 50.O0 25.00 25.00 50.O0 Attorney agrees that County shall, in any event, be liable for no more than $275.00 in attorney's fees under such schedule. However, County agrees that, in any case, Attorney may request the Court to approve addi~ tional fees for any action not specifically designated on the above schedule and that Attorney shall be entitled to any fee approved in addition to the Scheduled fees. Attorney will bill County for fees due at the end of each equity suit, showing a credit for fees awarded by the Court. County further agrees that Attorney shall be entitled to any fees awarded to him by the Court as Special Commissioner for completion and confirmation of any sale. Attorney further agrees to follow, as closely as is practicable, the proposed procedures attached hereto. (Copy of procedure is on file.) The motion to authorize the County Executive to sign the contract was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 20. Renewal of Employees Health Insurance Program. Mr. Agnor read his memorandum to the Board of Supervisors dated September 9, 1982 as follows: "A committee comprised of the Superintendent of Schools, Executive Director of the Service Authority, Director of Finance and County Executive have reviewed the status of the health insurance plan through the third quarter of the contract year and are pleased to report that the plan has continued to improve financially over last year. Projections to the end of the contract year (September 30), calculated from the information derived from the first three quarters of income and expenses, indicate that the contract year will end with the plan in sound condition. The Committee has elected to prepare this consolidated report to all of the boards involved, in lieu of separate reports, and to unanimously recommend renewal of the plan with Blue Cross/Blue Shield on October 1, 1982, without change in the benefits, and at the rates shown as follows: COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF RATE CHANGES Increase Present Proposed $ % 7510 Plan 12 Month Rate: Employer Employee w/1 Minor Employee w/Family 42.80 48.28 5.48 12.8 17.18 19.38 2.20 12.8 78.00 87.98 9.98 12.8 10 Month Rate: Employer Employee w/1 Minor Employee w/Family 51.36 57.94 6.58 12.8 20.62 23.25 2.63 12.8 93.62 105.60 11.98 12.8 6010 Plan 12 Month Rate: Employer Employee w/1 Minor Employee w/Family 42.80 48.28 5.48 12.8 9.42 10.62 1.20 12.8 59.09 66.64 7.56 12.8 10 Month Rate: Employer Employee w/1 Minor Employee w/Family 51.36 57.94 6.58 12.8 11.30 12.74 1.44 12.8. 70.90 79.97 9.07 12.8 These rates represent a 12.8% increase, and are adequately funded for FY 82-83 in the several agency budgets involved. Your approval of this recommendation and your authorization to continue the plan at the revised rates is respectfully requested." Motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke to authorize the County Executive to execute the renewal agreement for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Insurance effective October 1, 1982. (Mr. Lindstrom arrived at 3:02 P.M.). 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. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom 383 September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 24. Discussion of Soil Erosion Problems with Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher requested that this discussion take place in a less formal atmosphere, and requested a ten minute recess in order for the Board and members of the Planning Com- mission to move to meeting room #11. Recess was called at 3:00 P.M. At 3:10 P.M., Mr. Fisher called the meeting back to order. Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairperson of the Albemarle County Planning Commission, presented the Board of Supervisors with a four page response to concerns regarding ordinance development and enforcement. (NOTE: Copy of this report dated September 15, 1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mrs. Diehl noted in her memorandum that the soil erosion ordinance is the primary focus of the report. Mrs. Diehl verbally covered the report, which was divided into general areas of concern as follows: I. Education/Information Ae A written guide for citizens planning construction should be developed' This procedural guide would allow an inexperienced person to plan a project meeting all county requirements. Be Personnel should act as citizen resource persons. Oitizens should be able to deal with basically one contact person during the process. Ce Improved public relations must be stressed. This is important in upgrading the perception of county departments by the citizenry. De Information must be presented to members of the trade. Seminars and workshops should be developed aimed at educating groups within the construction industry. me The county must stress owner/contractor accountability. Through education and strict enforcement, ignorance will no longer be an excuse for ordinance abuse. II. Bonding. Review of current procedures should include: adequacy, written records, eXtension policy and reduction policy. III. Enforcement A written policy statement should be developed concerning enforcement. Notification should be given of ordinance interpretations. Enforcing agent interpretations of conditions set by the com- mission should be directed in written form, to all involved agencies. Ce Other specific and relevant information must be communicated. Prompt communication of requested information is imperative. De Enforcement must be strict, prompt and meaningful. The enforcing agent should pursue stop work orders, permit revocations, with- holding future permits and criminal violation procedures in order to insure compliance with county ordinances. Mr. Lindstrom said he personally feels this is the best response he could have hoped for. He also feels that education of the public is a most important factor to be addressed. Mr. David Bowerman said he felt that penalties must be swift and uniform when violations occur. Mr. Allan Kindrick said he felt one person representing the County should be assigned to each construction request and then that request be followed through the entire process. Mr. Butler said he has felt that there has been a lack of consistency in enforcement and if that problem could be addressed, it would be a substantial improvement. Mr. Fisher said this report as presented is very concise and to the point, but the Board needs some time to review it. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Agnor review the report with the staff and then make additional comments. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that once the staff has reviewed this report, another joint meeting between the Board and the Planning Commission take place to discuss implementation of any recommendations. It was the concensus of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission members, that the staff would review the report and bring back recommendations on either October 14 or October 21, at 4:00 P.M. At 3:40 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared a brief recess in order to return to Meeting Room At 3:45 P.M., the meeting was called back to order. Agenda Item No. 16. Charlottesville-Albemarle Energy Assessment, presentation from Dr. Charles Oseroff and Mr. Paul Raford. Mr. Raford delivered a slide presentation to the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission regarding the encouragement of solar energy and the more efficient use of present energy sources in a report entitled "Energy To The Year 2000 In The Charlottesville-Albemarle Area". (NOTE: Copy of this report is on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Fisher requested that copies of this report-be mailed to members of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher felt that the recommendations shown on pages 21 and 22 of the report were worth further review. Mr. Fisher said the recommen- dations regarding building construction and land use with regard to energy efficiency could be incorporated into current county procedures. At 4:07 P.M., motion was offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adjourn into executive..session to discuss personnel matters. 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. At 5:00 P.M., the meeting reconvened back into open session. Agenda Item No. 14. Deferred Compensation Plan. Mr. Agnor read his memorandum to the Board of Supervisors, dated September 9, 1982, as follows: "You will recall that the staff requested and received permission to solicit proposals from firms to create and administer a Deferred Compensation Plan for all County employees. Such plans have now been authorized by Federal tax legislation; plans allow an employee to defer income until retirement years, keep the money invested, with the income and its earnings sheltered from income taxes until it is drawn from the plan. Currently only emp- loyees engaged in the teaching profession are eligible for a similar program through annuities. Five proposals have been reviewed by a committee representing the Service Authority, School System, and General Government. The Firm of Stanley E. Clarke and Associates is recommended for employment as advisor/administrator of the program. Approval of this recommendation with authorization for the County Executive to enter into an agreement with Mr. Clarke is requested. The agreement will provide that, (1) the program will be funded entirely from fees paid by participants with no County funds involved; (2) that specifications for three investment plans will be drawn by Mr. Clarke with review by financial employees of the County prior to the specifications being advertised for bid by insurance and financial firms interested in the program; (3) that a Deferred Compensation Committee will be created to review and accept the bids for the investment plans and to serve as the policy group to oversee the administration of the plan, the Committee to be comprised of the Director of Finance, Superintendent of Schools, County Executive, Executive Director of the Service Authority, and three employees, one each from general government, schools, and Service Authority; (4) that Clarke and Associates will administer the program for an initial term of five years with appropriate cancellation and renewal clauses. A resolution, required by law, which creates the program, will be presented to the Board when the agreement with Mr. Clarke has been completed." Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Lindstrom authorizing the County Executive to employ the firm of Stanley E. Clarke and Associates as advisor/administrator of a deferred compensation plan for the County's general government and education employees, and Service Authority employees, as set out in Mr. Agnor's memorandum dated September 9, 1982. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Cooke and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Butler, Mrs. NAYS: None. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 21. Special Appropriations. Mr. Agnor first presented a memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones regarding the Capital Improvement Fund Balance, as follows: "In reviewing the availability of funds for the Phase II-County Office Building appropriation, there were several circumstances that became very obvious to me that I felt should be made known to the Board of Supervisors that are seriously impacting cash management. There is a heavy demand on the unallocated balance of the Capital Improve- ment Fund when large projects such as Phase III Albemarle High School are front ended (funded from County monies, with reimbursements being received at a later time). Probably before gets any proceeds of the Literary Fund for the Albemarle High School project, the entire million dollars will be spent. Several other roof projects (Jouett, Walton, Henley, Vo-Tech) amounting to $800,000, will begin immediately. These projects will have a fast pay-off. To my knowledge, these roof projects have not been approved for Literary Loan funding at this time. The interest rate on investments is down from 17.25% in October, 1981 to 8.50% in October, 1982. This results in approximately a 50% reduction in interest earned on investments from the proceeds of the Capital Improvement Fund. As you know, this is due to a drop in the prime interest rate com- bined with the recent federal tax package. Hopefully, the end result will be beneficial to the over-all economy. The local sales tax receipts which go to the General Fund and not the Capital Improvement Fund are $44,000 less in the first eight months of 1982, than it was in the same period for 1981. This may impact the future capability of the General Fund to provide funds for capital projects. Finally, the unallocated cash balance of the Capital Improvement Fund was $1.2 million on July 1, 1982, and the unallocated balance of the-General Fund was $7.3 million on the same date. 384 _ 38,5 September 15, 1982 ~Rescheduled Day Meeting) In order to fund Phase II of the County Office Building, I will have to transfer, earlier than anticipated, the $1 million (per budget) from the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund. With the current monthly payroll costs (salaries plus fringes) exceeding $1.5 million and accounts payable exceeding $0.5 million, the unallocated balance of the General Fund will be very low when the 1982 taxes start coming in." Mr. Agnor nexv presented a request for special appropriation for the Phase II renovations of the County Office Building Complex in the amount of $1,351,244. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,351,244 is hereby appropriated from Code 9700-9999.99, Unallocated Balance - CIP, and transferred to Code 9700-7060.01 for Phase II - County Office Building renovations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Prior to roll being called, Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor about the question of the Literary Funds for the Albemarle High School renovation projects. He said he had seen an article in the newspaper which suggested that the School Board should have applied for $2 million instead of $1 million. Mr. Agnor said it is not yet known if the School Board could have applied for the $2 million, and that a memorandum is being prepared by Mr. Jones for presentation to the School Board. Roll was called on the motion to adopt the resolution for the special appropriation for Phase II of the County Office Building renovations, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Agnor next requested a special appropriation for an over-run in the cost of the consultants inspection fees for the roofing project at the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Agnor noted Mr. Ray Jones' memorandum dated August 30, 1982, requesting funding in the amount Of $5,482.83. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $5,482.83 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from Code 9700-9999.99, Unallocated Balance - CIP, and transferred to Code 9700- 7060.93, Joint Security Complex Reroofing Project. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried b~ the f0~lowing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 22. Transfer of Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said a memorandum was received from Mr. Patrick K. Mullaney, Director of Parks and Recreation, requesting a transfer of appropriations. (NOTE: Memorandum dated August 27, 1982, to Mr. Ray B. Jones Director of Finance on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.') This request is to transfer from an account for paving the Chris Greene road to paving the Beaver Creek Road. Mr. Jones suggests that this be accomplished by transferring: FROM: 9700-7060.33, Chris Greene Paving Project $640.00 TO: 9700-7064.34, Beaver Creek Paving Project $586.67 9700-9999.99, Unallocated Balance - CIP 53.33 Motion was offered by Miss Nash to approve the transfer of funds. seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: The motion was AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 23. ApPointments. Miss Nash offered motion to reappoint Mr. Wal~er K. 0slin to the Jordan DeveloPment Corporation Board for a term to expire on August 13, 1983. The motion was seconded by Mr. Butler and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter from Mrs. Wayne Harbaugh, Executive Director of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, asking for the appointment of two representatives from Albemarle County for the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee. (NOTE: Copy of Mrs. Harbaugh's letter dated September 10, 1982, is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Butler, to appoint Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Technical Committee with no specific term set. 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. September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters Not Listed On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher said he wished to receive authorization to sign two agreements for payment advances to Volunteer Fire Companies. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Ray Jones has'already set up a revolving fund for the fire companies as anticipated in the Capital Improvement Program. Motion was offered by Mr. Butler to authorize the Chairman to sign the following two agreements providing there is a written recommendation on file from the Jefferson Country Firemen's Association relative to these two particular requests. THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 28th day of September, 1982, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and STONY POINT VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("Stony Point"); WI TNE S S E TH : That for and in consideration of the operation by Stony Point of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to Stony Point the sum of $70,000.00 during fiscal year 1982-83 from the County's Capital Fund. Thenceforth, the sum of $10,000.00 per year shall be withheld each year by the County from the County's annual grant to Stony Point for a period of seven consecutive years beginning fiscal year 1983 so that at the end of the seventh year, which is the term of this service agreement, a total of $70,000.00 shall have been withheld. THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT, made this 27th day of September, 1982, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE and EAST RIVANNA VOLUNTEER FIRE COMPANY ("East Rivanna"); W I TNE S S E TH : That for and in consideration of the operation by East Rivanna of a volunteer fire company which will fight fires and protect property and human life from loss or damage by fire during the period of this agreement, the County shall pay to East Rivanna the sum of $73,500.00 during fiscal year 1982-83 from the County's Capital Fund. Thenceforth, the sum of $13,000.00 per year shall be withheld each year by the County from the County's annual grant to East Rivanna for a period of five consecutive years beginning fiscal year 1983 and $8,500.00 shall be withheld from the County's annual grant to East Rivanna in the sixth year so that at the end of six years, which is the term of this service, agreement, a total of $73,500.00 shall have been withheld. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. (NOTE: Letter signed by J. E. Samsell, Finance Committee Chairman, Jefferson Country Firemen's Association, dated August 11, 1982, relative to these requests had been filed with Ray Jones, Finance Department.) Agenda Item No. 3. Approval of Minutes. Mr. Lindstrom said the minutes of December 9,.1981, were correct as submitted. The minutes of March 10, 1982, Mr. Lindstrom requested the first line of the second paragraph on page 99 be changed to read "...this State Transportation Plan in so far as it is consistent with the..." Mr. Lindstrom also requested a change in the wording of a sentence on page 106, third paragraph, to read as follows: "...this parcel could ~$ be physically served by the waterline..." Mr. Fisher requested the Clerk of the Board to verify this correction with Mr. Brent of the Service Authority before making the change in the official minutes. (NOTE: This correction was verified by Miss Neher and the sentence as corrected by Mr. Lindstrom has become part of the official minutes.) Lastly, Mr. Lindstrom offered a correction on page 115 under agenda item number 16 stating that the last sentence should read "...Virginia Employment Commission and such are up to 4.75%." Regarding the minutes of June 16, 1982, Mr. Lindstrom said those minutes were correct as submitted. Motion was then offered by Mrs. Cooke, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom,.to approve the minutes of December 9, 1981, March 10 and June 16, 1982, with the necessary corrections. Roll was called and ~he motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Butler, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 26. Other Matters Not Listed On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher presented to the Board for their information, three proposed projects as suggested by the Consolidation Committee: 1) A proposal for the Consolidation Study Committee of Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville as prepared by the Institute of Government of the University of Virginia, dated September 14, 1982; 2) A proposal for the study of consolidated law enforcement; and 3) A proposal for a study by the school systems of the City of Charlot- tesville and Albemarle County to determine the feasibility of merger of the two systems. 387.. September 15, 1982 (Rescheduled Day Meeti.ng) Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned that the Committee is exceeding the scope of its charge as laid out in the revenue sharing agreement. Mr. Fisher explained the goals that the Committee was attempting to achieve and the time schedule it was working under. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Committee should be reporting back to the Board and Council on any ideas, prior to the starting of such projects. A very lengthy debate then ensued regarding the goals and objectives of the com- mittee, the frequency with which the Committee will report back to the Board and Council, preparation of minutes of those Committee meetings, and the areas which should and should not be studied by the Committee at this time. Motion was offered by Miss Nash that a study of the school systems should not be done at this time. There was no second to the motion. A new motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the Board's position with respect to the Study Committee is that the Board acknowledges receipt of the proposals for study, appreciates being kept current and that the Board does not wish to recommend or oppose any of these studies until a full report of options is rec'eived. Mr. Lindstrom clarified the motion by stating that it does not refer to the study by the Institute of Government or the law enforcement study. Mr. Henley suggested simply that a hold be placed on all studies with the exception of the law enforcement study. Mr. Lindstrom rephrased his motion stating that the Consolidation Committee be informed at the next meeting, that a hold should be put on all studies, with the exception of the study on law enforcement, and when there is a list prepared of all areas that might be studied, the Board can sift through same and tell the Consolidation Committee what should be studied. The amended motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Roll was then 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 noted receipt of a letter dated September 8, 1982, from Mr. Bruce E. Hathaway of Guilford Packaging & Fiber, Inc., addressed to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Fisher said the letter (NOTE: on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of Super- visors) concerns a flooding problem at 2112 Berkmar Drive, which houses Jefferson Supply Company. Mr. Hathaway's letter charges failure on the part of Albemarle County to provide its citizens and property owners adequate drainage facilities. Mr. Fisher requested that Mr. St. John review this letter and recommend wording for a reply. Agenda Item No. 27. At 5:58 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman September 15, 1982 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 15, 1982, at 7:30 P.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., Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 7:40 P.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, Mr. Gerald Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:38 P.M., by Agenda Item No. 2. SP-82-48. Christopher Middleton and Albert E. Smith. To locate a veterinary office on 2.23 acres zoned Highway Commercial. Property on east side of Berkmar Drive, about 1000 feet south of Route 631 (Rio Road), adjacent to Gercke Con- struction Company. County Tax Map 61U, Section 2, Lots 6 and 7, Charlottesville District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 1 and September 8, 1982.) Mr. Tucker, Director of Planning, read the Planning Staff report as well as the recommendation of the Planning Commission, as follows: Request: Veterinary Office (24.2.2.4) Acreage: 2.23 acres Zoning: HC Highway Commercial Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61U, Section 2, Parcels 6 and 7, is located on the east side of Berkmar Drive about 1,000 feet south of Rio Road. Character of the Area: The recently approved "village offices" complex is now under construction on this property. A contractor's office is to the north. A volunteer fire company/rescue squad is across Berkmar Drive. Property to the south is undeveloped. The nearest dwelling is located in Berkeley subdivision about 1,000 feet to the west.