Loading...
1981-03-11 · ~p~s~ 2au s~m ~om~sd~d sM2 ssn~osq ~pus~ sM2 mo~j pSAOmS~ S~ mSSy 'mS~S~ ~g~puoos~ 02U~ p~o~ S~ :S~S22~ ~M~YH '0~ 'oM msSZ ~pus~V 'suoN :~XVM :9%OA psp~oos~ ~uy~oIIOJ sM% ~q psy~o uoy%om pspusm~ sM% pu~ PSII~O s~ IIOH X%uno0 sM% M~no~M% u~M% ~s%s~j sq pIno~ ss9oo~d ~SyAa~ syM% %ISJ pu~ %nq cK%gsdogd gYM ~uypyAypqns JO uoy%us%uy au s~q sq pies ~unox pInon sM %~q% pspp~ gsqs%~ 'gM 'spunj uoanapp~ Iegng 0% s~ uoy%~pus~oosg syq gag p~og sq% n~ ~ooI gssuy~uH ~%uno0 sM% sA~q 02 psuIIouI sq pInon BM 'gM psmgojuI sM pyes~%IsAssooH 'gM '000¢i$ sq PInon ~ssgo ~unox 'gM pssyAp~ sM pyas %ISASsooH 'gM '(I~9 s%noH) uoy%ssnb 'gM('M'V 0~:6 %~ P@ATgg~ mog%spuy% 'gM) 'sssuysnq mgmj syq 'gM 'I~9 s%noH [~unox gsousds mogj %ssnbsH :sgs%%~M R~nM~$H '~ 'oM ms%I ~pus~v :~XVN :W~XV · s~pygq sq~ %noq~ ugsouoo pssssgdxs SA~ o~n sIdosd ssoq% jo smog ~jsy%~s %q~ym su~yg sq% SAOgdmy 02 suop sq PInOO %~qn ~uyq%~ue sen sgsq% sy %ISASSOOH 'gM ps~s~ ~S~M ssyM sM% s~ ashaM%shoO ~%uno0 sIgemsqIv sM% u¥ 'M'~ 0[:% ne ¢Y~6I ~0U ~e~ %ss o% cuu~0oM 'gM Nq pspuooss '~%%sqo~! 'gG ~q psgsjjo sen uoy%o~ '%s~pnq X%uno0 sIg~msqyv sq2 jo uoyssnosyp 02 snp ~snq ~gSA S% ~ pus IYgdv gag sInpsqos ~pus~e sq% %~q% ps%on ~sqsy~ 'gM · x~% sulIOS~ q~nogq% jo sIppym sq% ~q ps%dop~ sq %snm %sII ssy%ygoygd ~ pyas %IOASSOOH 'g~ 'uoy%~%godsu~gg ~enq~yH ~g~puooes ~9-I96I gag s%~p ~uyg~sq %sS :sgs%%~M Xenq~yH 'V~ 'oM m@%I ~pus~V ~q gspgo 02 P@II~O s~n ~u$%ssm sM% ¢'M'V Z0:6 %V · gaps0 02 ITS0 'T 'oM ms%i epus~V Cuttof '%S 'ti s~goso pu'e CSAT%no@xz Jl%unoo ''gl 'gou~v '~ ~nD 'sgsSSIAI :LNZgZH~ gHZOIgg0 -g~q0 ¢~uypIyn~ soyJJ0 Xnuno0 aig~msqiv sq% Jo mash pg~o~ sq% uT ''M'V 00:6 %~ I96I ¢II March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 2D. Highway Matters: Discussion: Earth Dam, Woodburn Road. Mr. Agnor reported that a meeting was held on March 10, 1981, in his office regarding this dam, and that Mr. Jim Hill, representing Dr. Charles Hurt said the developer was in a dilemma in attempting to meet requirements set by the Highway Department t~at the dam must be approved by the Federal Dam Safety Commission before the Highway Department will accept the road across the dam into the State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said i~ was the opinion that in order to apply for federal review of the dam, the develope~ must first have a resolution from the State Highway Department. Mr. Agnor said another meeting between the developer and the Highway Department has been requested by the developer to resolve the report on the materials used in the construction of the dam. If the report can be resolved, then application for certification from the Federal Dam Safety Commission can be made. Mr. Agnor also requested that this item be removed from the Board's agenda due to the amount of time required to apply for Federal certification. Mr. Fisher said he has kept this item on the agenda in order to be certain that progress was being made toward solving the problem. Mr. Fisher said a zoning action is also pending the resolution of this matter and he would not like to see this item left off the agenda for any length of time and forgotten. Mr. Fisher suggested placing this item back on the agenda in two months for a progress report. It was the concensus of the Board to place discussion of the Woodburn Road Earth Dam back on the agenda in May, 1981. Agenda Item No. 2E. Highway Matters: Request for Street Signs. Mr. Agnor said requests have been received for street signs in three subdivisions, those being; Carrsbrook, Greentree and Whippoorwill Hollow. Mr. Agnor noted that in all cases the homeowners involved have agreed to pay for the signs. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following three resolutions requesting road signs: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Carrsbrook Drive (State Route 854) and Indian Springs Road (State Route 1432) at the northwest corner of its intersection. Indian Springs Road (State Route 1432) and Monacan Drive (State Route 1433) at the southwest corner of its intersection. Monacan Drive (State Route 1433) and Shawnee Court (No State Route number) at thie southeast corner of its intersection. Monacan Drive (State Route 1433) and Powhatan Circle (State Route 1442) at the southeast corner of its intersection. Monacan Drive (State Route 1433) and Cherokee Court (State Route 1443) at the southeast corner of its intersection. Carrsbrook Drive (State Route 854) and Marlboro Court (State Route 1419) at the northwest corner of its intersection. Marlboro Court (State Route 1419) and Dover Court (State Route 1423) at the southwest corner of its intersection. Marlboro Court (State Route 1419) and Dover Road (State Route 1423) at the northeast corner of its intersection. Marlboro Court (State Route 1419) and Gloucester Road (State Route 1424) at the northeast corner of its inter- section. Dover Road (State Route 1423) and Gloucester Road (State Route 1424) at the northwest corner of its intersection. Clarke Lane (State Route 1419) and Highview Lane (State Route 1420) at the southwest corner of its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Georgetown Road (State Route ~56) and Greentree Park (State Route 1490) at the southwest corner of its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. March ~ _~9_8~ul___ar Da~ Meet~n_~) WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Whippoorwill Road (State Route 839) at the northwest corner of its intersection with State Route 676. Whippoorwill Road (State Route 839) at the southeast corner of its intersection with State Route 614. Whippoorwill Road (State Route 839) and Cardinal Ridge Road (State Route 1615) at the southwest corner of its intersection. WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to instatl and maintain the above mentioned street signs. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 2F. Highway Matters: Request for Street Light. Mr. Agnor said a request has been received to install a street light at the intersection of Idlewood Drive (State Route 1415) and Brookmere Road (State Route 1418), to be installed on presently existing pole #SA 54. Mr. Agnor said this request has been reviewed by the County Engineer, the Highway Department and Vepco and meets requirements. Mr. Agnor noted that there is no cost of installation to the County, and that the monthly electric charges will amount to ~7.88. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize that this street light be installed according to the plans submitted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 2G. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Agnor reported receipt of a letter dated March 4, 1981, from Mr. D. B. Hope, District Engineer of the Department of Highways and Transportation, announcing the schedule for the annual preallocation public hearings for interstate, primary and urban systems and public transportation. The letter stated two meetings were scheduled for the Culpeper District to be held on April 8, 1981; one at 9:00 A.M. in the Culpeper District Office and one at 1:30 P.M. in the City of Fairfax Council Chambers. Dr. Iachetta said he would be willing to attend the 9:00 A.M. meeting in Culpeper to represent the Board. Mr. Roosevelt stated that since this would conflict with the Board of Supervisors' regular day meeting, perhaps the Board would wish to forward a statement regarding the County's highway needs, since such statements would be accepted as part of the record up through April 17. Mr. Fisher stated he would prefer to see a representative present at this hearing because greater recognition seems to be given to those problems presented in person. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to present the problem of Route 29 North traffic and water drainage problems as well as the poor condition of Route 20 North and South. Miss Nash said she felt Route 20 North was in much worse condition than Route 20 South. The Board was of the unanimous opinion that Route 29 North from the City limits to the North Fork Rivanna River bridge and Route 20 were the two most pressing road problems in the County, and that Dr. iachetta should express these concerns at the hearing. Mr. Agnor reported receipt of a letter dated February 25, 1981 from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, giving a fiscal summary of expenditures on the secondary road system during the 1'979-80 fiscal year. Mr. Henley reported a severe dip in the road on Route 810 near Smallwood Farm, and requested Mr. Roosevelt to mark the location and possibly fill it. Mr. Fisher said he received a telephone call from an angry citizen requesting road improvements to Route 633 from Route 29 to Heards. Mr. Roosevelt said he has spoken several times to a man from that area and informed him that substantial right of way would be required due to the terrain and the amount of widening which would have to be done. Mr. Fisher said this citizen seems to hold him responsible for the fact that his mother (Mrs. Fisher) will not donate approximately three miles of right of way to accomplish those road improvements. Mr. Roosevelt commented that even if the right of way were available, there probably are not sufficient road improvement funds to undertake such a mammoth project. Dr. Iachetta requested warning arrow signs be placed on the curve along Carrsbrook Drive to help prevent motorists from running into yards and tearing down mail boxes. Dr. Iachetta said residents along that portion of Carrsbrook Drive have complained that such mishaps occur almost on a weekly basis. Mr. Roosevelt said he would look into the placement of such signs. .1,3 3 March 11 1 8~e~ul~r Day ~eeting~ Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Roosevelt if any progress has been made to remove the debris on Route 643 near the Ooglesby property. Mr. Roosevelt said he has surveyed the situation and determined that the majority of the trash lies outside the highway department right of way, and suggested the possibility of placing posts or digging a ditch along that stretch of road to deter people from pulling off the road at that location and throwing trash. Dr. Iachetta said since the trash already there is not on highway property, he will see if some of the neighbors can clean the area before the Highway Department places posts. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the status of Qeorgetown Road improvements. Mr. Roosevelt said aHighway Department agent should be contacting property owners shortly to discuss right of way donations. Mr. Lindstrom stated he felt the Highway Department will find a difficult time with Dr. Word, one of the property owners. Mr. Lindstrom next asked about a spot on Route 658 near the entrance to Ivy Farm and whether or not the Highway Department was able to obtain sufficient right of way to improve that blind corner. Mr. Roosevelt said he requested a donation of right of way from the property owner opposite the entrance to Ivy Farm for the purpose of constructing a turn lane, and was rejected. Mr. Roosevelt said he then requested an easement from the owner of the property directly at the entrance, but has received no answer in almost a year. Mr. Lindstrom said he would attempt contacting Mrs. Hatchner, owner of the entrance property, to see if he can obtain consent for the easement. Mr. McCann said he has received a request from the Proffit Homeowners' Association for road striping on Route 649 from Route 29 to Route 20. Dr. Iachetta said he also has received the same request. Mr. Roosevelt said the signing has recently been upgraded to attempt to handle the problems along that road, and said he would like to study the effects of those signs before adding stripes. Mr. Roosevelt said the traffic volume is on the border line for required stripping, and since this process is handled by the Traffic Engineer, it could be a very long time before the work is accomplished. Mr. Roosevelt said he has received a letter from homeowners association in that area requesting his assistance in reducing the speeds along Route 649. Mr. Roosevelt said he would like the opportunity to work with the homeowners in the area to help solve the problems, then suggested an actual speed limit be posted and enforced. Mr. McCann then requested a traffic signal at the intersection of Route 20 and Route 250 East. Mr. McCann said he received this request from the residents of Key West and Cedar Hills Subdivisions because of the difficulty in making a left turn from Route 20 onto Route 250 East. Mr. Roosevelt said this matter has been studied many times and it has been the firm response from the Highway Department that no signal will be placed at this location. Mr. Roosevelt said 150 cars per hour must make turns from the side street over an eight hour period in order to warrant a traffic signal at this location. Miss Nash asked if the Highway Department will clean up the section of Route 795 between Simeon and Morven~ caused by trucks which have been timbering on Morven Farm. Mr. Roosevelt said if the problem is mud, rain will clean the road. Mr. Roosevelt said he was more concerned that the weight of the trucks would damage the road which was only resur- faced last year. Agenda Item No. 3. Public Hearing on the abandoment of a section of Route 653 from its southern intersection with Route 601 to 0.16 mile east of the Route 601 southern intersection. (AdvertiSed in the Daily Progress on February 25 and March 4, 1981.) Mr. Dan Roosevelt stated that this request was made by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. He said the str±p of road to be abandoned runs through Highway Department property and the property of Mrs. Page J. Flinn. Mr. Roosevelt said he has informed all adjoining property owners via certified mail about the Department's intent to abandon this section of road, and has heard from Mrs. Ethel Martin who stated her opposition to this road abandonment. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Mr. William Martin who stated he was totally opposed to abandoning the road. He said this will create a dead-end in front of his property and cause people to use his driveway or yard, possibly dump trash and be a nuisance. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this abandonment, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher asked how the Highway Department intended to finish off this road if abandoned. Mr. RooseveIt said a turnaround would be constructed on Highway Department property, which would allow motorists to turnaround without using Mr. Martin's driveway. Mr. Henley asked if Mr. Houtz was contacted about this request. Mr. Roosevelt said he received the certified letters~long with all other adjoining property owners, but received no reply. Mr. Roosevelt said he felt since Mr. Houtz has a private easement which would connect to the proposed cul-de-sac area, Mr. Houtz apparently was not opposed. Mr. Henley said he felt this request was similar to the other request this morning about the road going through a private barnyard. Mr. Henley said he could see no problems with the proposed road abandonment as long as the turnaround is entirely on Highway Department property, and the property is properly policed for trash. Mr. Henley then offered motion to approve this request by adopting the following resolution: March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) WHEREAS, Secondary Route 653, from its south intersection with Route 601 to 0.16 mile east of the Route 601 south intersection, a distance of 0.16 mile, has been altered~and a new road has been constructed and ap- proved by the State Highway Commissioner, which new road serves the same citizens as the road so altered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Secondary Route 653 be, and the same hereby is, abandoned as a public road from its intersection with Route 601 to 0.16 mile east of the Route 601 south intersection, a distance of 0.16 mile, pursuant to Section 33.1-155 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Miss Nash said she was in sympathy with Mr. Martin's concern about trash accumulating at,the deadend. Mr. Henley said he felt the Highway Department would be sure to police this area, especially since it is on Highway Department property. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following re- corded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Greenwood Community Center Report. Mr. Fisher requested this agenda item be deferred temporarily in order that the scheduled for 10:30 A.M., could be heard on time. Agenda Item No. 5. Airport Center Final Plat Appeal. (Subdivision Plat of "Airport Center" located on State Route 649, Rivanna District, drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Jr., dated February 17, 1981, Parcel 17E, Tax Map 32, Deed Book 692, Page 198.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, read the Planning staff report as follows: Location: Parcel 17E on Tax Map 32, Rivanna District; located on the north side of Route 649; east of Route 606 and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Acreage: 9.80 acres. Zoning: LI, Light Industry History: The Board of Zoning Appeals on April 16, 1980, denied VA-80-13, a request for relief from a 50 foot building setback. On July 21, 1980, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved a request for a truck terminal to be located behind Benoit Nursery. The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 27, 1981, deferred this final plat so that the applicant could investigate constructing a public road rather than a private road as proposed. Proposal: To divide 9.8 acres into seven lots with an average size of 1.4 acres for light industrial uses. Topography of Area: of the parcel. Gently sloping to moderately steep slopes at the rear Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 649 from Route 29 North currently carries 3,765 vehicle trips per day and is con- sidered by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to be non-tolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Other rural land with a recommended density of one dwelling unit per two acres. Type Utilities: Public water is available. Staff Comment: The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation has commented that this site, originally the Benoit Nursery, has an existing entrance and turn lane. However, the turn lane should be widened to 12 feet and be lengthened to 200 feet if this is possible along the frontage. The Fire Official has commented that hydrants are required no closer than 50 feet or more than 400 feet from major structures. This plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and the Staff recommends approval, subject to the following: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: gm Note and locate all streams; Written Health Department approval; Fire Official approval of hydrant locations; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes: 1) County Engineer approval of road specifications; 2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a private street commercial entrance. · H%a@doad I~y%u@pyssa @asr %y jy u~q% a@%%aq qonm aq PInO~ p~oa aM% dn ~uadaa~ ssauysnq RoMs IIYR %~I~. p~aa o2 .M. uo¥%ypuoo ~ pp~ 0% pu~ jj~%s SM% lq pa%sa~ns s~ y~AOadd~ Jo syM% pyas Msnq~pnoH 'aM 'uRoMs aq 0% paau plnoR %aaj ua% I~UOy%ypp~ u~ su~am qoI~ %~Id @~YI PInOR aM jy qsnq~pnoH 'aM pa~s~ aaMsy~ 'aM '9 pu~ ~ s%oI jo azys aM% %noq~ p@uaaouoo I~uoy%ypp~ aM% pyas aa~on~ 'aM '%~Id syq% uyouRoqs s~ 1%oi ua %oajj~ lu~ aA~q pIno~ -uy~ aM% 0% lldd~ 02 @moony I~UO$%ypp~ @sy~a 0% aapao u% %onpoad s%y jo ooyad aq~ asy~a · pau~ysapaa s%oI @q% pu~ pa%~ooIaa aq 0% @A~M IIY~ p~oa ap%au aM% aoj a~a~I oo% s~m laoa~d aM% aouys pu~ sss@uysnq ay%q% a%~ooIaa o% l%aadoad syq% · spca% a%~Ayad q%y~ uoysyAypqns I~y%uapysaa ~ ua pao~Id aq PInO~ s~ syq% aq% ~uyzIu!~naos uaaq s~M uoassImmo0 ~u!uu~I~ aM% pyas aa~on~ 'aM 'uos~aa a~Ino%%a~d aoyad saOSyAaadnw jo pa~o~ aM% lq p~aq @q 02 @Iqyssod aq pIno~ %y J! pu~ 'ti aAyaG OOq~ JO aou~%daoo~ aoj su~Id p~oa jo I~Aoadd~ aaauy~u% March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: Messrs. Fisher and Lindstrom. The list of conditions as finally approved are as follows: 1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: ae fo ge he Note and locate all streams; Written Health Department approval; Fire Official approval of hydrant locations; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and includes: 1) County Engineer approval of road specifications 2) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; Plat will show reservation of thirty (30) foot setback measured from the resrrvation on Lot #1. Agenda Item No. 6. John A. Schwab Residential Site Plan Appeal. Mr. Tucker read the Planning Staff report: (Site ?ian of Proposed Single Family Attached Housing, Rio Road, for John A. Schwab, Jr. and Randolph D. Wade, Tax Map 61, Parcels 139 and 140, zoned R-6, Charlottesville District, drafted by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborn, Inc., dated January 20, 1981; revised January 27, 1980.) "The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on October 21, 1980, approved site plan subject to the following conditions: Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements; b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; e. Staff approval of landscape plan; f. A stockade type fence along the frontage on Rio Road shall be provided to be approved by the Staff; g. Note the parking spaces on the plan; h. Revise the plan to include the following technical information: 1) Owners and zoning of adjacent tracts; 2) Right of way width for Rio Road; 3) Building and lot coverage; 4) Change the title to read: "Proposed Single Family Attached Housing"; 5) Change the note on the Homeowners Association to read: Common areas, roads, recreational equipment, drainage and appurtenant structures are to be owned and maintained by a Homeowners' Association consisting of all lot owners; i. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of the road entering from Rio Road and on one side of the lateral road; j. Road plans to be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; Certificates of Occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow; b. Staff approval of recreational equipment. The above noted site plan was approved showing nineteen units, eighteen attached units and one single unit. The Commission required the applicant to provide State roads on the site since it is in the urban area. The applicant has revised the plan to show one State road and one private road, an increased size of building #it, and some of the technical requirements in the previous approval. The applicant is requesting reconsideration to obtain relief from the Commission's requirement that both of the roads serving the site be State maintained. The 34 foot right of way is shown as a State road but the 30 foot right of way cannot meet the cul-de-sac requirements of the State. Should the Planning Commission choose to reconsider the plan, Staff suggests the following amendments to the previously approved conditions: ~ ~ j. Road plans for the 34 foot right of way to be approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation for acceptance into the State system; k. County Engineer approval of specifications for the 30 foot right of way. Also, to amend condition 1.a. to read: Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements to include fencing to be approved by the County Engineer; and to delete condition 2.b. (for the provision of the recreational equipment). March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 27, 1981, reconsidere~ the site plan and denied the applicant's request. Mr. Fisher. read the letter of appeal dated February 5, 1981, signed by Mr. John A. Schwab, Jr., as follows: "The Albemarle County Planning Commission at it's meeting on January 27, 1981, denied our plan for the residential development of the site on Rio Road based on our use of one private road. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the project with the Board of Supervisors and respectfully request that we be added to the next agenda." First to speak was Mr. David Blankenbaker, part owner of this tract. Mr. Blankenbaker gave a brief history of the property, then noted the changes on the revised plat being presented to the Board. Mr. Blakenbaker quoted a sentence from a letter dated February 4, 1981, from Mr. W. B. Coburn, Jr., Assistant Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department and Transportation, stating "Sidewalks should be eliminated from the drop inlet in the center of Lot 1 down the southern side. Other sidewalk shown would be acceptable for state maintenance". Mr. Roosevelt commented on that letter and said it was the opinion of the Highway Department that there would be sufficient sidewalk to serve the subdivision if placed on only one side of the road. Mr, Fisher said he disagreed with that concept. Mr. Roosevelt said this would also reduce the cost of state maintenance for the sidewalk. Dr. Iachetta said just considering the costs of materials and labor, he felt it would be a serious error to put a private road in an area of moderate cost housing. Mr. Henley said private roads may someday be better maintained than state roads if the Highway Department continues to run so short on funds. Mr. McCann said since the private road provisions are in the ordinance, he would be inclined to support the plan as presented. Mr. Lindstrom said he agreed with Dr. Iachetta that homeowners will not be able to afford maintenance due to cost of materials. Mr. Fisher said the action of the Planning Commission on January 27, 1981, will stand unless action to change same is taken by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Randolph Wade said if the Board upholds the plan as approved by the Planning Commission, it will cause the two northern-most lots to be taken up by a cul-de-sac, thereby necessitating the plan to start over from the beginning under the rules of the new zoning ordinance which will demand a lower density. Motion was then offered by Mr. McCann to change condition "j" to state "as recommended by staff", and add condition "k" to read "For County Engineer approval of specifications for 30 foot right of way and County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement". The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the rules have been changed in the middle of the action as stated by Mr. Wade and anything less than a state road is granted by waiver of the ordinance. Roll was then called, and the motion was defeated by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Henley and McCann. Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. There was no new motion, and the action of the Planning Commission stands. Agenda Item No, 7. Report: Sign Commission. Mr. Bill Edwards prefaced his statement by noting that the membership of this Commission was such that there was an unequal balance of representation. Mr. Edwards said the Commission's membership was made up of representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, Citizens for Albemarle, Civic League, the League of Women Voters, North 29 Neighborhoods and the At-large member was also a spokes- woman for the League of Women Voters. Mr. Edwards said he was the only member repre- senting business, and therefore felt the Commission's report did not represent a cross section of people concerning the sign needs of the County. Mr. Edwards then summarized a memorandum addressed to the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors as follows: "This ordinance is changed in concept from the current sign ordinance in that it is geared to road classifications rather than to zoning districts~ The need for signs depends on the type of road, the sPeed, and amount of traffic as well as the presence of commercial enterprises which need to advertise. With these distinctions in mind, we have organized the proposed ordinance into three categories, plus the scenic highways classification. Permitted signage is less than in the current ordinance, but we found that in many instances signs in actual use are smaller than the sizes permitted under the present ordinance. We have 'also lowered setback distance to balance the reduced signage. We have tried to carry out the charge of the Board, and the new draft is respectfully presented for the consideration of the Board." Mr. Edwards stressed that the ordinance presented today has not been reviewed by any legal counsel, and although the commission members carefully followed similar ordinances from other localities, he felt the ordinance should have legal review. Following brief comments from other Commission members, motion was offered by Miss Nash to refer this proposed ordinance to the Planning Staff and County Attorney's office for review before presentation to the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher refined the motion stating that this is not a resolution of intent to hold a public hearing on this language, but that the planning staff and legal staff refine the language in the proposed ordinance and present same to the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing or adopt a resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance and then forward their recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for separate public hearing. The motion Sou Xem paeo~ @qg pies · aeaK I~OSt$ I8-08 sUS ass 000'0I$ usus sssI Xsunoo sug Kq aasuao aU~ $o uoIseaado jo gsoo IegOg aUS ss~em pus 00~'~$ os dn sanusAsa pssemISss IegOS sUS s~uIaq sIq~ '000¢E~ ~q ~utge~s asIIoa ass pasesaouI ussq aA~U s@SemISsa · ssISaed ~uIse~s pus ¢~uIge~s ¢~uIIaOq ass usdo sou s! KgYIYOe$ sug geUg ssSou gaodsa aU& asSuso 'yuozusaoq ~aeN 'aN pus CaoseuIpaooD mea~oag uo!geaaosH 'Ksu~IInN '~ Moyag~ 'aN Kq psaedsad uasq seU gaodsa e pI~s aou~v 'aN 'IIadV ut ;sa!dxa IIt~ us!sds ssesI jsyaq ~ paguasaad aou~v 'aN 'as$uso Ksyunmmoo pooaussgD :gaodsH '~ 'oN msgI ~pus~v :a$OA pspaooaa ~u!moIIO$ aUS Kq psIaaeo uoygom sug pus PSIIeO s~ IIOE 'I86I '9 Iyadv os ¢gueoyIdde sq$ Kq ps~ssnbaa s~ I~sdde stUg asgsp og 'moagspUy~ 'aN XQ pspuooss ceggsUo~I 'a~ Kq paas$$o sea uoygoN seq uoigssnb e geMS s! I~aasgsp s!Ug asa uosesa, aug pies as~on~ 'aN 'SueoIIdde sug jo sssnbaa KQ psqangs!p se~ sq pies asqs!~ 'aN '~gasdoad sug JO sasu~o Susssad sug aa~ ~ssunoqIeD sqS P!~S as~onA 'aN 'sa~ sunoqleO same£ pus uuo£ oqa pa~s~ pu~ sygaoN pus mlOUSIqO aa~on~ 'aN ('ouI Cauaoqs© ~ UlOOU!% Casu~osolD KQ ua~ap se I86I '[ UoaeN pssyAsa pu~ 086! '8I aSQ~SAoN psse~) 'Iesddv SeI~ ~aeutm!ISa~ 8~-I sSo~ IIa~adoH 'OI 'oN msSI epua~v · uoyss@s usdo osuI pausAuooaa paeoG aqS ''X'g 8[:I SV · auox :SXVN :agoA papaoosa ~uy~oIIO$ sqg Kq p@$aaeo uo!gom pus PSIIeO sea IIOE 'sa@Sg~m Ie~SI pus Isuuosaad ~uIssnosIp jo ssodand aqS ass uoIssas sAIsnosxs osu$ uano~p~ og ~XSlUSH 'aN Xq pspuooss 'eggsqoeI 'aG Kq psasj$o s~a ¢'N'~ ~E:EI SV 'sasggem Ie~SI pus IeUUOSaS~ :uoIssss sAIsnosx~ '6 'oN · suoN :SXVN :agoA pspaoosa ~ut~oIIOJ sug ~q psIaaeo pus moagspuiq 'aN Kq papuooas sea uoysom sMA · pun~ Kaeaagyq sug moas sueoI ~u$geIn~sa met Kq psagnbsa se 'uosaaUg Sssasgu! sq$ pus sSusmiieSsuI I~nuu~ u! ueoI sYqS Xed sJII sUS ~ulanp aea~ qoea III~ ~sunoo pies asa saosIAaadns jo pa~o~ sq~ pies u! sno Sas asodand aqg asa sunome p!~s aqg aoaaoq os paeo~ IOOqOW KsunoD pies sqg pasuea~ Xqsasq s! KgIaousne pu~ 'psAoadde Xq@aaU s! pun~ Xaeaagyq sug moas 00'000'000'I$ $o ueoI 'sgUSmlIeSSu! Ienuue KSus~g ut pied sq og ¢IOOUOS q~IH sIa~maqIV ge~uIpI!nq IOOqOS gusssad sqS ~uIAoadmy as og ~u!ppe ass 00'000'000'I$ puns Ka~aag!q sqS moas ~u!~oaaoq jo asodand sug ass ~!ut~atA $o uo%$~onp~ jo paeo~ sSe%~ :eSSsqoeI 'aG Xq psasjjo sea uo!gnIossa ~uIaoIIOJ sug sdope og us!soN us s@!gYIYoeJ £aelIIOUe pus smooasseIO '~uIpIynq Ieuy~yao aqS ~uIIapom@a jo ssodand sug asa (000~000~I$) sa~IIop uoytIYm suo jo ueoq punf KaeasSyq :uoIg~aaptsuoo asa ¢I86I '6 qoaeN us pssdope uoIgnIosaa ~uIaoIIOJ aqg pspaeaaoj peq paso5 IOOqOS sq% pges aou~v 'aN 'Suox :WXVN :S%OA pspaoosa ~uyaoIIOJ aug Kq psyaaeo pus eggaqoeI 'aG Kq papuooas swa (~uTqaaN NeC aeIn~s~) I86I 'II YoaeN' March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Henley said he felt the facility should be run for another year on an experimental basis. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Henley if he felt the center was worth being taken over by the County. Mr. HenIey said if the next year proves as successful as this first year he felt it would be an asset. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Lorenzoni if he anticipated any more capital expenditures. Mr. Lorenzoni said he did not foresee any major expenditures in the near future. Mr. Mullaney said the only expenditure he could see is if the County decides to recondition and operate the swimming pool at the facility. Mr. Mullaney said originally it was felt the center would never attract citizens without the pool, but have since observed that the center can operate successfully without the pool. He added that possibly in the future the pool project could be added to the capital improvements budget. Mr. McCann asked how long it might be before the center becomes self-supporting. Mr. Mullaney said more acticities could be added at the center, more arts and craft fairs could be held, etc. which could generate sufficient funds to allow the facility to become self-sUpporting within a year or two. Mr. McCann said many experimental facilities end up becoming permanent and wondered how many such facilities the County felt it could afford to support. Mr. Henley said he felt this center was very worthwhile. Mr. Agnor said if the Board would like the second year of the lease to be approached from the point that the center become self-sufficient, that can become a goal. Mr. McCann said he would support this facility if it were a break even or profit-making venture, but felt the recreational budget for the County was already far too high and projects like this will only increase those expenses to taxpayers. Mr. Henley said he felt this center is a benefit to the community. Mr. Fisher said he is willing to support the extension of the lease for another year, and that he was impressed with the attendance figures presented by Mr. Lorenzoni. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to continue operation of the Greenwood Communit~agre Center for an additional year as provided for in the lease-ag~eemea$ie~yea~~'~ Agnor the asked if the Board wished to have this operation become a profitable venture. Mr. Fisher ~ear~ said only if the Parks and Recreation people can find a way to increase the revenues withou~ ] decreasing participation due to cost. Mr. Lorenzoni said prices could be raised gradually, especially on the roller skating. Mr. Henley's motion was then seconded by Mr. Lindstrom who said this is an important community resource. Mr. McCann said he would not support the motion because he felt it will become a permanent commitment to operate the facility. He said the County spends enough on recreation in the County now and does not need to take on any additional facilities. Dr. Iachetta said he would support the motion, and added that if the parks people give any further consideration to the swimming facility that it not be done unless it can be assured to be profitable. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. llA. Appointment: Planning Commission. Mr. Henley offered the name of Mr. Richard P. Cogan for appointment to the Planning Commission to represent the White Hall District to fill the unexpired term of Col. William R. Washington who has resigned; term expires on December 31, 1983. The motion was seconded by Miss Nash and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. liB. Appointment: Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Henley noted that the term of Mr. Blair Funkhouser expires on April 16, 1981, and he wished to nominate Mr. Norman Gillum to the Service Authority Board of Directors for a term which will expire on April 16, 1985. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Fisher reported on the 1981 National Association of Counties Legislative Conference which he recently attended in Washington, D. C. Mr. Fisher said he met with Secretary of Agriculture Brock and discussed preservation of agricultural land, problems within the Farmers' Home Administration, loans for water and sewer systems and availability of drought disaster loans for farmers. Mr. Fisher said he, along with other NACo officials, attended a White House briefing conducted by Messrs. Meese and Baker of the president's staff. Mr. Fisher said President Reagan and Vice President Bush made an appearance. The subject of a balanced Federal budget was discussed. It was stated that a program similar to revenue sharing would be attempted to help aid local governments, but that it would not be at such a high level. Mr. Fisher said it was the consensus of NACo officials that a balanced budget would be supported, but that mandates requiring local governments to provide certain programs would have to cease both on the Federal and State levels. Mr. Fisher also noted that the budget cuts would take place months and possibly years prior to replacement of funds. Mr. Lindstrom commented that in deference to what Mr. Fisher said that, the counties will have to continuously say no to persons running programs which are no longer receiving federal or state funding and now wish to be funded locally; he feels that it is up to the good judgment of the community leaders to decide if the program can be funded by the local people and whether or not the people actually want those programs. aent .o£ revious March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Ordinance Concerning Carrying of Loaded Firearm on Public Highway. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on February 25 and March 4, 1981.) Mr. Fisher read the ordinance as proposed: Sec. 13-9.2 Carrying of loaded firearm on public highway: (a) It shall be unlawful fer any person to carry or have in his possession while on any part of a public highway within Albemarle County a loaded firearm when such person is not authorized to hunt on the private property on both sides of the highway along which he is standing or walking. (b) Any person violating this section shall be liable to a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars for each such violation. (c) Ail law enforcement officers authorized to act as such within the county shall have the power to enforce this section, including but not limited to all duly appointed and acting game wardens. Loaded rifle or shotgun as used in this section is defined as a rifle or shotgun with ammunition within the action chamber, magazine or clip which is within or on the rifle or shotgun. (e) The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons carrying loaded firearms in moving vehicles nor to persons acting at the time in defense of persons or property. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened and first to speak was Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney for Albemarle County. Mr. Dorrier said this ordinance would be an additional tool to prevent illegal hunting in Albemarle County. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received telephone calls that even if warrants are filed against hunters, it is difficult to process a complaint through the court system. Mr. Dorrier said the person charged with the crime may attend without counsel, or his counsel may request a continuance; such delays are not something which would allow advance notice to other persons attending the proceedings, , Next to speak was Sheriff George Bailey who said this will aid his department to apprehend illegal hunters. He said he receives many complaints about hunters standing on posted property and hunting without permission, but the Sheriff has no authority to make an arrest unless those hunters are caught in the act of firing the gun. Mr. St. John said he had a problem with the wording in section (a) where it states "...when such person is not authorized to hunt on the private property on both sides of the highway along which he is standing or walking." Mr. St. John said this wording gives an open invitation to a person to carry a loaded gun if he has permission to hunt from property owners on both sides of the road. Mr. St. John said there is a separate State law which makes carrying a loaded gun on a road a violation disregarding whether or not the hunter has permission of the property owners. He felt the wording in the proposed ordinance was improperly drawn and suggested it say "you can't carry a loaded gun on a private road." Mr. Dorrier said the law referred to by Mr. St. John states that it is illegal to hunt or shoot on a public highway. Dr. Iachetta said he does not understand how this new ordinance could help. Mr. Dorrier said it allows the Sheriff to arrest someone who is carrying a loaded gun even if it has not been fired. Mr. Steve Rhoades of Schulyer said this proposed law is unconstitutional, and that the laws already on the books in Albemarle County are ineffective in curbinH road hunters, and only serve to harrass law abiding hunters. Mr. Rhoades presented to the Board a petition signed by 639 citizens of which 205 are land owners. Mr. Rhoades read the petition as follows: "We as citizens, landowners and visitors of Albemarle County express our direct opposition to current and additional proposed ordinances regulating guns or other loaded or unloaded sporting arms in Albemarle County. We affirm our belief in the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. We believe current regulatory laws or any proposed ordinances concerning these rights to be unconstitutional and infringing on the rights of the people to "keep and bear arms". Ordinances like the proposed seldom deter repeat offenders, while often entrapping the majority of law-abiding citizens in possible violations. Such ordinances and regula- tions are un-American, harrassing, defy freedom and are near totally unenforceable. We the undersigned citizens, voters and landowners of Albemarle County ask the Board of Supervisors to immediately reject all proposed gun ordinances and resist infringements on the freedom and rights of the people in the future." Next to speak was Mr. Dean Jacobs, president of the Issac Walton League and a hunter safety instructor. Mr. Jacobs said his organization is in favor of the proposed ordinance, that they want to do away with loaded guns on roadways and in automobiles. Mrs. Nancy Anderson said a loaded gun is a great temptation and felt this law is a good thing. Mr. David Wheeler, Secretary-Treasurer of Dick's Hunt Club, felt this ordinance allowed the Sheriff to make an arrest based on what the hunter may be thinking of doing. He said no act has been committed until the gun is fired. Mr. Earl Price, representing the Rivanna Rifle and Pistol Club, said he is opposed to the enactment of this ordinance, and asked if this pertained to hand guns as well as rifles. Mr. Price said the enactment of this law will not help in limiting illegal hunting, and stated that he felt the laws presently on the books were adequate, that they only required better enforcement and judicial action. March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Ken Lape said he, as a resid~ent living in a rural area, felt the property owners have just as much right not to be shot at, as the hunters have to shot. He said he is tired of his land being trespassed upon, being intimidated by hunters, and having deer on his property hunted twenty-four hours a day. He suggested that the law be amended to give the judge the right to confiscate the fire arm upon sentencing. Mr. St.!John commented that the State does not give localities the power to confiscate firearms. Mr. Joseph Jones of the White Hall Hunt Club presented the following recommendations for the Board's consideration: "The White Hall Hunt Club is composed of 45 active members consisting of seven female and 38 males. This Club owns 530 acres of land, leases over 1300 acres and have exchange rights on several hundred more acres. We are sincerely interested in preserving the hunting rights within the County of Albemarle. The interest was expressed unanimously at our annual meeting on February 11, 1981. A sincere concern was expressed over the recent dis- cussion on restriction of their hunting rights in the future such as: Restricting the use of rifles because more people are killed by shotguns than rifles. Setting the hunting season and game laws according to control of hunting or in accordance with the enforcement or lack of enforcement of existing laws. We strongly believe the length of the season should be the responsibility of the State Game Commission and not the local Board of Supervisors. The Club favors better enforcement of existing laws and more game wardens prior to making more laws. The Club can appreciate the problem as expressed in the North Garden area and the southern part of Albemarle County. However, we feel that several other alternatives should be investigated such as: Passing a local ordinance adding a local protection stamp to hire additional wardens with a fee of at least $1.00 and no more than $3.oo. Require all property owners selling hunting privileges to: a) provide the lists of persons purchasing permits to the County Sheriff and Game Warden, b) clearly mark the property by visible signs in which permission is granted, c) require the purchaser to present a valid license prior to issuing the permit, d) report any violations of game laws on his property, and e) limit the permit to one permit per 20 acres of land owned with no permit being sold for longer than ten hunting days. Impose a County non-resident fee of $5.00 as is now done in Bath, Highland, Grayson, Washington and Wythe Counties to go into the County General Fund for use by the Sheriff to obtain additional law enforce- ment during the general hunting season. Request the State to provide additional game wardens in the County according to the licenses sold by requiring future licenses to specify the locality of residence. In conclusion, the Club is definitely opposed to additional laws without more effective enforcement and are strongly opposed to additional laws designed to catch offenders that do not respect current laws and thereby are restricting the privileges of law abiding citizens. Last, but not least, the County now provides recreation for swimmers, bikers, hikers, boaters, dancers, ball players, tennis, etc., which cost the taxpayers thousand of dollars but nothing for hunters. We do not propose you add hunting to this list but we do want to point out that in numbers of people, we exceed any of the above. We also feel that most of us abide by the law and we condemn those that do not. We would like for the Sheriff to re-evaluate hunters and their violations in comparison to violations of County regulations and vandalism at the County owned parks." Mr. Richard Anderson said the main problem is that one game warden cannot do an adequate enforcement job and that additional enforcement personnel are essential. Mr. Bruce Strickler said he felt there were sufficient laws on the books at the present time. Mr. Johnson said he felt the law should require hunters to have their weapons in a case until the time they are ready to hunt. Mr. Johnson said he also felt there were laws which did allow the sheriff to confiscate firearms. Mr. James Murray, Jr., was present to speak on behalf of the Southside Association and as a private citizen. Mr. Murray said on behalf of the Southside Association that he supports enactment of this ordinance. He said as a private citizen, more laws are not the answer, and suggested better enforcement of the present laws through more enforcement officers. Mr. Vernon Maupin said the hunters in his area continuously violate the laws by night hunting and road hunting and requested enactment of the ordinance as well as additional enforcement. Mr. Prescott Carter, a farm owner near Keene, said he also would like to see additional enforcement of the current ordinances. Mrs. Frederick Whiteside asked why the length of the hunting season is so long. Fisher answered that this is set by the Game Commission. March 11, 1981 (Regular Day, Meeting) '142 Mr. Hoover said even if this ordinance is enacted and even if additional law enforcement personnel are employed, it will not help with the problem hunters because as soon as one illegal hunter is aware that the game warden or sheriff is in the area, it is immediately broadcast to the other hunters in the area via citizens band radio or personal walkie- talkies. Mr. Tom Hallahan said he is an Albemarle~County resident and represents the Vir- ginia Game Commission and something must be done to protect the landowner from the irrespon- sible hunter. He said law enforcement is one answer, and suggested use of a hunter license system such as those used in other states, which requires the hunter license number be worn in large numbers on the hunters' back. Mr. Hallahan said this would enable anyone to identify the hunter and report violators to the sheriff's department. Mr. Tom McGee said he is a landowner in the Samuel Miller District, and felt non- residents should be charged higher fees to hunt in Albemarle County. Several people having already spoken at this hearin~g, reiterated their stand that the ordinance alone will not help~the problem of the illegal hunter. At 3:45 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. He said Albemarle County is one of a small number of Counties allowed to enact a "damage stamp" in the amount of $1.00. He asked Mr. St. John if this would be a way of raising money to aid in the enforcement of existing laws. Mr. St. John said there is enabling legislation which would allow Albemarle County to issue this type stamp. He said there have been Attorney General opinions that any surplus revenues received from the issuance of these stamps, after three years accumulation, may be applied for any purpose promoting conservation, restoration or protection of wildlife. Mr. St. John said in his opinion this would include a salary for extra wardens. Mr. St. John said the income from the stamp itself is to pay landowners for damage caused by deer and bear; funds remaining can be paid to landowners for damages caused by hunters. Mr. St. John said the County would have to notify the Game Commission prior to May 1, if such a damage stamp were'enacted so information regarding l~his stamp could be placed in the Game Commission's literature given to hunters at the tim~ a hunting license is purchased. Sheriff Bailey said he checked with Mrs. Marshall, ~lerk of the Circuit Court, and noted that she sold 3,890 hunting licenses last year. He laid this is not the total number sold, as there are five other locations where licenses cLn be purchased. Mr. Fisher suggested that between now and the next Board meeting, f~rther information be obtained regarding the use of a damage stamp a~d the total number of .icenses sold in Albemarle County. Mr. L hunting an( the matter allocated illegal hu .ndstrom said he was in favor of any ordinance which would help deter illegal illegal acts with a rifle or shotgun. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to see of a damage stamp investigated further, and would like to see additional money ~or the hiring of temporary deputies during the hunting season to help control lters. Mr. F~.sher said it has been suggested that the term "firearm" be changed to read "rifle or ~hotgun" in section A of the proposed ordinance to clarify that it .does not imply handguns or pistols. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to amend and re-enact Chapter 13 of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of Section 13-9.2 entitled "Carrying of loaded ~irearms on public highways, as set out above, changing in paragraph (a) the word "firearm" to "Rifle or shotgun". The motion was seconded by Miss Nash. Mr. Henley said he wo~ld support the motion, and added that parents should teach their children the proper use of a firearm and the laws involved in hunting. Dr. Iachetta said he would ~upport th~ motion, but did not know how effective it would be if there is only one game warden· in ~lbemarle County to enforce that ordinance as well as all other ordinances which already ex~st regarding hunting. Roll!~as then called, and the motion to adopt the ordinance carried by the following recorded w)te: AYES: Mes~ NAYS: Non~ Mr. F~ from Deleg~ hunting se~ possibilit Iachetta, hold a pub stamp, and Roll was c AYES: Mes NAYS: Non. Agend. and Debora Community the social purpose of used for. said only planners a Mr. R in making to endorse~ seconded b Miss Tobia~ the majori rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. sher asked Mr. Agnor to investigate the possibility of "discretionary funds" ~te James B. Murray to be used to fund additional game wardens during the ~son. Mr. Fisher next asked if the Board wished to investigate further the of instituting a damage stamp in Albemarle County. Motion was offered by Dr. ~econded by Mr. Lindstrom, to set April 8, 1981, at 2:30 P.M. as the time to [ic hearing on the possibility of instituting the requirement for a damage requested Mr. St. John to thoroughly investigate the details for such a policy. ~lled and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: ~rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. Item No. 13. Charlottesville-Albemarle Energy Assessment. Marjorie Tobias Coble were present to present a report entitled "Charlottesville-Albemarle Btudy being conducted by a group of citizens who are concerned about energy and political, and economic implications of its rising costs? Ms. Tobias said the this study is to find out the types of energy being used and what it is being Mr. Fisher asked what the endorsement of this report would mean.. Miss Tobias :hat the Board supported the data, this would make the report more meaningful to ~d researchers who refer to the report. ~bert W. Tucker said he feels this report will be helpful to his Planning Department }rojections for energy uses in the County. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom this report as a basis for planning energy source projections. The motion was Mr. Henley. Mr. McCann asked if this report was conducted on a Federal Grant. said a small grant was received from the Virginia Renewable Energy Lobby, but y of the information was gathered with volunteers. She added that the report 143 March 1i, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) is not technical d~e to the funds available, but a general picture can be presented. Mr. McCann said he would not support the endorsement because there are many other energy studies going on at the present time, being conducted by people who are not authorities on energy. There was no further discussion on the motion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 14. Appoin~ Data Processing Manager. Mr. Agnor said he would like to recommend Mr. Alfred L. Kruger, Jr., for the position of Data Processing Manager for Albemarle County. Mr. Agnor presented Mr. Kruger's resume stating that he has been through an extensive interview process, and recommended that he be appointed effective April 1, 1981, at a salary range of 24, step D of the County's Pay and Classification Plan. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint Mr. Kruger as Data Processing Manager as recommended by Mr. Agnor. Roll was called~.and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said that during budget work sessions the Board was made aware that costs were being incurred for the County's legal and financial assistance for City/County negotiations on annexation. The amount of this appropriation request is about one-half of the estimated costs for consultants. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $62,500 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 1101-3002.07 for Professional Services-- City/County Negotiations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Service Incentives. Mr. Fisher said this discussion was deferred from February 11, 1981. He noted that a partial transcript has also been provided from the August 13, 1980, meeting. Mr. Fisher said the committee made a recommendati that: 1) the Board request the Service Authority to waive the availability fee for both water and sewer for residential development on parcels in the Urban Area, Hollymead and Crozet, the amount of such waiver to equal the maximum 100% of the cost of such off-site extensions; 2) that the Board of Supervisors then provide the Service Authority a yearly contribution estimated to cover the amount of revenue lost by waiving the availability fee; and 3) that the Board of Supervisors consider establishing a time limit at the end of which this policy would be evaluated for its aid in not affecting the developme~al goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he recalled the waiver was for 100% of the off- site work only and would have an unlimited lifetime, it would run with the land. Mr. Fisher also noted receipt of a request from the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association that this policy pertain not only to off-site improvements, but also to on-site improvements. Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of the other Board members are really interested in the possibility of some type of service incentive. Mr. Fisher stated that he was interested in the concept, but would not agree to any plan which required yearly appropriations from the County's General Fund. Mr. Henley said he felt the Board of Supervisors should only provide the land density through the Zoning Ordinance, and as far as utilities are con- cerned, he would like to just see what happens. Mr. McCann said he agreed, that he would like to see the new zoning ordinance handle development. Miss Nash said she also agreed with what Messrs. Henley and McCann said. Following a brief review of a~possible method for initiating a revolving fund program for service incentives, Mr. Lindstrom said he sensed that the Board was not very enthusiastic about this plan at this time. He suggested that Mr. Tucker keep track of building per- mits, and requested this discussion be brought back before the Board in the future. The Board was in agreement to defer action on this discussion, and Mr. Fisher requested it be placed back on the agenda later in the year. NOT DOCKETED. Mr. Tucker reported meeting with the representatives from the Census Bureau and attempting to obtain final 1980 census figures for Albemarle County. Mr. Tucker said he still does not have the final figures, but stated that all the required information has been'given to the Census Bureau, and that he felt the problem was in the Copeley Hill area of the County near the University. Mr. Tucker said hopefully by next week he will have some final figures to report to the Board. Agenda Item No. 17. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney and Regional Jail for the month of February, 1981, were presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. n March 11, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 144 Agenda Item No. 18. Statement of Expenses of the Regional Jail for the month of February, 1981, was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officer. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 19. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of January, 1981, was presented in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 20. Report of the County Executive for February, 1981, was presented for the Board's information. Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of February, 1981, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund McIntire Trust Fund 12,331.89 652,418.45 1,848,446.41 39,454.24 292,956.83 5,306.44 90,231.30 419.80 243,423.43 59,720.54 133,332.81 5,083,42 $3,383~125.56 Agenda Item No. 21. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor then presented a lottery permit request for the Fraternal Order of Police, Thompson Hall Lodge #5, for bingo games every monday night from 7:00 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to approve the lottery permit application for calendar year 1981 in accor- dance with the Board's adopted rules and regulations for the issuance of same. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Other Matters ~ot on the Agenda. Agenda Item No. 22. brief executive session at 5:10 P.M., in order to ,discuss legal matters. seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Lindstrom requested a The motion was Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. AYES: NAYS: At 5:25 P.M., the meeting reconvened into open session and was immediately adjourned. Chairman