Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1981-04-08
April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) 160 Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Take road into state system. Mr. Agnor said the necessary paper work had not been completed on this request and therefore requested deferral to May. The Board concurred in the request. Agenda Item No. 3b. Highway Matters: Report from the Road Viewers. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of the following report of the Road Viewers dated March 13, 1981: "1 · From 723 to 0.30 Miles South (Requested by Mrs. Josephine Feggans): Road serves only one dwelling, does not qualify for use of rural addition funds. e From 723 to 0.15 miles north (Requested by Mrs. Josephine Feggans): Road serves at least four properties with dwellings and at least nine families, estimated cost for improvement $13,500. Recommend for addition to State Secondary System provided 40 foot width of right-of-way at a location acceptable to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is made available at no cost to the County or State. Recommend total construction cost be covered by rural addition funds. From 632 east across the Southern Railway (Requested by Mrs. Maude Brackett): Road serves three occupied dwellings and property owned by Owen-Illinois. Estimated cost of $30,000 to upgrade bridge over railroad and extensive additional cost to upgrade the road beyond the bridge. Recommend denial of this request. The service rendered does not warrant the high cost involved. 1,300 foot relocation of Route 641 across the land of Spencer Young and others. This road is being constructed by Spencer Young as a replacement of existing Route 641 through his property. Recommend addition of the new location to the State Secondary System once the construction is completed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's satisfaction. Do not recommend any secondary funds~be spent to complete this construction. Although this construction will improve Route 641, the major benefit will be to the property of Spencer Young and adjacent property owners. Respectfully submitted, 1981 ROAD VIEWERS (Signed by) Charles B. Brown William A. Gray John O. Higginson" Mr. Fisher said the Road Viewers recommended item 2 as set out' above. He then asked if any action was required. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present. He noted that the Board is not bound by the Road Viewers recommendation. He said Mr. Spencer Young is present today to discuss item 4 as set out in the report. Mr. Spencer Young asked the intent of the Road Viewers recommendation. Mr. Fisher said the Road Viewers do not recommend that any secondary funds be spent to complete the required construction. He also noted that if Mr. Young disagrees with the Road Viewers recommendation he should so state at this time. Mr. John Haskel, friend of Mr. Young and trustee for various land trusts in the immediate area, spoke next. He said this section of Route 641 has been a problem for Mr. Young for many years because it makes a sharp turn through his barnyard. Mr. Haskel said he has been in the middle of a number of community discussions about this problem. Mr. Haskel noted the tremendous amount of work done by Mr. Young in reconstructing the road at a new location. He felt the funds requested for the gravel should be granted. In fact, he felt the work done by Mr. Young has saved the state thirty to forty thousand dollars. In conclusion, Mr. Haskel urged the County to favorably view the request. Mr. Roosevelt then presented to the Board a. sketch of Route 641 and the area in question. Mr. Roosevelt reiterated that he did not feel highway funds should be used for the construction of this road. Howevr, he is willing to take the road into the system once it has been complete The road viewers were impressed with the improvements made but were a bit leary when dis that this road is not just on Mr. Young's property but also property owned by Mr. Haskel and a corporation known as BWL. The viewers were concerned about the possibility of future development by the BWL Corporation on this road. Mr. Roosevelt said he had been informed by Mr. Young that Mr. Young does not have any plans to develop on his side of the road. Mr. Lindstrom asked the frOntage that BWL has on the new section of road. Mr. Roosevelt said about two hundred and fifty feet and Mr. Haskel has about nine hundred and fifty feet. Mr. Lindstrom did not feel the Corporation could get many lots with the small amount of frontage. Mr. Fisher asked if any indication had been received that the property owners are willing to dedicate right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said any action taken today would be contingen on dedication of the right-of-way. Mr. Fisher asked the cost for the stone. Mr. Young said to have the stone delivered from the quarry to the site would cost about $4,500. Mr. Roosevelt said if consideration is given to purchasing the stone, a limit of $4,500 could be set and made the only expenditure from highway funds. Mr. Haskel said BWL Corporation is a Washington corporation and the land has been under contract to him for a year. However, there have been problems clearing the title to the land. The property has long frontage on Route 20 and six hundred feet on Route 641. Therefore the back of the property is the least desirable access. The Corporation has indicated, through their attorney, that they would dedicate whatever is necessary for this improvement. April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher said as he recalled from pictures presented last month, the road is narrow and he was inclined to help solve the problem but did not want to get into using public money to improve the value of property for development purposes. He then asked if highway funds are used for this improvement if there is any way to recoup funds in the event some of the land develops. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the request if something could be worked out to take care of Mr. Fisher's concern. Mr. St. John said rural addition funds are all highway mgnies and that means that the County does not spend any County funds. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct; there is no county money involved. Mr. McCann agreed with the Road Viewer's recommendation that the main benefit of the new road is for Mr. Young but having seen the improvements Mr. Young has made, he would support the use of rural addition funds to complete the construction. He also noted that two school buses travel the road and the improvement is necessary. Mr. McCann then asked Mr. Young the status of the grading. Mr. Young said the only thing needed is to motorgrade the ditches and prepare the surface for the gravel. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to provide a match of $4,500 for the stone necessary to complete the new portion of Route 641 with same being taken from Rural Addition funds. Mr. Lindstrom added that he felt the public was receiving a benefit from Mr. Young's private investment and that does not happen very often. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion based on the statements from Mr. Young that he does not have any intention to develop the property. He then asked Mr. Hasket if he was agreeable. Mr. Haskel said yes, looking at the near future that was true but he was uncertain of any distance time. Mr. Fisher then asked if the motion included endorsement of item #2 which is for Route 723 to 0.15 miles north to be upgraded using Rural Addition funds. Mr. Lindstrom asked how Rural Addition funds can be used. Mr. Roosevelt said there is an allocation in the Secondary Road budget each year in the amount of $20,000 for rural addition. With these two recommenda~ tim~s, the amount to be used would still be less than $20,000. Mr. Lindstrom then amended his motion to include item #2 on the Road Viewer's report for Route 723 to 0.15 mile north. Mr. McCann accepted the amendment. Mr. Roosevelt suggested setting a time limit on obtaining the necessary right-of-way since the use of the funds depends on dedication of right-of-way. There have been problems in the past in obtaining right-of-way on some rural addition projects. Mr. Fisher asked what length of time should be set. Mr. Roosevelt suggested the deadline be August 1, 1981 in order to allow time to get the additions processed and construction begun before cold weather begins. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Young and Mr. Haskel were agreeable to this time period. Mr. Haskel said there was no problem on his own part but the BWL Corporation has a suit pending on the title to the property and all depends on how fast the attorneys act on that suit. Mr. Roosevelt said if the matter is not settled by the first of August, then the property owners could return to the Board for an extension. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested the right-of-way situation be reviewed on August 1, 1981. Mr. Henley said last year some projects were conditioned on the property owners participating in the costs. Mr. Roosevelt said the difference is that the properties last year had been subdivided in the last five years and in this case the properties have been in existence for years. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindst~om, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 3c. Highway Matters: Resolution: Route 637. Mr. Agnor said in February the Board authorized a resolution be sent to the State Highway Department for the use of more Revenue Sharing Funds on a matching basis for the Ivy Landfill Road (Route 637) project. The resolution was sent to Richmond and some rewording was requested. The first resolution was drafted without any assurance of what amount of revenue sharing funds would be available. Now it has been determined that the County will be provided with $150,000 in revenue sharing funds for Fiscal Year 1980-81. Mr. Agnor then requested approval of the following resolution: WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is participating with the City of Charlottesville in the construction of Route 637 to the Ivy Landfill; and WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the State Highway and Transportation Commission shall make an equivalent matching allocation to any county for designation by the governing body for such projects of up to fifteen per centum or $150,000, whichever is greater, of funds received by it during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has allocated from Revenue Sharing Funds for the current fiscal year the sum of $658,320 for the subject pro~a~t-~g~t-/~ and disbursed of this amount on June 17, 1980, a sum of $407,114.63; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the State Highway and Transportation Commission be and is hereby respectfully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of $150,000.00 for the 1980-81 Fiscal Year for Project 0637-002-169, C501. Mr. Roosevelt said the original resolution assumed that the County had already used about $74,000 of revenue sharing funds for this fiscal year but the State Highway Department that the $74,000 was actually taken from the last fiscal year. Therefore, credit is being !given for $74,000 from last year which allows the County to take the full $150,000 credit th~s year. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the foregoing resolution. Roll was called ~n the m~ti~n and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. A~ 8~ 1_~1~ R~gular Da~ Meetin ) 162 Agenda Item No. 3d. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt said when the Board discussed the highway budget in March, he had indicated that the allocation anticipated for the coming year would be seventy-seven percent of What it was this year. Since then he has received notice from the State Highway Department that the funds are lower than anticipated and the allocation is now only sixty percent. Therefore, there will only be $753,000 for secondary improvements in Fiscal Year 1981-82. The allocation for Fiscal Year 1980-81 was for $1,255,000. Mr. Roosevelt said there will only be $87,000 for Hydramlic Road instead of the $258,000 which had been anticipated. Therefore, all available funds for next year will have to be used for the bills coming due for Hydraulic Road. Mr. Roosevelt said hopefully when the Secondary Budget hearing is held in May, the actual figure for the 1981-82 budget will be known. Mr. Fisher then requested that letters be prepared and sent to the three delegates in Richmond under his signature as a cover letter to Mr. Roosevelt's report on the status of the funding as well as an invitation for them to attend the public hearing in May. Mr. Agnor then presented the following letter dated March 31, 1981, from the Department of Highways and Transportation: "As requested in your resolutions dated December 10, 1980, January 7, 1981, and January 27, 1981, the following additions to and abandonment from the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approVed, effective March 31, 1981. ADDITIONS LENGTH Sections 2, 4 and 7 of new location Rte. 729 between Rte. 728 and Rte. 618, Project 0729-002-194, N501. 0.25 Mi. WHIPPOORWILL HOLLOW SUBDIVISION Thrush Road - From Route 839 to end of cul-de-sac. NORTHSIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK SUBDIVISION From SBL Route 29 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.53' M1. 0.24 Mi. ABANDONMENT Sections 1, 5 and 6 of old location Rte. 729 and Section 3 of old location Rte. 705 between Rte. 728 and Rte. 618, Project 0729-002-194, N501. 0.47 Mi." Mr. Agnor noted letter dated March 31, 1981, from Mr. H. W. Mills, Maintenance Superviso for the Department of Highways and Transportation concerning repairs to be made to the Route 627 Bridge over a small stream located approximately one-half mile south of the intersection with Route 795. The repairs are intended to be done the week of April 13-17 and the ~had will be closed for two days, April 14 and 15, unless adverse weather changes the repairs to later in the week. Miss Nash noted appreciation for work done on the bridge on Route 620 near Morven Farm. She also asked when the truss bridge on Route 729 near Woodridge would be repaired. Mr. Roosevelt said unless priorities are changed, it will be a long time before any such bridges are repaired. Mr. Henley then noted appreciation for the work done on the White Hall Road. Agenda Item No. 4., Sale of County Property. Mr. Agnor said the request from Mr. Jim Hill on behalf of Dr. Charles Hurt for the purchase of the former Berkley Sewer Plant site was received in NOvember 1980. (Request in the minutes of November 12, 1980.) He then noted that the matter was deferred and discussed again in February and the county attorney was requested to draft a contract for the sale of the property and appraisals of same to be obtained. (See minutes of February 18, 1981.) Both of these tasks have been accomplished and the sales contract was executed with Dr. Hurt the amount of $1,500 with a $500 check being deposited and the balance due at the closing. The sales contract reserves the following two existing easements, the sewer line easement which goes through the area of the sewer plant and the sixty foot right-of-way for the ultimate extension of the street through the parcel to connect to Greenbrier Dri've as part of the Branchlands Planned Unit Development. The real estate department appraisal was for $12,000 for 1.77 acres and the offer from the buyer was for $1,500 for the same tract. The real estate appraisal office did not consider the sixty foot right-of-way for the street and did not know about the reserved easement. Therefore, the value does not reflect the existen¢ of the easements. As the letter dated March 4, 1981 from Mr. James Bowling, IV, Deputy County Attorney, indicates, the County can sell the land for the offer received or a counter offer made to the buyer and negotiated further in terms of the cost of the value of this property in terms of selling it. The property can also be put out to public'bid or auction. Mr. Agnor said the original purpose was to negotiate with the adjacent property owners to determine if it could be sold at a value to protect the public interest and yet provide for the PUD. Mr. Fisher stated concern that the letter from Mr. Bowling, noted that the County can sell the land to a private individual as long as the sales price reflects fair market value. Therefore, he was concerned that the two figures do not reflect same. He felt another appraisal may be necessary with consideration of the two easements and in terms of what the fair market value is and if the value is $1,500, then the County could accept the contract. 163 April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. McCann agreed with Mr. Fisher about the appraisal and the value differences. He also felt the value of the property should be considered in light of the flood plain area. Mr. Fisher said he was not against the offer but was concerned about the information from the County Attorney's office and was unsure if there was any way the Board could act at this time. Mr. McCann did not agree to put the property out to public auction because he felt it is essential to the Branchlands development. Mr. Fisher then suggested this matter be deferred until a new appraisal could be made based on the proposed sales contract specifically with the reservation of the easements involved. The Board agreed. Agenda Item No. 5. Request from the Jack Jouett Commerative Committee. Mr. Agnor said the Jack Jouett Commerative Committee was basically formed to help recognize the two hundredth anniversary of Jack Jouett's ride. The Committee was proposed by the Virginia Bicentennial Commission and several other localities are participating in funding. Mr. Agnor then reviewed the activities which will take place during the celebration. He said an earlier request for funds for the Committee was deferred in order to have more information available on the total costs. He then noted that Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews, coordinator of the local activities, had been to see him recently stating that the events are close at hand and it is time to start disbursing some funds. Mr. Agnor said the total budget cost is $28,600. The costs have been split in half between the State Bicentennial Commission, and the other participating localities. The request to. Albemarle County is for $3,307.50. Mr.-Agnor said no amount was included in the current budget waiting until the activities were closer at hand. Mrs. Matthews was present and noted that the amount being requested has been revised to $3,517.00 due to inflation. She also noted that the City has already approved that amount. Miss Nash then offered motion to adopt the report of the Jack Jouett Commerative Committee and approve the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $3,517.00, be and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund unallocated Carry-Over balance and transferred to Code 9103-5671 for the Jack Jouett Commemorative Committee. Mr. McCann noted his concern about spending funds for this type of thing but since this isa one time request, he would second the motion. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Pisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Vacate a Plat of a Portion of "Westfield" shown on a recorded plat as Lots 24R, 24L, 25R and 25L (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 25 and April 1, 1981.) Mr. Stuart Carwile who made the request on behalf of T. Blakey Hurt, Trustee for the Commonwealth II Land Trust, to vacate a portion of the original plat of Westfield so as to abandon, terminate and vacate the southernmost ten feet of the 40 foot Drain, Utility, Parking Ingress and Egress over, along, and across Lots 24R, 24L, 25R and 25L, was present. He presented the plat and pointed out the service road and the provision for easements along the front of the lots which vary from one end of the subdivision to the other. Mr. Carwi!e said the easement was initially established for the purposes of having a service road run through this section. When the property was being developed, a decision was made to move the service road and have it exit between lot 23 and 24 on Commonwealth Drive. rather than extending it straight through to the sixty foot right-of-way. When that was done, the surveyor, in an attempt to keep the units a uniform distance back from the service road, staked the foundation for the unit on lot 25 closer to Commonwealth Drive than the other units were located. As a result of doing that, the townhouse constructed on Lot 25 is located within the easement. There is no service road located within that easement. The prospective purchasers of the units have raised this as a title matter and the request is to vacate the plat. The townhouse units have been constructed and comply with the setback requirement of thirty feet. Mr. Tucker then presented the site plan and pointed out the actual service road and the sidewalk within the thirty feet. He noted that the request is to reduce the southernmost ten foot of the forty feet to thirty feet. The right-of-way, service road and sidewalk are within the thirty feet as requested. Mr. Tucker said thirty feet is the minimum required for this type of construction and the street is a one-way street and there is off-street parking for the units. Therefore, Mr. Tucker did not have any problem with the request. The public hearing was opened. T~ere was no one present to speak for or against the ordinance and the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following ordinance: April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) AN ORDINANCE TO VACATE A PLAT OF A PORTION OF "WESTFIELD" SHOWN ON A RECORDED PLAT AS LOTS 24R, 24L, 25R and 25L: THIS PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON A PLAT RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN DEED BOOK 704, PAGE 517 WHEREAS, a certain tract or parcel of land, lying in Albemarle County, Virginia, has been heretofore subdivided as a part of Section Three of Westfield Subdivision, the original plat of which is of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 704, page 517; and WHEREAS, the owners of Lots 24R, 24L, 25R and 25L shown on the said plat now desire to vacate in part the original plat so as to abandon, terminate and vacate the southernmost 10 feet of the "40' Drain, Utility, Parking Ingress & Egress" over, along and across Lots 24R, 24L, 25R and 25L; and WHEREAS, the said owners have petitioned the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the said plat be vacated insofar as it is inconsistent with the proposed vacation of such plat; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: Section 1. That the subdivision of that portion of Section Three, Westfield Subdivision shown on a plat recorded in the Clerk's office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 704, page 517 be, and it hereby is, vacated insofar as it relates to the south~ermost ten feet of the "40' Drain, Utlity, Parking, Ingress & Egress Easement" over, along and across Lots 24R, 24L, 25R and 25L, Section Three Westfield Subdivision, as shown on the plat of record in Deed Book 704, page 517. Section 2. The vacation set forth in Section 1 of this ordinance shall in no way vacate any other portion of the street, road, right-of-way or lot duly platted and recorded on the aforementioned plat. Section 3. Pursuant to Section 14.1-485 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, shall write in plain legible letters across the vacated portion of the aforesaid plat the word "VACATED", and shall also make reference to the same on the same to the volume and page in which the instrument .of vacation is recorded. Section 4. Such vacation of the aforesaid plat shall be effective upon the recordation of a plat of resubdivision as approved in accordance with the foregoing. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 7. Update on Route 29 North Bus System. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Jim Skove has coordinated the Route 29 Bus System project for the County and is present to update the Board. Mr. Agnor said no action is necessary today. Mr. Skove then reported on the operation of the Route 29 Bus System during the last seven months of service. The original grant for the system from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation was for $37,350.00 and the project began on July 10, 1980. These funds were completely used by the end of March, 1981. Charlottesville Transit Service, who was awarded the contract for the service, has applied for funds from the federal go¥ in order to cover the operating deficit for the final quarter of 1980. If the application ~s approved, the sy~stem can operate until May, 1981. At that time, another request can be made for the first quarter of 1981. These federal funds would be sufficient to allow the bus service to continue until the end of June 1981 without any funding from Albemarle County. Mr. Skove then reviewed the ridership figures and noted that March was the best month with a total of 2,744. He said the fares as Originally set have not increased and cover about twenty percent of the operating costs. It was determined from a survey of the system that very few people rode beyond Albemarle Square. Mr. Skove then presented the following four alternatives for the future of the bus system: 1) Discontinue bus service in the County when the grant funds are exhausted; 2) Continue the present service; 3) Extend the CTS trunk route to the Fashion Mall/Albemarle Square area (cost $14,596 to the County); or 4) Extend the CTS trunk route to the Fashion Mall/Albemarle Square area with two loop routes to serve high population areas in the 29 North Corridor. He noted that the third alternative is where most of the county ridership is. The fourth alternative would cost the County $32,132 and make the following two loops; from Albemarle Square to Airport Road, including stops at Woodbrook and Hollymead and then loop through the Four Seasons/Hydraulic Road area. Mr. Fisher felt the Board should :study the report further and some decision be made at the May 13, 1981 meeting. Mr. Fisher also felt the public should be aware that the County has not made any committment to use local funds for the operation of this bus system and citizens should notify the Board of andy support for the continuation of the system. Mr. McCann felt a decision should be made ~as soon as possible since the system is already out of funds. He expressed his concern that alot of buses in the City and in the County are nearly empty most of the time. Mr. Dan Roosevelt praised the workers on this system and noted that last fall the Highway Department contracted for some property to be used as a parking lot at Lake Saponi which is at the end of this system's route. The contract has been completed and a public parking lot will be open this eoming Monday. Mr. Fisher said regardless of whether the system is operating or not the parking can still be used by those car-pooling. He then noted continuation of the 29 Bus System will be on the May 13, 1981 meeting. 165 April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Dr. Iachetta arrived at 10:25 A~M. At 10:28 A.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:45 P.M. Not Docketed. Dr. Iachetta requested an opportunity to report on figures received at the Highway Department meeting he attended this morning. He said Mr. King of the Virginia Highway Commission began the hearing with a recap of the monetary situation. Last year, the construction budget was short forty-four million dollars and the present year is fifteen million short. The two cents increase in gasoline tax last year did not yield the amount anticipated. The projected costs for the next period are about three hundred million for interstate and primary roads with about two-thirds of it being spent on the interstates. The anticipated shortfall for the Construction Budget this year will be fifty million dollars more than last year. Dr. Iachetta also noted that the Highway Department has tried to cut their costs by cutting employment by 1,200. Therefore, the future of the road projects is dismal unless there is a funding change. There will be a number of these hearings throughout the State and the information submitted will be compiled and given to a Legislative Advisory Council for a decision on the problems that are evident due to the lack of funds. In conclusi¢ Dr. Iachetta said Mr. King of the State Highway Commission does not feel there is any way to meet the many demands with the current funds and gasoline taxes. Agenda Item No. 9. Report from Consultant on Evaluation of University of Virginia's Radioactive Waste Incinerator Program. Mr. Fisher noted that he and Mr. Agnor met Friday with the City Manager, Mayor, President Hereford and Dr. Catlin from the University to present them with a copy of the consultants report. The report was discussed briefly and the University officials indicated they would study same. Mr. Agnor said the report dated March 30, 1981, from Peter Montague, Ph.D., is twenty- eight pages in length and in a question and answer format. It contains a number of recommenda- tions. The first recommendation was that the City and County should seek legislation to bring the University within the local decision-making structure. Mr. Agnor noted that this has been attempted and he doubted that localities would have much success. The consultant also pointed out that the Radiation Safety Committee had a regulatory program that looked good and the staff was competent but did not feel the staff was of a sufficient size to handle all the radioactive materials of the various University departments and agencies. Dr. Montague has suggested that the Radiation Safety Committee operate from a prepared agenda circulated to the localities and the committee also be involved in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission license amendments. He did not feel the rate of growth of radioisotopes was tracked accurately and should be. Dr. Montague also recommended that the Radiation Safety Office staff initiate unannounced staff visits to the laboratories which use radio~ isotopes. Dr. Montague also felt materials should be stored inside a structure instead of behind a chain linked fence as currently done. The materials should not be transported in cardboard containers but rather metal. He also felt localities should develop a disaster plan in the event an accident occurs while the material is being transported. Dr. Montague felt the weakest point of the University's incinerator program is the vivarium itself because the staff does not appear to be technically oriented as he felt they should be in terms of controls necessary for the operation of the equipment. He also discovered that there is not a monitoring program in terms of establishing base line data of radioactive levels in soils, water and wildlife within a one-mile radius of the incinerator. Dr. Montague recommended that the University consider purchasing a replacement incinerator which from the standpoint of funds does not cost a substantial amount of money. Mr. Agnor said the last recommendation in the report was that the County maintain its present ordinance restricting the incineration of radioactive materials and that the University discontinue burning radioactive wastes while the monitoring program is being established. Mr. Fisher felt the basic contents of the report is that if a proper incinerator is in place and operated properly, the disposal of low level radioactive wastes probably would not constitute a hazard to the general public. Mr. Fisher said most of the recommendations are those which the University itself will have to consider and adopt. However, the recommendatio for a local disaster plan is for the City and County to consider and he hoped that the Emergency Services staff has begun work on that plan. Dr. Iachetta said the recommendations reenforce his thoughts that there should be one central place for the incineration of radioactive materials in the State of Virginia. He also felt improperly trained staff handling such wastes is a problem. Mr. Fisher agreed. Miss Nash felt the Belmont community in the City and residents in the immediate County area currently have a problem particularly with the smell and smoke from the incinerator. Therefore, she felt the University should pursue the recommendations. Mr. Lindstrom agreed that a central place for incineration is necessary. He felt the University should be urged to consider recommendations #9, II and 12 of the consultant's report as set out below: 9) 11) 12) The University should suspend its current radioactive waste incineration program until the University personnel have had an opportunity to make an adequate survey of background radioactive levels in grass, soil, water and wildlife within a mile radius of the incinerator. The University should purchase a modern incinerator designed for combustion of research and medical radioactive wastes and hire qualified people to operate the incinerator. The University should initiate a systematic radioactivity monitoring program to see if radioactive levels above background levels can be de~ec~d ~ ~ z~,~-~ April 8,11981 ~Regular Day Meeting) 166 Mr. Lindstrom felt the three above recommendations are within the University's capability to implement quickly and economically. Miss Nash then asked if the report was available for the public. Mr. Fisher said copies would be made. Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: River Heights Hotel Site Plan. (Site Plan entitled "River Heights" Hotel and Office Center, Char~ottesville District, Albemarle County, Virginia, dated January 16, 1981 and revised March 9, 1981, drawn by W. S. Roudabush, Inc.) Mr. Fisher noted the following letter of appeal dated March 20, 1981 from Dr. Iachetta: "As representative of the Charlottesville Magisterial District, I would like to formally request the River Heights Hotel Site Plan be appealed for the following reasons: Roads; specifically access from Route 29. Sewer lines." Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, distributed to the Board the recent site plan revisions and a copy of the proposed sewer line alignment as it connects to the Rivanna interceptor; said revision received yesterday. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Location: Portions of parcels 68d(1) and 68d(3) and parcel 68d(2) on Tax Map 45, Charlottesville District; located on the west side of Rt. 29N (southbound lane), south of the South Fork Rivanna River and north of Rt. 659. Acreage: 20.89 acres. Zoning: 15.54 acres, H.C., Highway Commercial; 6.35 acres C.O., Commercial Office. History: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors on December 3, 1980, approved a request to rezone approximately 11.5 acres from R-3 Residential to B-i, Business. This rezoning included a proffer that the site would be used for a hotel/banquet/conference facility/office complex. The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on February 17, 1981, deferred this site plan to a date no later than March 17, 1981. The Planning Commission, on March 10, 1981, approved ZMA-81-8, a request to rezone 2.4 acres from R-15 to 1.2 acres of Commercial Office, and 1.2 acres of Highway Commercial. The Board of Supervisors will review this request on March 18, 1981. Proposal: To locate a 250 room hotel and a 100,000 square foot office building on 20.89 acres. Topography of Area: Moderate to steeply sloping along the river. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: The southbound lane of U.S. Route 29 currently carries 16,000 vehicle trips per day and is considered by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation to be tolerable. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that the soils in this area consist of a very shallow loam found on the steeper slopes, a heavy clay soil with bedrock deeper than sixty inches which is located on the ridge tops and a shallow soil with a natural ph of 4.0 to 4.5. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: This property lies within Urban Area Neighborhood One and is recommended for commercial use. Type Utilities: Public water is available and public sewer will be available in the fall of 1981 when the new AWT plant is in operation. Staff Comment: This site plan was deferred from the February 17, 1981, meeting so that at least three concerns could be addressed by the applicant. These concerns were: That the applicant show the entrances and access to the area marked 'Future Development' on the site plan; That the applicant submit as much information as was necessary to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to enable the Highway Department to comment on the entrance road. The applicant was to demonstrate how this road would serve the R-15 zoned property and adjacent properties; That the applicant was to submit road plans to the County Engineer for his review and comment. The Planning Commission also requested information on the impact of the internal roads and paved areas and any soil erosion problems which might arise. At the February 17, 1981, meeting there was some controversy over the correct location of the rear or the northwest property line. It was determined that a strip of property approximately 65+~ in width was zoned R-15. This ruling affected the location of some parki--ng spaces, the tennis courts and the pool on the site plan submitted on February 17, 1981. The applicant is now in the process of requesting a rezoning of this 2.14 acres from R-15 to CO and HC. The site plan presently before the Planning Commission does comply with all the required setbacks. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commented verbally on March 16, that the drawings submitted to their department demonstrate that the vertical and horizontal alignment of the entrance road can be met. However, there was not sufficient time to allow for an adequate study of all traffic information. (Mr. Tucker said such figures have been received and are in the Culpeper Highway office for their approval.) The Highway Department has therefore deferred review of the cross section and the details of the design to a later date. ,167 April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) The County Engineer has commented that the road plans and traffic analysis report appear to be adequate. The County Engineer, however, has not approved the road plans since several changes, as noted on the plan, must be made. With respect to the soil erosion plan, the County Engineer has commented that there are locations where particular attention will have to be taken to grade, specifically, the entrance road and the construction site for the hotel. The County Engineer feels that with very stringent soil erosion measures and careful inspection, this site can be developed so as not to create a major downstream soil erosion problem. Strong emphasis will be placed on the outfall locations of storm drainage pipes and culverts to see that no erosion occurs. With reference to the stormwater detention provisions, approximately half of this site is located within the stormwater detention boundary. With the installation of the detention basin, as shown on the southern end of the site, the drainage that is collected from half of the parking area is detained in this basin so as not to have a great impact on downstream capacity. The northern half of the site shows drainage pipes that discharge into the Rivanna River. If properly installed and located, these will not cause any major erosion or runoff problems downstream. The Fire Official has approved the hydrant and dumpster locations, fire flow and handicapped provisions. The Fire Official has commented that it is not possible to determine the required access for emergency vehicles or fire lanes until plans are received indicating the type of construction and whether or not a sprinkler syst will be installed. Therefore, the Fire Official recommends access all around the hotel until more information is received. The Fire Official has also commented that buildings over thirty-five feet in height must receive a Fire Protection Engineer's certification. The Service Authority has commented that public sewer will be available by the way o~ the Rivanna Interceptor when the new AWT plant is ready for operation in the fall of 1981. The staff has also expressed concern over the lighting and screening of the tennis courts which border on property zoned R-15, Residential. The staff will address any problems arising from the tennis courts when a plan comes in for the development of the R-15 property. The staff would like to request that the Planning Commission require the applicant to dedicate property lying within the flood plain to Albemarle County or grant an easement across this property for Albemarle County use. A bike trail was proposed in the Bikeway Plan which would connect the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir to Penn Park. This bikeway could serve the residential area located behind this proposed hotel and office center. (Mr. Tucker said the Commission did not request this at the present time.) Mr. Ward Butler of the Virginia Air Pollution Control Board has informed the staff that the applicant intends to use heat pumps in the hotel-convention center. If this is the case, no permit is required from the Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board. However, if the type of heating system used varies from the proposed heat pump, such a permit would be necessary. The staff understands that the applicant is requesting administrative approval of amendments to this site plan. (Mr. Tucker said the request is basically to rearrange and shift some of the buildings to fall in line with the rezoning requested and approved a few weeks ago.) In particular, elements of this site plan will change if the 65~ wide strip along the northwest property line is rezoned. The site plan will meet the requirements of Article 32 of the Zoning Ordinance and the staff recommends approval with conditions." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on March 17, 1981, approved the site plan with the following conditions: A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: ao Note the zoning of the area within the floodplain; Note that the above area is "Open Space - Not to be Disturbed"; Submit a 40' = 1" scale site plan; Staff approval of a detailed landscape plan, to include screening from Route 29 North and to show all proposed jogging paths; Note and record an easement on the entrance road; County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement on the entrance road; County Engineer approval of road plans; Fire Official approval of emergency access routes around the hotel, if necessary; Note that buildings over thirty-five feet in height must be certified by a Fire Protection Engineer and approved by the Fire Official; County Engineer approval of pavement specifications and curbing around all paved areas; Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; Compliance with the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; April 8, '1981 (Regular Day Meeting) ' 168 ne qe The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance and road plans for acceptance and maintenance into ~he State Highway System; No grading permit will be issued until conditions icg), l(j), l(k) and 1(1) of this approval have been met; There is to be no clearing or grading of that portion of the site in the location of the proposed permanent entrance until the applicant shall have complied with condition l(n) of this approval; compliance with the~regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board. A Certificate of Occupancy will be issued when the following condition has been met: a. Fire Official approval of fire flow. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the main road referred to in condition If and lg would serve the convention center as well as the R-15 property behind this property. Mr. Tucker said yes and pointed out the location of same. Dr. Iachetta said the details on how the entrance was to be treated were not available when the Planning Commission acted. Therefore, based on conoerns of the Highway Department, he felt no grading should be allowed until the Highway Department had approved the commercial entrance and road plans. Dr. Iachetta also expressed concern that there was not any provision for a temporary cross-over for construction equipment to the site. Since there was no such provision made~ construction vehicles would have to enter the site by proceeding north across the Rivanna River, up the hill, and through a cross-over which did not have good visibility. He felt with the existing heavy traffic from Carrsbrook and Westmoreland, this would only add to an existing hazard. Mr. Roosevelt agreed and noted that all the traffic would have to use the cross-over north of Route 643 and then turn left. There will have to be some modifications of the cross-over and the Highway Department will have to review the situation for safe egress and ingress. The traffic making the turns will be large vehicles and he did not feel there would be a problem with the sight'distance. Mr. Fisher asked if a temporary cross-over should be considered due to the size and complexity of the construction or would that be a bigger problem. Mr. Roosevelt said the difference in grade would mean that a cross-over woUld have to come in at an angle and he felt that would be trading one problem for another. Dr. Iachetta then asked if it were possible to close the first cross-over north of the Rivanna River to force all vehicles to go to the top of the hill to turn. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board can request that. He did not know of anything in the northbound lane that is directly served by the cross-over. However, traffic coming south on Route 29 would have to cross the river and then go back north. Dr. Iachetta then asked if the main entrance could be opened prior to the completion on the property. Mr. Roosevelt reviewed the Highway Department's analysis of the roadway to the developmen' He noted that the alignment and grade of the roadway can meet Highway standards regardless of the traffic figures but the design of the intersection depends on the traffic figures and there is also the question of whether additional turn lanes and traffic signals are necessary. Mr. Fisher asked if the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission are satisfactory. Mr. Roosevelt said yes but noted dislike of a temporary entrance road over top of the permanen~ road because filling, drainage structures and construction in general would occur before the approval of the road plans. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. William Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, to elaborate on the concerns about the sewer lines. Mr. Brent said he had not seen the plans presented today by the applicant's engineer. Mr. Fisher asked if condition "lm" would cover the sizing of the lines properly. Mr. Brent said yes. Mr. Fisher then asked who would pay the costs if the sewer line served other properties. Mr. Brent said currently the Service Authority does not have a policy which requires that the Service Authority participate in such costs. Mr. Tucker brought to the Board's attention that the proffer presented with the rezoning states that the applicant must break ground within six months of site plan approval or the zoning would revert back to its original Status. Therefore, such pressures the Highway Department to approve the road plans in order to break the ground. Mr. Wendell Wood, the applicant, was present. He had contacted the five property owners across whose property the sewer line will run and there are no objections. Mr. St. John said when the AWT plant is in operation, this line will feed into a gravity line as it goes down the River to the plant. He asked if the line will be dedicated to the Service Authority. Mr. Brent said yes. Mr. Wood said since the entrance has been realigned there will be an adjustment in property ~es and all will be under one ownership. Mr. Lindstrom felt the main road, which is going to be in the State system, and the other road which will not be in the system, should be designated on the plats. Mr. Tucker said that can be made a condition. Mr. Lindstrom then suggested marking same on the plats as road A and road B. Mrs. Babs Huckle, representing the League of Women Voters, asked if something should be in writing that the sewer line cost ±s the responsibility of the developer. Mr. Fisher said that is taken care of in the conditions and he did not feel it necessary to spell out that the costs are between the developer and the Service Authority. Mr. McCann felt the conditions adequately covered the plan. April 8, 1981 (Regular D~y Meeting) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to mark Road A on the plan as the main state system road, with road B, being shown as the road which will not be in the state system. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. He then asked what action was necessary to temporarily close the first cross-over north of the River. He felt that perhaps the cross-over should be closed permanently. Mr. Roosevelt said a formal resolution from the County requesting the Highway Department to close the cross-over due to the increased traffic from construction activitie~ is necessary. He also noted that the Highway Department has made a number of recommendations (and the Board adopted those reoommendations) to close cross-overs north of the Rivanna River as part of the 29 North Cross-over Study. However, due to the'lack of funds that process has been slow. He noted that a public hearing would be necessary for the Highway Department but the support and reasons from the Board for this request would eliminate the need for a public hearing. Dr. Iachetta noted that there are no private entrances between the Route 643 intersection and the top of the hill. Mr. Lindstrom said Cohdition "le" should refer to entrance road "A". Condition "lf" should be changed to refer to entrance road "A and B". Condition "tn" should have the words "of entrance road A" added. Mr. Fisher said the motion then is t© approve the site plan with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and as amended above. 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. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following resolution requesting the Highway Department to temporarily close the first cross-over north of the South Fork Rivanna River dUring the construction of the River Heights project. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Mr. Fisher then asked for some r.esponse from the applicant. Mr. W. S. Roudabush, surveyor, speaking on behalf of the applicant, did not feel the closing would create any problem and would provide a better access for large trucks into the southbound lane. Mr. McCann agreed that the visibility was poor at the first cross-over. WHEREAS, additional heavy traffic is anticipated on U.S. Route 29 North due to the imminent construction of the River Heights Hotel/Office Complex to be constructed on the west side of Route 29 North (southbound lane), south of the South Fork Rivanna River and north of Route 659; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that safer turn-arounds can be accomplished with better sight distance if the second crossover north of the South Fork Rivanna River Bridge is used; vote: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to temporarily close the first crossover north of the South Fork Rivanna River Bridge on U.S. 29 North while construction of the River Heights Hotel/Office Complex is in progress. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Appropriation. Mr. Agnor said the County is the fiscal agent for the Charlottesville/Albemarle Clean Community Commission and Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, needs the authority to disburse funds as requested by the Commission in the amount of $9,742.49, said amount being received in the form of grants from the Virginia Litter Control Act. (Dr. Iachetta left the meeting at 11:53 A.M.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $9,742.49, be and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund to Code 9302-5840 for the Clean Community Commission. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 20a. Claim Against the Dog Fund. Claim was received from Mr. Ronald Adkins for two shoats killed by five dogs during the month of March, 1981. Motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to award Mr. Adkins $87.50 for the claim. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 21. Statements of Expenses for the month of March, 1981, for the Director of Finance, Sheriff, and Commonwealth's Attorney were presented. Motion to approve the statements as presented was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: (Dr. Iachetta returned to the meeting at 11:55 A.M.) AYES' NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 22. Statement of expenses Of the Regional Jail for the month of March, 1981, was presented. Mr. Henley offered motion to approve the statement as presented. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, IaChetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 23. not ready for approval. Regional Jail Report (Department of Corrections). This report was Agenda Item No. 23a. received as information. Report of the County Executive for the month of March, 1981, was Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and ceDtified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the montho~f March, 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 Scottsvi!le 1% Local Sales Tax General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Debt Service Fund Grant. Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 7,848.03 616,114.96 1,858,013.26 47,185.14 ~8,754.01 1,268.08 81,366.92 289.64 365,750.84 43,439.50 36,528.82 209,182.79 $3,.5.05,741.99 Agenda Item No. 24. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of February, ~1981, was presented for the Board's information in accordance with Virginia COde Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 20. Appointments. Mr. Fisher noted the term of Dr. James R. Batten, representative on the Piedmont VirEinia Community College Board of Directors will expire on · June 30, 1981. Motion was offered by Dr.. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to reappoint Dr. Batten to the Community College Board of Directors with the new term to expire on June 30, 1985. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher also noted the terms of Sheriff George Bailey and Mr. James L. Higgins on the Criminal Justice Advisory Council will expire on June 30, 1981 and felt they should be reappointed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Sheriff George Bailey and Mr. James L. Higgins to the Criminal Justice Advisory Council with said terms to expire on June 30, 1982. 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. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to reappoint Mrs. Adelaide J. Spainhour to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging with said term to expire on March 31, 1983. 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. Dr. iachetta offered motion to reappoint Mrs. Margaret Melcher to the Library Board of DireCtors with said term to expire on June 30, 1985. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to reappoint Mrs. Edna T. Anderson to the Planning District Commission with said term to expire on June 1, 1984. 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. Mr. Fisher said there are two appointees needed for the Youth Services Citizens Board and two applications have been received from citizens. Motion was then offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mrs. Katya S. Gothie to the Youth Services Citizens Board with said term commencing this date and for an unspecified term. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Discussion then followed on other board and commission vacancies with no nominations received. Agenda Item No. 19a. Set public hearing for amendment to the Soil Erosion Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 31, 1981 voted to recommend to the Board that a provision be added to the Soil Erosion Ordinance to require that when a site plan or subdivision plat is pending, no grading permit would be issued until such plan or plat approval has been granted. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to advertise for public hearing on May 20, 1981, an ordinance to amend Chapter 7 of the Albemarle County Code by the addition of Section 7-5(cl) concerning the above requiremer Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: MAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of State Corporation Commission public hearings as follows: 1) Potomac Edison Company for a hearing on June 1, 1981, to discuss life line rates. 2) Cosmopolitan Travel SDrvice for a hearing on May 7, 1981, for license to broker transportation passengers by motor vehicles. Two other notices have also been received for increased rates for Lynchburg Gas Company and Virginia Electric and Power Company but the public hearings have not yet been established. Mr. Agnor then noted receipt of the County's Community Development Block Grant Funds Audit for program years 1977 and 1978, said audit done by Robinson, Farmer and Cox Associates. He noted that the projects for the Meadows and the Esmont Health Center are complete. At 12:12 P.M., the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:35 P.M. Agenda Item No. 11. Appeal: Hopewell Lots 1-58 Preliminary Plat. (Preliminary Subdivision Plat for "Hopewell", north and south of Ste. Rte. 614, Owensville, Albemarle County, Virginia, drawn by Gloeckner, Lincoln & Osborne, Inc., dated November 18, 1980 and revised through March 3, 1981.) Mr. Fisher noted the following letters of appeal: "January 30, 1981 As agent for J. T. and J. W. Calhoun, I hereby request that the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the subdivision of the Hopeweli property be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, as soon as possible. Thank you. Yours very truly, (SIGNED BY) Michael T. Boggs, Vice President Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc." "10 March 1981 I am writing you on behalf of my clients, John and James Calhoun, owners of the proposed subdivision property known as 'Hopewell,' to request a deferral of your consideration of the 'Hopewell' preliminary plat. This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's refusal to grant preliminary plat approval. The matter is set to be heard on your agenda on 11 March 1981, and I am requesting a deferral until your meeting on 8 April 1981. Sincerely, (SIGNED BY) Edward H. Bain, Jr." _~April 8 1 8~lar Day Meeting) Mr. Tucker presented a proposal which was different from the one the Planning Commission reviewed because at the time of the Commission's review, the RA district permitted six development rights and has now been changed to five development rights. Mr. Tucker then ~presented the following staff report: "Location: Parcel 46, tax map 42, Samuel Miller and Jack Jouett Districts; located on the north and south sides of Route 614 (White Hall Road) west of Owensvi!le. Acreage: 177.97 acres Zoning: Rural Areas: previously A-!. History: This p!at was deferred from the December 18, 1980, Planning Commission meeting. Proposal: To divide the 177+ acre parcel into 58 lots with an average size of 2.67 acres and one 23.0 acre parcel was the proposal which went to the Planning Commission. (Mr. Tucker said the plat being presented at this time shows 57 lots and is divided out of 154.97 acres leaving one large twenty acre plus acre parcel. Mr. Tucker then added that the only ~difference is basically the one lot. Mr. Fisher -said if the Board is to act on what the Planning Commission took action on, that plat should be seen.) Topography of Area: Gentle to moderat~e slopes. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Route 614 carries 1,324 vehicle trips per day and is listed as nontolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that a large portion of the site contains soils that are shallow with bedrock ranging from 20 to 40 inches. Also, a portion of the site that contains Hayesvilie Loam is deep and well drain~d~ Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation with a recommended density of one unit per five acres. School Impact: Total projected enrollment of 27 students with a slight impact. Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comment: The County Engineer has commented that the proposed roads can easily meet the standards of the State Highway Department. Staff has some concern about the location of building sites on several of the lots due to the slope and septic and building setbacks. These concerns will be addressed in the soil report and subsequent Health Department review. Also, the new zoning ordinance addresses this in the requirement for a 30,000 square foot building site in the criticial slopes section. Staff had recommended that all the lots be served by internal roads but the applicant hasl!~n~tsaha~n~hms. Since this has not been proposed, staff recommended shared entrances where possible and this has been shown on the plat. This development proposes three commercial entrances, three Joint entrances and two private entrances. Staff feels that all lots should have access on interior roads and has recommended this to the Commission. The Highway Department commented that commercial entrances will be required with a right turn lane for Hopewell Drive North. Sight distances and length of the turn lanes have been determined with the results of a speed study and require 450' of sight distance, with turn lanes and taper of 200' each. The Department also recommended that several curves be widened but at a minimum, the right-of-way be reserved and additional setbacks be provided at this time for future widening of Route 614. The plat will meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance and staff recommends approval with the following conditions: Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final plat approval: ae f. g. h. i. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances and private ~ntrance locations; County Engine~ra~dd Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for acce~ptance into the State Highway System; Fire Official approval of a dry'hydrant system and access road location(s) to be shown on the plat; Written Health Department approval; Compliance with the Soil'Erosion~and Runoff Control Ordinances; Ail lots shall be served b~'i~nternal roads; Note a reservation line and additional setbacks from Route 614 as recommended by Virginia DePartment of Highways and Transportation; Certification of a building site of at least 30,000 square feet on each lot; Lots 2 and 4 shall have access on an easement to be shown on the final plat." Mr. Tucker did not feel condition l(i) was necessary because concern about the two lots was due to the one acre parcel of Mount Harmony Church property and he felt this concern has now been resolved. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on January 27, 1981, voted unanimously to deny the plat on the basis that it did not comply with the requirements of the RA district in the new Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker then reviewed the plat and noted that the dark lines represented parcels of record prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinanc, and these lots are in excess of five acres. The staff has attempted to show in another color the majority of the redivided lots. The purpose of this was to insure that the development rights in the RA district were not exceeded. What is being done is to resubdivide the large tracts of land that were of record at the date of adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Fisher asked how many original lots were shown on the plan that went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Tucker said there were sixteen and those w~re exempt from the Zoning Ordinanc. and did not need Commission nor staff approval. Mr. Lindstrom then asked when the plat was recorded. A gentleman in the audience representing the applicant said sometime in October 1980. Mr Fisher then asked the reason for the Planning Commission recommendation of denial. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did not feel it is the. intent of the RA District for land to be developed in this way even though the parcels were recorded prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. ~prit 8, 1981~(Regular Day Meeting) Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner, was present and said the Commission also did not feel that the redivision of the proposed lots complied with the Ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Commission was stating that if the applicant is going to take advantage of the prior recorded plats, such would have to be done within the context of the existing lot lines rather than ignoring the lot lines and coming up with another subdivision. Mr. Tucker said several Commission member, s stated that. Mr. Fisher said most of the original lots appear to be less than ten acres. Mr. Tucker'said some are thirteen plus acres. Mr. Lindstrom said concern was expressed about the cemetery. Mr. Tucker said the staff did not know about the cemetery until after the Planning Commission acted. This has been discussed with the applicant. Mr~ St. John reviewed the church and cemetery property and did not feel this should be part of the discussion. Mr. Fisher asked the status of taking the lots that were platted prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance which obviously have rights to be developed using the two acre minimum lot size, then essentially deleting those lines but using the development rights. Mr. St. John noted a rule that if the Zoning Ordinance is ambiguous, such has to be resolved in favor of the owner. He then read Section 10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance which states: "Regulations in Section 10.5 governing development by right shall apply to the division of a parcel into five or fewer lots of less than twenty-one acres in area and to the location of five or fewer dwelling units on any parcel in existence at the time of adoption of this ordinance." Mr. St. John said this section was in effect when the plat was considered. If the Board feels that any parcel in existence at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance means these individual parcels, then the Planning Commission action is correct, but if it is the big parcel in existence before that time, there is ambiguity. Mr. St. John said another factor is that the developer can realign these preexisting lot lines with the same number of lots and have big lots designed to accommodate this type of development. If that is done, then there would be ambiguity as to whether the parcels created were in existence at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted. Mr. St. John said the research done on the church and cemetery indicates that at one time there was a church there and there definitely is a cemetery now. The cemetery being there does not prevent the lot from being a legitimate lot owned by this applicant and he is entitled to credit for the r~ad frontage. The applicant has an obligation not to destroy the cemetery. With respect to the church, this lot is not recorded as a separate lot on any map or record. The owner has been paying taxes on it. It is not being treated as a church. He did not feel the County should be~concerned with or become a part of this issue. Next to speak was Mr. Dave Blankenbaker. He said prior to the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance, the division of sixteen parcels was prepared and put to record. The sketch he presented showed that under the new Zoning Ordinance each tract has five development rights. This sketch shows what can be done by running a road, public or private, down the limits of the parcel. There is a possibility of a total of seventy-three lots with eight roads each serving eight to ten lots. He noted that the owners of the land felt a better plan could be developed with the plan presented. Mr. Blankenbaker said the lots have an average size of 3.21 acres. He then continued to review the plat and noted that the site is excellent for houses. Mr. Blankenbaker said public roads will be built throughout the subdivision and substantial improvements will be made along the ~rontage of Route 614. Mr. Fisher felt the issue is compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and not the merits of the subdivision. Mr. Edward Bain, attorney representing the applicant, felt the request is properly and legally before the Board. Mr. Bain said crossing of parcels has been permitted by the Board in the past and the Zoning Ordinance requirements have been complied with in terms of the number of units per parcel. Mr. Fisher asked if any lot lines would be the same as those put to record prior to the adoPtion of t~e Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bain said no, some have the same boundaries but not the total lot lines. Mr. Fisher then asked if any one else was present to speak on this appeal. No one was present. Mr. Fisher noted the receipt of some letters of opposition to the subdivision itself but not on the issue of the legality. Mr. Lindstrom said it appears this was a deliberate attempt to evade the impending adoption of the Zoning Ordinance which would impact upon a developer's ability to divide the parcel by right. He felt what has been presented today also totally ignores the subdivision that was put to record. He felt the lots are designed in a way to take advantage of the exemption.. He also felt to approve a development of this magnitude on a road like 614 would constitute danger to the public health, safety and welfare. The road is poorly constructed and has visibility problems. Mr. Lindstrom said without a doubt the ordinance referred to parcels of record at the date of adoption of the ordinance and pe~rmits five lots within each parcel; at the date of the adoption of the ordinance, it was six lots by right. Mr. McCann felt the subdivision proposed is better than what can be done by right. As far as being in bad faith and trying to evade the ordinance, he disagreed because the owner was trying to make a business move. Mr. Bain said he would like to address the issue about bad faith. The landowners are out of state, grew up here, but are not local residents and were unaware of what was going on here in terms of the new Zoning Ordinance. The owners discovered in August or September, that the Zoning Ordinance was being revised, and decided to protect themselves. Mr. Bain said more lots could not have been put to record paticularly on the south side of the In conclusion, Mr. Bain did not feel the owners were avoiding the Zoning Ordinance but rather protecting their rights. Mr. Fisher did not feel there was any ambiguity in the~ordinance as to what constitutes a parcel. There is no reason for the Board to get into the question of interpreting what is meant by "parcel" on each subdivision plat brought in. Zf there is some method to accomplish what the owners desire then so be it but for the Board to disagree with the Planning Commissi¢ and say the parcels can be changed and move the development rights from one parcel to another seems to be Stretching the whole concept of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Mr. Fisher said he supported the action of the Planning Commission. April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) '1'74 Mr. McCann did not have any problem with the request and noted that the applicant will be able to develop one way or another. Mr. Henley also did not have any problem with the request and felt the Board should consider whether this plan is better than the one with eight different roads. Miss Nash then asked if the applicant can request a special use permit for the project. Mr. Fisher said yes. Mr. McCann then offered motion to approve the Hopewell Lots 1-58 Preliminary Plat. Mr. Fisher expressed concern that the Planning Commission had not considered the merits of the subdivision. Mr. McCann felt such could be considered at the final plat stage. Mr. Henley felt the applicant has the right to develop and seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said the motion includes approval with the staff recommendations for conditions. Mr. McCann then asked if the Planning Commission acted on this as normally done. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission did not hear the request for the five lots. Mr. Fisher felt the applicant and others should have an opportunity to speak on the merits of the plan itself. Dr. Iachetta did not feel the plat was legally before the Board. Mr. Fisher then asked if the Board desired a discussion on the case or on the merits of the plan. Mr. Lindstrom then offered a substitute motion to support the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial on the basis that the plat is not legally before the County and that the application should be for a special use permit under the RA zone rather than as a straight subdivision by right. Miss Nash seconded the substitute motion. Roll was called and the substitute motion carried by the following reo~d~d~¥~te: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. At 2:30 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 2:35 P.M. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: Notice of Proposed Tax Increase. the Daily Progress on March 7 and March 14, 1981.) (Advertised in Mr. Fisher noted that although the Board does not propose to increase either the rate on real property taxes or personel property taxes, this notice of proposed tax increase was required to be advertised for public hearing purposes by Virginia Code Section 58-785.1. This section states that when a biennial assessment of real property results in an increase of one per centum or more in the total real property tax levied, the County shall reduce its rate of levy for the forthcoming year so as to cause such rate of levy to produce no more than one hundred one per centum of the previous year's real property tax levies, but the governing body of the county, after conducting a public hearing, may increase the rate above the reduced rate if any such increase is deemed to be necessary by the governing body. Increases in the assessment occasioned by new construction or improvements is excluded from calculations for the new tax levy. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Lucas noted his misunderstanding about the notice until today but now understands the proposed tax increase. With no one else present to speak for or against the notice, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher felt the requirement for an advertisement creates confusion and makes it sound as if the tax rate is going to be increased. Mr. Fisher asked if any separate action was required before adopting the budget. Mr. Agnor said the purpose of this is just to have a public hearing in order to allow any person or persons to speak. Therefore, no action is required. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An Ordinance to Require Special Stamp for Hunting Bear or Deer. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 25 and April 1, 1981.) Mr. Fisher said last month a request was received to find some mechanism to raise additional revenues so more game wardens and/or deputies could be hired to deal with hunting problems in the County. Mr. St. John, in his research, found, not'in the general laws of the State, but in the Acts of Assembly, that a special damage stamp can be imposed. Therefor~ this hearing is to decide whether to require that a damage stamp be purchased with each big game stamp. By law, the stamp is $1.00 and ten cents of that amount must be paid to the Clerk of the Circuit Court for selling the stamp, leaving a net revenue of ninety cents if there are no other costs. Mr. Fisher said he had asked the staff to examine this matter and see how much revenue might be collected through sale of this stamp. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said he had contacted both the State Game Commission and the State Auditor's office to determine how many total licenses and big game stamps are purchased in the County. One problem is that there is no way to determine how many hunters buy their licenses in other localities of the State and then actually hunt in Albemarle County. The State Auditor was very emphatic that the money must be used to pay damage claims, and if the revenues left after those payments ever doubles, the law would be repealed for Albemarle County. The annual revenue can be used for additional law enforcement, conservation and things of that nature. Mr. Jones said there were 3116 big game stamps issued in Albemarle County in 1980 and the $2800 (905 x 3116) which would be collected from attaching a damage stamp to same would not be enough to pay claims and hire a game warden. Mr. Fisher said he understands that the purpose of the stamp is not to hire wardens primarily but to pay for damage done by deer, bear and big game hunters to property, and that money would have to be spent first. Mr. St. John said most of~the money paid out would be for damage done by bear and deer and not by the hunters themselves. Mr. Jones said in talking with various state agencies and localiti.es, it appears that the amount of revenues April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) often anticipated are not received, and by having adopted an ordinance, this makes the localities themselves liable for any claims. Mr. Fisher said the Game Commission feels it is their responsibility to protect game rather than the public. However, he disagrees because the Game Commission controls when the hunting seasons are and the weapons which can be used. Mr. St. John did not feel this damage stamp, or any of the measures discussed in the past, will address the problem. Only sufficient law enforcement personnel can handle the problem.. The public hearing was opened. Speaking first was Mr. Jim Murray, Jr. He noted that there are hunting problems and same needs to be resolved. Mr. Murray felt the Board should consider appropriating funds for a deputy who could work with the game warden during the months of October to January. Mr. Murray did not feel this ordinance would solve any of the existing problems. Mr. Lucas was present and stated his fear of hunting in this area. sportsman would endorse this proposed stamp. He felt a true With no one else present to speak for or against the ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher felt it was clear from the staff's review that this ordinance will not serve any purpose and cost more to administer than the revenues which could be derived. Therefore, he felt another method was necessary. Dr. Iachetta supported hiring more law enforcement officials to enforce hunting laws. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Mr. McCann felt using dog wardens during hunting season would be a great help. Mr. Fisher then asked the County Executive to examine that possibility. Mr. Agnor said discussions have already been held with Mr. Herman Dorrier, Dog Warden, about this. He also noted that the Sheriff has special deputies who could be utilitized for additional help during hunting season. Motion was then offered by Mr. M¢Cann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to not consider the adoption of the special stamp for hunting. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 14. Telephone System Proposal for New County Office Building. Mr. Agnor noted the distribution of the "Telephone System Proposal Evaluation" dated March 27, 1981 as prepared by Hankins & Anderson, Inc. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office.) He then recognized Mr. L. H. C!ippard from the Hankins and Anderson firm who was present to summarize the evaluation. Mr. Clippard said meetings were held with department heads to determine the needs of the individual departments. From those meetings, the firm wrote a set of performance specifications in order that the County could receive a competitive bid and provide a system that could be used today and be adaptable through the next decade. Mr. Clippard said the directive from the County was to provide a telephone system which would meet the needs and provide a good and effective operation. He said his firm had received three very good competitive bids and basically the low bidder on a ten-year work value calculation was Centel. Within Centel's package there were some excellent modifications to the original design. Therefore, the recommendation from his firm is based on Centel's past performance and their ability to meet the firm's specifications. Mr. Agnor said essentially the same kind of system the County now has will be maintained with the same numbers to be converted later when the telephone directory is reissued. Mr. Agnor said the request before the Board today is to authorize his office to award the proposal to Centel for installing the telephone communication system in the new County Office Building for the amounts shown in Mr. Clippard's summary report. He then noted that an amount of funds had been estimated for this system and the proposal is almost nineteen percent lower than that estimate. Therefore, no additional funding is necessary. Mr. Fisher then asked if future staff needs were considered in the proposal. Mr. Agnor said the system was predicat~ on such needs which are known at this time. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to authorize the County Executive to accept the bid of Centel for the telephone system for the new County Office Building. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. t4a. Executive Session: Personnel. Mr. Agnor requested that the executive session include legal matters as well as personnel At 3:08 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to adjourn into executive session to discuss personnel and legal matters. 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. At 3~30 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session. Agenda Item No. 15. Delinquent Tax Attorney. Mr. St. John recommended that Ms. Susan White be appointed to take the place of Mr. William Muller as Delinquent Tax Attorney and under the same terms as the existing contract (Contraot dated July 11, 1979) with Mr. Muller. Mr. St. John said Ms. White has indicated that the terms are agreeable to her. Upon approval by the Board, the contract will be renewed. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint Ms. Susan White as the Delinquent Tax Attorney for the County with said appointment to replace April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) -;176 Mr. William Muller and effective this date with the same terms and conditions as the contract with Mr. Muller. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Set Tax Rates for 1981. Mr. Fisher asked if it were appropriate to set the tax rates before adoption of the Appropriation Ordinance. Mr. Agnor did not feel so and noted that neither this nor the Appropriation Ordinance are ready for adoption today. Mr. Fisher said the discussion then should be on the budget to see if the Board wants to make any changes in what was advertised for public hearing. The three items supported by the public at the public hearing were Education, Shelter for Help in Emergency, and the Head Start program under the Community Action Agency. Even though revenues cannot be increased without going through the entire budget process, it is his understanding that there are very small sums of money which may be considered from the projected Carry-Over balance. Mr. Lindstrom asked the deadline for issuing teacher contracts by the school system. Mr. Agnor said an attempt has always been made to finish the budget by April 15 and that is the time when the school system decides which teachers will be offered a contract for the next year. Mr. Lindstrom then asked the difference between the request for the Community Action Agency and the amount needed to maintain the Head Start program. Mr. Agnor said the Head Start program was not included in the Community Action Agency funding at all. Mr. Agnor said Albemarle County's share for Head Start would be $7,195. Mr. Lindstrom then restated his comments made at the public hearing on April 1, 1981, that he favored the entire requested amounts advertised for public hearing. Mr. Fisher said during the last week he has focused his thoughts on the statements made at the public hearing regarding the Shelter for Help in Emergency. He felt there are some people in the county that need some place to go under such circumstances. He has considered setting up funding which would not be a straight grant to the Shelter but rather available to those that cannot pay for the Shelter. Mr. Fisher said with federal programs drying up, decisions are going to have to be made as to whether or not the County is going to pick up programs or parts of programs. He said he understands that Mr. Agnor has discussed such an arrangement with Miss Cobb from the Shelter and Ms. Morris from the Social Services Department Dr. Iachetta then added that the Shelter for Help in Emergency has been involved in Community fund raising activities and has had some success. He felt an alternative scheme would be to match what is fdnded from such activities to a maximum number instead of an outright grant. Miss Nash said the services rendered are not just for poor people and there are some young children brought in as well. She asked if there was some way to have a scale establishe for the rate of pay. Mr. Agnor said Miss Debbie Cobb, Director of the Shelter for Help in Emergency, began the first of April a process to determine a person's ability to pay. Up until now, they have always asked for donations. He then noted that support was requested from other localities for funding to carry the project until June and only Charlottesville and Albemarle contributed. Therefore, Albemarle and Charlottesville citizens are not screened as to their ability to pay, but citizens from other localities are asked to pay and informatio~ is taken from them to determine their ability to pay. Miss Cobb has stated that the Shelter has not really set a figure of so many dollars per day for the stay because of the grants received and therefore does not know what the per diem cost would be. However, she is interested in such an approach. Miss Cobb could not be present today and has asked that consideration be given to funding on a per diem basis for those unable to pay, and considera- tion of a grant for a portion of the fiscal year beginning July 1 until the Shelter can establish what their operating capital account woul~ require and then phase into a per diem basis at a later time. Mr. Agnor said he felt there was time to decide on some type of operating budget. Ms. Karen Morris, Director of Social Services, did not have any objections to the request. She has noted that the number of County residents using the Shelter is not large enough for her to believe that it would be a burden on the staff to determine the per diem cost. Ms. Morris also stated that probably seventy-five to eighty percent of the people using the Shelter are unable to pay anything. Mr. Henley said the only thing he would support would be for the Welfare Department to take care of the children from such cases and the people involved should go to jail for thirty days. Mr. McCann said there was no money for this when it was discussed at the work sessions and he did not know where funds would come from now· As far as Federal programs are concerned, he felt there are going to be some that need to be picked up and the County needs to take a look and see which programs they are. Mr. Lindstrom said he has received more comments for support of this than anything before. He would be willing to fund the Shelter from the funds left from the last fiscal year budget. Dr. Iachetta said there are many programs which were started with outside money and which may now be in jeopardy, that it makes it difficult to make a decision. However, this program, unlike some of the other programs, has had good support as far as volunteer help and fund raising. For that reason, he had given some thought to setting some maximum dollar amount to match what they get in contributions. Mr. McCann said'there are so many of these types of programs that are unknown until funds are needed. Miss Nash said if a fee collecting system is instituted, another person would be needed for the bookkeeping system. Mr. Agnor said the Shelter started in April trying to collect fees and he did not feel there would be any difficulty for their staff. Mr. St. John said in order to collect the fees, there would have to be an attorney. Mr. Agnor said he asked about localities that do not participate and Miss Cobb said she would not turn anyone away but would go to churches, etc., in those localities for support. April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Dr. Iachetta felt the request is an emergency. Mr. McCann asked where these people went before. Mr. Henley said he could not imagine someone taking them in. Mr. McCann said he felt sympathy for these people but did not feel this would solve their problems. Mr. Lindstrom said the organization does provide counseling for the people involved. Mr. Fisher agreed that the Shelter will not'solve all the problems but he does support the organization. Mr. McCann said supporting this means government~is going to take care of everybody's problems. Dr. Iachetta felt the government has an obligation to help people who cannot help themselves. Mr. Lindstrom then asked where the funds would come from to support this on the basis of the Chairman's suggestion of a per diem fund. Mr. Agnor said either by shifting from another allocation or last years carry over balance for the capital program. Mr. McCann said if the items are going~to be funded, then tax rates should be increased to take care of them. He did not feel that there will be many people able to pay and he did not support the request. Mr. McCann said based on the statement that there are no funds, he could not support spending funds. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to set up a mechanism to make available $20,000 that can be drawn on a per diem basis for those persons unable to provide for their own expenses at the Shelter for Help in Emergency. Miss Nash seconded the motion. Dr. Iachetta said he was thinking of $12,000 because that was what their contributions totalled. Mr. Lindstrom said his motion was that the money does not have to be spent, only that it be available. Dr. Iachetta said if it is available it will be spent. Mr. Henley felt a home away from home was being set up for people who like to fight now and then. Mr. McCann did not feel it was the County's job to take care of everybody's problems. Although he feels sorry for these people, he did not feel that the taxpayers should be obligated to pay for such. He also noted that this will be a continuing request. Miss Nash then asked Mr. Lindstrom if he would accept changing his motion to $15,000. Dr. Iachetta suggested deferring this until more information is available on how much is required. He then offered a substitute motion to defer making a final decision pending further information. Mr. Fisher felt with a budget the size of the County's, the question of $5,000 or $6,000 at this point is within the errors that will be made in estimating revenues and errors for the unallocated balance at the end of this fiscal year. He felt this could be done and the question is whether the Board wants to or not. He did not feel it was any use for the staff to work with a contract unless it is clear that the Board is going to suppOrt it. Mr. McCann then seconded Dr. Iachetta's motion. Mr. Lindstrom said he would not support the motion because he felt the issue was being dodged. Roll was called on the motion and same failed by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Iachetta and McCann. Messrs. Fisher, Henley (He felt the staff has enough to do), Lindstrom and Miss Nash. The main motion was then before the Board to allocate $20,000 to the Shelter for Help in Emergency, said funds to be drawn on some basis as yet to be worked out. Roll was called on the original motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Messrs. Henley and McCann. Mr. Fisher then asked if there were other items the Board desired to change. Hearing none, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to approve the 1981-1982 County Budget. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mr. Lindstrom~ then asked if Head Start will be a non-existiNg program in the County. Mr. Agnor said he presumed so. However, he had suggested that the Community Action Agency approach the School System and he did not feel they had received an answer at this time. Dr. Iachetta said he had mixed emotions about Head Start and the arguments for preschool education are many and vary. Roll Was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom (He noted his dissatisfaction with the Budget being adopted, but did feel there are a number of things in the budget that are important.), McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Mr. Fisher said the next step is for the School Board to finalize their budget. Mr. Fisher said the recommendation from the County Executive is to defer setting the tax rate for 1981 and adopting the Annual Appropriation Ordinance until April 15, 1981. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 18a. VACo Office. Requests from Virginia Association of Counties: Proposal to move Mr. Fisher said he has been involved in studying this matter' for three years and members of the Association have been divided on the question. The Board of the Virginia Association of Counties has finally requested, as a way to resolve the matter, to ask each county to adopt a formal resolution, Mr. Fisher then reviewed how this proposal was instigated. A number of counties began adopting resolutions about three years ago stating that the Associati¢ was not doing its job and should be in Richmond where the General Assembly meets. The most critical thing that has happened is that the General Assembly, ten years ago, met every other year for a few weeks but now meets every year and the sessions are longer. He also April 8, 1981 '(Regular Day Meeting) noted that committee meetings occur all year long. Therefore, the Virginia Association of Counties staff is constantly on the road to Richmond. Mr. Fisher said when this proposal was first presented, he did not support the move but as the study continued on the matter, he felt the Association could be more effective in Richmond. Now he personally feels this would be best. The Executive Director, Mr. George Long, is opposed to the move. However, the move has always been discussed as occurring upon Mr. Long's retirement. Dr. Iachetta said in reading the supporting information from the Association and realizing the change in the legislative process in Richmond, he would offer motion to support the relocation of the Virginia Association of Counties office from Charlottesville to Richmond. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Zachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 18b. Constitutional Officers. Request from Virginia Association of Counties: Status of~ ~ Mr. Fisher said the request is for the County to decide how it desires its constitutional officers to participate in decisions made by the Virginia Association of Counties. He noted that Albemarle County is different from most counties because the treasurer and commissioner of revenue are combined here as a director of finance. Many counties only have three or four supervisors and are concerned about being out voted by constitutional officers in a caucus. Some constitutional officers want' to be included in the caucus. Mr. Fisher noted that the Association has for some time been the organization of the boards of supervisors and the constitutional officers have their own associations. Mr. Fisher said he did not have any strong recommendation on the matter. The general consensus of the Board was to leave the Association as it currently exists. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, supports the participation of Constitutional Officers in the Virginia Association of Counties but reserves the membership representation to the Board of Supervisors as presently provided in the Constitution and By-Laws of the Association. Roll was called on the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES' Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 19. Redistricting. Mr.~ Fisher asked Mr. Tucker to bring the Board up to date on this matter. Mr. Tu~cker noted that at the April 1, 1981 meeting, the Board was apprised of the fact that the census figures for Jack Jouett were short by 5000+ people. The issue of whether these people are in the City or County had to go to'the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Mr. Frederick Gray. The City wrote a letter to Mr. Gray stating that they do not protest the County's contention about this error being in the Copeley Hill area. On Monday, Mr. Tucker said he met with Mr. Huja of the City and the City is willing to drop all questions raised concerning this figure. Mr. Gray called today and indicated that if a letter were sent to'him signed by both the City and County, giving the actual population figures, and if the City agrees with the figure, he will approve same and certify that figure to the Census Bureau. Mr. Tucker said a statement Will be included in the ~ter that while wanting to clear the issue, the County will not drop its right to resolve the issue of the COpeleY Hill area at a later date. Mr. Tucker then presented a revision to Redistricting Plan #6 showing a couple of alternatives. He said that when this plan was presented at the public hearing, Jack Jouett DiStrict was one-tenth of a percent over the proposed deviation. Therefore, there are two alternatives to bring the figures back in line and these alternatives will give some growing space to all of the districts. One alternative is to make a shift between Jack Jouett and Charlottesville by using the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir as a boundary and adding the population now in Jack Jouett (676) to the Charlottesville District. This would bring the Charlottesville District to 9613 and put Charlottesville at 3.4% deviation and bring Jack Jouett District down to 9588 and make that a 3.1% deviaton. The area to be moved is known as the Clearview area. The second alternative, an area known as the Piedmont Faculty Housing would create a shift between Jack Jouett and the Samuel Miller District. The new figures would then be 9645 for Jack Jouett and 9307 for Samuel Miller District. Mr. Tucker said some change has to be made in the Jack Jouett District. Mr. Lindstrom said of the two alternatives, he felt the second alternative would have far less impact on anybody in terms of their activities, etc. He also felt it was a benefit to have several districts share the Reservoir. Therefore, he favored changing the Piedmont Faculty Housing area to the Samuel Miller District. Mr. Fisher said a question was also raised at the public hearing about the Earlysville area and he asked if the Board wanted to consider an amendment for that area. Mr. Tucker said White Hall has the lowest deviation of the districts involved in that area. Discussion then followed about the Airport and Chris Green Lake area. Mr. Tucker said the Earlysville area is divided almost into three districts, Rivanna, White Hall and . Charlottesville. However the Airport and Chris Green Lake area are in the White Hall District. Mr. Fisher said he had proposed that the line for the Rivanna District would go farther to the east so that White Hall would have all of the Earlysville area thus splitting the Eartysville area. However, he did not feel it was worth spending more time on. April 8, 1981 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt a map entitled "Redistricting Plan for Albemarle County, No. 6 Revised, dated February 25, 1981", with the only amendment to the map being that the area designated in blue which covers the Piedmont Faculty Housing in Jack Jouett be placed in the Samuel Miller District and the other area in blue around the Rivanna Reservoir remain in the Jack Jouett District. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said he would abstain. Roll was then called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. ~NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Mr. Fisher then asked if anything else was necessary to conclude this matter. Mr. St. John said with the above action, the resolution of the redistricting has been concluded. However, metes and bounds along certain roads has to be done for the map and sent to the Justice Department with a copy to the Electoral Board who will then send same'to the State Electoral Board. Mr. Fisher then delegated to Mr. St. John the duty of filing the above action in all the appropriate places. Mr. St. John consented to that responsibility. Agenda Item No. 23. Statements of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of March, 1981, along with summary statement of prisoner days and salary of the jail physician and paramedics, were presented. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements were approved as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom, McCann and Miss Nash. None. Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Roy Patterson presented to the Board the revised Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Handbook filed by the State Soil and Water Commission. He noted attending a seminar and work session on this matter and described the Handbook as an improvement over the existing handbook. He understood that the Board will be required to adopt this~minimum standards for erosion and sediment control activities in the County and has a year in which to adopt same. Mr. Patterson then stated that Citizens for Albemarle would like to see this handbook adopted as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher felt the staff would have to review the handbook. Mr. Agnor said the staff has been involved in the writing of the handbook and it is an improvement over the current handbook. Mr. Patterson then noted a suggestion contained in the handbook to have one person responsible for receiving complaints about the erosion and sedimentation control and asked that the Board seriously consider this suggestion. Mr. Lindstrom was in agreement with Citizens for Albemarle to institute whatever procedure is necessary to adopt the handbook as soon as possible. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor to present the handbook to the Board when same is ready for adoption. Mr. Fisher noted letter received a few weeks ago from residents in Key West Subdivision asking about the R-1 zoning, said letter being signed by Mr. Reel, President of the Cedar Hills/Key West Community Association. Mr. Fisher said he has been asked to respond to the residents about the rezoning of the area. Therefore, he will review the letter and prepare a response. Mr. McCann said complaints have been.received about growth of weeds on property behind the service station at the Shadwell triangle. One of the owners is willing to trim the weeds but the other owner is not as willing. Agenda Item No. 26. adjourned at 5:00 P.M. With no other matters being presented to the Board, the meeting