Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1980-05-14
May_~ 1_980 (Re ug_u_~ar Da M~~ng~)__~___~ A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 14, 1980, at 9:00 A.M., in the.Board Room of the Albemarle County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:16 A.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mrs. June T. Moon, Adminis- trative Assistant; and Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order: the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. At 9:08 A.M., the meeting was called to order by Agenda Item No. 2. Minutes: September 5, 1979 (Night) and December 12, 1979. Mr. Henley said he found no errors or additions to the minutes of December 12, 1979. Mr. Fisher said in the minutes of September 5, pages 38 through 50 were correct as presented. Dr. Iachetta said for his portion of the September 5, 1979 minutes, he found only one word he felt should be changed. On page 25, paragraph 2, line 5, the word "bypass" should be changed to the word "road". Mr. Fisher reported that Mr. Roudabush did not read his portion of the September 5, 1979 minutes. Motion was then offered by Mr..Henley, seconded by Mr Roudabush to approve the minutes of the December 12, 1979/~e~sented. Roll was o~lled and the motion carried by ~he following recorded vote: AYES- NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3A. Abandon Road off Route 602. Since there was no one present to represent the applicant, Mr. Fisher suggested deferring this matter until the applicant requests that it be placed back on the agenda. Motion to that effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Lindstrom. Agenda Item No. 3B. Request from City re: Penn Park Lane. The following background information is needed before discussion of this request. In May, 1979, letter was received from Mr. John W. Greene, Director of Public Works, City of Charlottesville, asking that Penn Park Lane be taken into the State Secondary System through use of the Rural Addition Law. On June 7, 1979, the Road Viewers visited the road and recommended same for accep- tance conditioned on the property owners supplying adequate right of way at no cost to the Highway Department, and also paying $4,850 of the cost to surface the road. Also, the City has requested that 0.29 mile be accepted into the system and the Road Viewers re- commended only 0.13 mile be accepted. Through several pieces of correspondence with the Clerk, Mr. John V. Berberich, III, who is now the Director of Public Works, has corres- ponded with all property owners along this requested addition and by letter of April 9, 1980, has requested that the Road Viewers reconsider their recommendation relative to the length of road to be accepted into the system. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Berberich's letter did not indicate that the property owners involved are willing to participate in the cost of improving this road. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer, said one of the other three roads recommended by the Road Viewers will definitely not be taken in because the property owners cannot afford to pay their share of the costs, therefore there are sufficient "Rural Addition Funds for doing the-work on Penn Park Lane from the 1980 budget. He recommended replying favorably to the City's request with the same conditions, but changing the cost to $8,550 to cover the additional length. ~ Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to notify the City of Charlottesville that Albemarle County is willing to recommend acceptance of Penn Park Lane in to the State Secondary Highway System with the conditions that the necessary right-of-way be donated and improvement costs in the amount of $17,100 be shared between the State and the private property owners. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3C. Letter re: the following letter: Flooding Problems Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher read "April 17, 1980 Mr. F. Anthony Iachetta Albemarle County Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Route 29, Albemarle County, Flooding Problem This is further in response to your letter dated February 12, 1980 con- cerning the drainage problems on Route 29 and Route 852, at the crossings of an unnamed branch of Meadow Creek, north of Charlottesville. Development that has and is taking place in the watershed is causing the capacity of the existing culvert under Route 29 to be increasingly over- taxed. However, upon a careful review of this drainage situation and the May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Department's current financial posture, I do not see any way to fund the desired drainage improvement under Route 29 within the next three years, unless significant financial assistance is provided by the County or others. This work will, of course, be further considered if the Depart- ment's financial situation improves in the meantime. As always, I appreciate your interest in Virginia's highways. Sincerely, (signed) Harold C. King, Commissioner" Dr. Iachetta said he had hoped for a letter supporting improvements to the drainage system on this area of Route 29 North. He then presented photographs of Jefferson Supply and Wayside Press following a two and one-half foot flood. He said the property loss was substantial and that the problem in the area will worsen because of further development in the area. Dr. Iachetta said he witnessed this flooding personally, and that it is a severe problem. He said in a study done by County Engineer, J. Harvey Bailey, such flooding could occur in frequencies of ten-year magnitude. He could not see waiting a minimum of three years to solve this severe problem. Mr. Roudabush asked Mr. Roosevelt what the coSt estimates for this project are. Mr. Roosevelt said the County Engineer'estimated $200,000, but the State Department. of High- ways in Richmond estimated $459,000. Mr. Roosevelt said part of the problem is that the pipe under the Wayside Press building is undersized and cannot handle the water runoff problem. Dr. Iachetta said it was able to handle the water runoff when the building was first constructed, but with the. additional development up stream from them, flooding problems are now created in the low lying areas. Dr. Iachetta then suggested that the Board again correspond with Commissioner King to determine the intent of his statement "significant financial assistance". Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, authorizing Dr. Iachetta to correspond with Commissioner King regarding the Route 29 flooding problem. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3A. Abandon Road off Route 602. - Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Bruce Rasmussen had just arrived ~gardinE~hi~i~ge~i~m~hi~h~a~h~ohe~nvea~ie~n~his. meeting. Mr. Rasmussen reported that his portion of the work is completed, and only a small portion of right-of-way is necessary before this'project is ready for presentation· Mr. Fisher said the Board has deferred this matter to an unspecified date. When Mr. Rasmussen feels all the paperwork is ready for this abandonment, he can then bring it back to the Board for action· Agenda Item No. 3D. Letter accepting road into State Secondary System. presented the following letter from the Virginia Department of HighwaYs: "April 8, 1980 As requested in your resolution dated November 14, 1979, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved effective April 8, 1980. ADDITION LAKE HILLS SUBDIVISION LENGTH Milford Road - From Route 743 S.E. of cul-de-sac." 0.22 Mi. to end 0.22 Mi. Mrs. Moon Agenda item No. 3E. Request to take road into State Secondary System. read the following letter: Mrs. Moon "February 7, 1980 Ms. Lettie Neher Clerk of the Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Ms. Neher: It is the request of this party to have the section of road known as "the road addition to Old Forge Road serving Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Section VII of Hessian Hills, Albemarle County, Virginia", taken over as a per- manent part of the Alb'emarle County road system. I further request the County of Albemarle to adopt a resolution to the Virginia State Highway Department to take over this road in their system. Mr. Allen Dillard of Dillard Paving was the contractor for the road work and any questions may be directed to Mr. Dillard or myself. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely, (signed) C Mitchell Toms" Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the. following resolution to accept the new section of 01d Forge Road into the State Secondary System: May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) 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 accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Depart- ment, the following road in Section VII of Hessian Hills: Beginning at station 0+00 a point common to the centerline of Old Forge Road, State Route 1472, and the new section of 01d Forge Road; thence with Old Forge Road in a southwesterly direction 422.51 feet to station 4+22.51, the end of the cul-de-sac of 01d Forge Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the ~ffice of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 694, page 148. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush Agenda Item No. 3F. Requests for Street Signs. Mrs. Moon noted that a letter was received from Michael D. Horn requesting street signs for Oak Forest Subdivision and noting that Salasco Service Corporation and Jefferson Pilot will bear the cost of those signs. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the request for street signs and adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Whitewood Road (State Route 1455) and Oak Forest Drive (State Route 1495) at the southeast corner of its intersection; Oak Forest Drive (State Route 1495) and Oak Forest Circle (State Route 1496) at the northwest corner of its intersection; Oak Forest Circle (State Route 1496) and Oak Tree Lane (State Route 1497) at the southeast corner of its northern intersection; Oak Forest Circle (State Route 149'6) and Oak Tree Lane (State Route 1497) at the northwest corner of its southern intersection; Oak Forest Circle (State Route 1496) and Pin Oak Court at the north- west corner of its intersection; and WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Mrs. Moon noted receipt of request from Bertha S. Alvis for street signs for Auburn Hills Subdivision and offering to pay costs incurred for these signs. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the request for street signs and adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) at the southeast corner of its inter- section with State Route 732; Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) and Hillview Court (State Route 1123) at the northeast corner of its intersection; Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) and Simeon Court (State Route 1123) at the southwest corner of its intersection; Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) at the southwest corner of its inter- section with a future street approximately 500 feet south of the intersection with State Route 1123; Auburn Drive (State Route 1122) at the southwest corner of its inter- section with a future street approximately 1900 feet south of the intersection with State Route 1123; and 013 May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting). WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Ekecutive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT REsoLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded ~ote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, ~achetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3G. Request for road name change. Mr. Fisher noted a letter from Mr. Melvin Breeden of the Benevolent Protectorate Order of Elks, requesting the name of State Route 1451 commonly referred to as Old Stony Point Road be named Elk Drive. The letter indicated that the Elk's Lodge would be willing to purchase street signs and pay for installation of same. Mr. Fisher noted in a memorandum from Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, that the Code of Virginia Section 15.1-379, gives the Board of Supervisors the authority to name streets, roads and alleys by adopting a resolution. Mr. Roudabush said he did not think the name "Old Stony Point Road" was official, but had been used only since the construction of a new Route 20. Mr. Fisher expressed concern that this change might adversely affect some homeowners along this road, and suggested a public hearing be held on this request. Motion was offered by Miss Nash, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to set a public hearing for June 4, 1980. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3H. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority for resolution regarding Highway Work. Mr. John W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority was present, and requested the Board's assistance in reducing repair requirements made by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation upon com- pletion of work for the Westmoreland sanitary sewer project. Mr. Brent said the Highway Department is requiring "at each street crossing, the full width of the Street shall be repaved a distance of 50 feet (centered on the ditch) with the same material as the existing street surface", and he feels this is excessive. He said this would add an additional 10% to the cost of the project. Mr. Brent said the Service Authority has already complied with earlier requests by the Highway Department to redesign the sewer project to keep the sewer line out of the streets as much as possible, which resulted in higher construction costs because of landscaping damage, slope restoration, material excavation, etc. ~. Dr. Iachetta said he has been trying to get this sewer project completed ever since he has been on the Board, and expressed his desire to expedite this matter. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said his office had suggested an alternate form of patching, where the trench is filled with "2lA" material, and a "T" patch approximately 2 feet wider than the hole is placed over the trench. Mr. Roosevelt said this "T" type patch is generally not approved by the Culpepper office, and this has caused the stricter enforcement of the law to use the 50 foot repaving requirement. Mr. Roosevelt said the purpose of the patch is not only to restrengthen the road, but to seal the surface so no water gets under the roadway and causes damage. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Board's support of a reduced repair requirement would help in easing the requirements made by the Culpepper office of the HighWay Department. Mr. Brent said he did not think the Board's support would help in that respect, but added that it might help reduce the 50 foot repaving requirement. Mr. Fisher said he was reluctant to ask the Highway Department to waive their repair requirements, because he felt it probably would not do much good, and secondly the re- quirements are set for specific reasons. Mr. Henley said he would support requesting a lesser requirement than the present 50 foot repaying law. Dr. Iachetta said he also would support such a ~request with the understanding that if it should prove inadequate, the Service Authority would repair the street to the Highway Department's satisfaction. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to request the Culpeper Office of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to review the requirement of 50 feet of Sealing on each side of the utility cut. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 3I. Resolution: Revenue Sharing Funds regarding Route 637. Mr. Agnor referred to the following memorandum from Mr. Ray B. Jones, Director of Finance, dated May 12, 1980, regarding the Ivy Landfill Road: "The Resident Engineer, Dan Roosevelt, advised the County by letter dated April 15, 1980 to submit~ another resolution if the County expects to con- tinue the use of Revenue Sharing Funds on the above project. As you know, if the County uses General Revenue Sharing money, the State of Virginia ~will match up to 15% of the County's annual receipts in Revenue Sharing monies. The County has received all of its Fiscal Year 79-80 payments which amounted to $494,737. May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Aresolution which will require the State to pay $74,210.55 of the County's share of this work is needed. This resolution should be identical to the first one passed by the Board on November 8, 1978 except for the dollar amounts being updated. This State participation reduces the County's net share of the estimated project cost from $794,260 down to $643,568.20. The project will be paid for as follows if completed in FY 80-81. City County State $ 794,260.00 643,568.20 150,691.80 $1,588,520.00 Total Estimated Project Cost Favorable action is requested in order that a certified copy can be for- warded to Mr. Roosevelt, and the appropriate amounts included in his FY 80- 81 budget allocations." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the following resolution as suggested by Mr. Agnor: 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 of funds received by it during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has received a total of $494,737 in Revenue Sharing Funds 'for Fiscal Year 1979-80, fifteen per centum of which is $74,210.55; 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 project; 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 $74,210.55 for Project 0637-002-I69,C501. Roll was called,, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher acknowledged the arrival of students from Albemarle High School visiting for Youth in Government Day which is sponsored by the VPI-SN Extension Service. The six students introduced themselves, and Mr. Fisher in turn introduced the Board of Supervisors and other county employees present at the meeting. Agenda Item No. 3J. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt presented a copy of the Virginia Highway Transportation dollar breakdown for the year 1980-81. This breakdown showed in rough cents-per-dollar figures the source of income and the areas of expenditures of highway money. Mr. Roosevelt next requested the Board to place on the agenda of a future meeting, time to discuss the Hydraulic Road project. Mr. Roosevelt said he met earlier with Mr. Fisher and at that time he also discussed the time frame for the construction of the McIntire/Rio Road. He said a construction date of June, 198-3 was estimated, and Mr. Roosevelt added that this improvement could be paid for by completion if the estimate of $3.2 million does not go any higher. Mr. Roosevelt said the financing of the McIntire/Rio Road improvement~epends largely upon staying within the budget for Hydraulic Road (Route 743). He said budget and road plans for Hydraulic Road will be ready in two or three weeks, and requested time at the June regular day meeting to go over these two major projects with Board members. The Board agreed to this date for the discussion. Miss Nash asked Mr. Roosevelt to clear the entrance to the James River at.the Warren Ferry location. She said it is her understanding that the Highway Department is to' maintain this access, which is presently blocked with sand. Mr. Roosevelt agreed that this was in the agreement, and he would see to having the entrance cleared. Miss Nash then asked if the Highway Department would provide trash cans for that landing, as a great deal of debris is deposited there. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department is not in the business of supplying trash containers, but that the roadway is regularly cleaned by road crews. He added that he would have no objection to anyone else placing trash con- tainers at that point as long as they are maintained. Dr. Iachetta requested Mr. Roosevelt to reseal the pavement on Route 643 at Route 29 going east. He said there is some loose gravel at that location which is dangerous. Mr. Roudabush requested Mr. Roosevelt to contact property owners in Key West Sub- division regarding right of way for the back entrance to that subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said he would stake the right of way out for the proposed entrance, then give right of way forms to a resident to use for obtaining promise of right of way. Mr. Roudabush said he would have a resident of Key West Subdivision get in touch with the Highway Department. May 14, 1980 (Re-gular.Day Meeting) Mr. Dic.k McCartne~, of Williamsburg Road in Berkeley Subdivision stated several complaints ranging from people not obeying stop signs and.speed limit signs, to unlicensed motorists and vehicles traveling on the Berkeley streets. Mr. Fisher said these com- plaints sounded like matters for law enforcement, which are the duty of the Sheriff; that the Board of Supervisors has no law enforcement authority. Mr. Fisher said he could inform the Sheriff of the Board's concern, but felt it should be brought to the Sheriff's attention directly by the persons making the complaints. Dr. Iachetta asked if this was a more widespread problem than was observed a few years ago. Mr. Rolling said it was definitely more widespread. Dr. Iachetta requested Mr. Roosevelt to look at the road signs in Berkeley and see if any improvements could be made. Mr. Roosevelt said he would do that, and added that the signs ar~ only as good as the enforcement. Dr. Iac~etta said he would contact the Sheriff on behalf of Messrs. McCartney and Rolling and have him observe the situation. There were no other highway matters for discussion. Agenda Item No. 4. Request from Albemarle County Service Authority regarding Juris- dictional Boundaries. Mr. Roudabush said he wished to abstain from agenda items four and five, because his firm is involved in work for the applicant on certain'projects. Mr. Fisher ~oted receipt of a letter dated March 26, 1980 from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service'Authority: "The Albemarle County Service Authority has received a request from Liberty Land, Ltd. to provide public water to Ashcroft subdivision. Ashcroft is adjacent to, but outside of, 'the Service Authority's jurisdictional boundary. The ACSA's Board of Directors feels very strongly that this subdivision should be developed with public water rather than a well system and has directed me to petition the Board of Supervisors to enlarge the juris- dictional boundary to include Ashcroft. Enclosed is suggested wording for identifying the proposed new boundary. I will be gald to provide you with any information you may desire in consideration of this request." Mr. Fisher said he felt the procedure for establishing the jurisdictional boundaries is important, and should have input from the Planning Commission and the Engineering staff. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had already reviewed the Jurisdictional Boundaries for the Service Authority, and made their recommendation to the Board on January 18, 197~. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Tucker felt the Planning Commission would make the same recommendation, now that the Comprehensive Plan has been changed. Mr. Tucker said he~ did not know, as there are new members on the Commission. Mr. FiSher said the boundaries may not be the same for water and sewer service, as different size communities require different utilities. Dr. Iachetta suggested Mr. Tucker review the Planning Commission's recommendation with the changes in the Comprehensive Plan and determine whether it is necessary for this action to go back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt discussion of the jurisdictional boundaries should wait until the County Engineer has completed his report on utilities and zoning. Mr. Agnor said the boundaries would first have to be established before extension of utilities could be considered. Mr. Agnor then estimated Mr. Bailey's report would take at least a month to complete. Mr. Fisher suggested the discussion of jurisdictional boundaries for the Albemarle County Service Authority be deferred until the June meeting when the report from the County Engineer is received. Agenda Item No. 5. .croft. Request for waiver of pump-down tests on central well for Ash- "APril 24, 1980 ~ Dear Miss Neher: We hereby request a permit to operate Ashcroft Well #2 as a temporary central water supply system for Section I, Phase I of Ashcroft. The distribution system plans are being reviewed by the State Health Department Engineering and Albemarle 0ounty Service Authority simultan- eously, so switching to public water when it is available can be readily accomplished. We hereby request a waiver on the county engineers observance of the pump down test requirement. We were unaware of this requirement and followed the State Health Department's procedure for this test. A copy of the driller's report and the 48 hour pump down test is attached for your information. Heatth Department approval is expected in a week to ten days. Respectfully, (signed) Gary D. Cooper" Mr. Agnor said this request was not to waive the test itself, but the requirement to have a representative of the County Engineering Department present during, the testing pro- cedure. He said Mr. Cooper was not aware of the requirement to have a representative from the County present, and conducted the teSt unobserved. Mr. Agnor said he spoke to the Health Department, which also failed to inform Mr. Cooper about the requirement,-to have them correct their notification procedure. Mr. Agnor said Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, is familiar with the well drilling firm used, the. test procedure used, and has examined the test result.s, and is satisfied that the wel'I tests were done under the same kind of conditions that would have been required. Mr. Agnor said the County Engineer ~a~y~l__~_419~0 (Regular Da~ Meetin~ Mr. Lindstr Seconded the motion. indicated he would accept the results of the test, and grant certification of the capacity of the well for a capacity of 12.9 gallons per minute as shown in the well drillers report. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about such a waiver, because even though there is a request for public water to serve this subdivision, it might turn out that this central well may be the only water available to residents in this subdivision. Mr. Fisher said the pumping report indicates that the 12.9 gallons per minute was only observed for three hours of the entire 48 hour test time, and he was concerned as to whether or not that rate was stabilized. Mr. Agnor said the engineer indicated that the well stabilized at the 12.9 gallons per minute rate for the last six hours, and was satisfied with the rate of recovery also. Mr. Fisher suggested the possibility of approving the well for only 10 gallons per minute, and if the developer wants it certified for more, then the well would have to be put through the full test, observed by the County Engineer. Dr. Iachetta said he was concerned that the Board has taken no action to provide public water to Ashcroft, and felt it would be a serious error to permit this well without knowing the long term source of water for that site. Dr. Iachetta then asked Mr. Cooper, developer of Ashcroft, how many dwelling units are in Phase I. Mr. Cooper said twenty-six units are planned. He then added that this well is not the only available source of water for the site. He said there are two other wells which have been drilled, but not tested° He said if the need arose for additional water, then he would have the wells tested and added to the central well system. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that if the Board decides to accept the pump-down test presented as a basis for approval of the well system for Ashcroft, then the test should be accepted as presented by the well-driller. Mr. Fisher said if the tests are accepted as presented, then more requests for waivers will be received in the future. Dr. Iachetta said on the basis that the County Engineer supports the well-driller's test, he would offer a motion to accept the data as valid for this well test, and approve the request. Also have the County Executive notify all agencies connected with well testing of the County's requirements. /Mr. Fisher said he would not support the motion, as he felt the ~mprob±ems created when wells run dry is too great to take chances. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: Mr. Fisher. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 6. Request for Ordinance To Control Discharge of Firearms In Sub- divisions in Rural Areas. Mr. Fisher said he had received letters from property owners in rural subdivisions requesting greater control for the discharge of firearms. Mrs. Adele Billmire of Langford Farms Subdivision was present and described incidents in her area where hunters were shooting toward residential property. Mr. Bill Bacot said he and one other resident of the Langford Farms Subdivision have also had similar experiences. He said hunters may be standing on property which in itself is large enough to hunt on, but if they are at the property line, shooting toward subdivision property, they are definitely in violation of the present hunting laws. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of two other letters from residents of Langford Farms, plus other calls from property owners throughout the County agreeing that there is a definite problem. Mr. Bacot added that all the roads in Langford Farms are in the State Secondary Road system, which makes the 300 foot distance requirement binding in this area. Mr. Fisher asked if there was anyone else present who wished to speak on this matter. Mrs. Billmire added that she felt there was also an honest ignorance of the hunting laws in the County. Sheriff Bailey was present, who said in instances where hunters are violating the hunting laws, he or his deputies will make an arrest. He added that if anyone has a problem with hunters, to just call the Sheriff's office and he will dispatch someone to investigate. Mr. Lindstrom said it seemed when the hunting laws were first placed on the books, the word "residential" was used as a convenience, now that a lot of the county which is not zoned residential has become residential, he felt the hunting laws should be changed so that no hunting is allowed near areas with a certain designated density of population. Dr. Iachetta said the real problem is the irresponsible use of firearms. He said there are only two game wardens in a 740 square mile area, which makes enforcement almost impossible. Mr. Fisher said it was unfortunate that the County Attorney was not present. He said he would like the County Attorney to review the present laws regarding discharge of firearms and make suggestions regarding proposed ordinance changes. Mr. Roudabush said the law forbidding the discharge of a firearm within 300 feet of a road was enacted to protect pedestrians and drivers on that road. He said people should be afforded the same protection in their homes. Mr. Fisher said this would be placed back on the agenda when the County Attorney has had an opportunity to make a review and recom- mendations to the Board. Agenda Item No. 7. Request to adopt ordinance regarding False Burglar Alarms. Sheriff George Bailey introduced Sergeant B. T. Leonard of the Virginia State Police. Sheriff Bailey said an increasing number of burglar and fire alarms are being installed throughout the County, all of which are monitored by the Sheriff's office. He said in many instances these alarms are set off by accident, and he requested a fine be imposed if the owner does not notify the the Sheriff's Department before police action is taken. He said in all instances, two patrol cars are dispatched, and this is a waste of man-hours as well as energy to get to the scene of the alarm. Sheriff Bailey also requested that if an ordinance is drafted that it state that all owners of alarms notify the Sheriff's Depart- ment as to the location of the alarm; this will aid the Sheriff in locating the trouble. He also noted that the Fire Official, Mr. Ira Cortez, is interested in this ordinance for similar reasons. He said Mr. Cortez indicated that if his department responds to a false fire alarm, it disperses a very expensive unit of equipment and manpower, and also deprives that equipment to another possible need. Sheriff Bailey described one type of alarm system called a "dialer", which, once the alarm is triggered, will dial the Sheriff's office and tie up the telephone line until someone gets to the source of the alarm and turns it off. The Sheriff said if three of these units went off at the same time, all lines to the Sheriff's office would be tied up and no one would be able to get through May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) with other emergencies. Dr. Iachetta said this situation should be considered in the wording of an ordinance to insure that the telephone lines of the Sheriff's office do not become tied up with alarm calls. Mr. Agnor said it has been suggested by Deputy County Attorney, James Bowling, that permission would have to be received even to install a "dialer" alarm unit, and that a fine of approximately $25 be levied if a false alarm is received and the Sheriff's Department is not notified before a car is dispatched to the scene. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, instructing the County Attorney to meet with the Sheriff and the Fire Official to draft an ordinance to bring back to the Board of Supervisors, at which time a public hearing will be set. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion: Enforcement of Speed Limit on Route 29 North and Georgetown Road. Sergeant Leonard of the Virginia State Police and Sheriff George Bailey discussed the problems they are having catching speeders on Route 29 North between Hydraulic Road and the North Fork of the Rivanna River as well as on Georgetown Road. Sergeant Leonard said he only has three officers which he can assign to Albemarle County, and one must stay on Interstate 64. He indicated that he does mainly patrol Route 29, but during peak traffic hours, the congestion is too dense for radar to be effective in isolating one individual car as speeding. Sheriff Bailey agreed that it is almost impossible to make a speeding arrest in heavy traffic. Sheriff Bailey then said the speeding problem on Georgetown Road is being worked on, and that approximately 130 tickets for speeding have been issued during the last thirty days. Sheriff Bailey next noted receipt of a petition from homeowners on the road between the Airport and Chris Greene Lake. He said the posted speed limit is forty-five, yet on each curve the speed limit is reduced to thirty or less. Sheriff Bailey said there are at least eight curves on this stretch of road, and that it is impossible to maintain the posted limit long enough for him to catch any speeders. Sheriff Bailey suggested the Highway Department reduce the speed limit on this road to 35 miles per hour, which would help the residents of this road. Mr. Fisher said possibly the cooperation of the enforce- ment agencies, the highway department and the board would help solve the problems on County roads, and that he felt this discussion was helpful. Dr. Iachetta requested Sheriff Bailey to provide accident statistics to him for presentation to the Albemarle County Transportation Safety Committee next month. Dr. Iachetta said he anticipated questions regarding highway deaths in Albemarle for this quarter, and felt the statistics would aid his answering those questions. Agenda Item No. 9. Criminal Justice Plan. Mr. Stephen Blair, Criminal Justice Planner for the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission, was present and requested the Board's approval of the FY 1981 Criminal Justice Plan. Mr. Blair said it is necessary for the local governing body to approve the plan in order to make it eligible for Law Enforcement Assistance Agency funding. Mr. Blair listed the Goals of the Plan as follows: mm II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. To develop or expand police/citizen initiatives designed to prevent or control neighborhood crime, and to establish joint police/citizen crime resistance programs in selected localities. Also to develop victim/witness programs. To train criminal justice and juvenile justice personnel in programs meeting standards recognized by the director of the Office of Justice and Research Statistics, and continue operation of Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Center. To reduce crime and delinquency while protecting the interests of the young of Planning District 10. Develop emergency shelter care for juveniles in Planning District 10. Expand existing or develop predelinquency programs in Planning District 10. To reduce law enforcement, correctional and court time consumed in dealing with the high volume of public drunkenness cases. Improve conditions of detention and confinement for all persons sentenced to terms of incarceration in Planning District 10. He noted the changes in the plan from previous years as being, first a $15,000 grant for the training of police officers, second a crime prevention program which would involve training one officer for the planning district and having that officer train local police departments. Mr. Blair said this trained officer would also lecture at public organizations on how the public can best protect themselves. The cost of this program would be approx- imately $22,000. The third program in the Criminal Justice Plan would be for a recrea- tional officer for the Joint Security Complex. Mr. Blair said the Joint Security Complex is presently just meeting State mandates on the amount of recreation time required for each inmate. Hopefully the addition of this one position, and the possibility of re- cruiting volunteer aids would raise the amount of recreational time per inmate above the minimum requirement. Mr. Blair said the next program is the public Inebriation program. He said this is the leading cause of arrests in Planning District 10, and the main reason the Joint Security Complex is overcrowded. He said the main offenders would be recruited to take treatment at a public work farm for rehabilitation. If they successfully complete the treatment, they return to their homes, where program workers try and find them jobs and hopefully keep them out of the jails for good. The next program is the Albemarle Youth Division, which investigate 100% of juvenile related crime in Albemarle County. He said this program has proven so successful that the format has been used by many other localities throughout the State. May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Another program included in this plan is for runaways. be paid a retainer to take runaways as wards of the court. living with them, they would be paid on a per diem basis. He said eight families would When a.runaway is actually The last program is the National Youth Program, using mini-bikes, which would work specifically in the school systems of the locality. The mini-bikes are used as an entice- ment to get the attention of the youths and hopefully change their attitudes toward crime and the police in their community. Sheriff Bailey said he supported this Criminal Justice Plan for FY 1981 because it is well written and serves a definite need in this community. Mr. Lindsay Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney for Albemarle County, said he also 'supported the document. He ga~dot~heamini~bike program has proven very effective, and also the runaway program is a definitely step in the right direction. Juvenile DivisiOn Deputy Donnie Garrison said he supported the programs described in this plan, and hoped that funding for these projects would aid the future funding of the juvenile programs also. Dr. Iachetta said that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission also fully supported this Plan as presented at their meeting last week. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to endorse the FY 1981 Criminal Justice Plan as presented by Mr. Blair. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Ag,enda Item No. 10. Juvenile Division Funding. Deputy Donnie Garrison was present but noted that the discussion on the Criminal Justice Plan helped answer his questions regarding future funding of the Juvenile Division. Mr. Fisher said if there are funding problems in the future, Mr. Garrison should come back to the Board. At 12:25 P.M., the Chairman declared a recess for lunch. 1:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher requested approval of the following resolution, which is to be presented to the State Water Control Board by himself, Mayor Laurence Brunton, Senator J. Harry Michael and Mr. George Williams of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. WHEREAS in 1971 the State Water Control Board through Minute 61 directed the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville to combine efforts and seek a regional solution to water and wastewater problems; and WHEREAS in'1972 the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed in response to this directive, marking the beginning of a significant com- mitment by the County, the City, and the State to a pollution abatement program in the Rivanna River basin; and WHEREAS this commitment has resulted in expenditure of time and funds for studies and programs which have been incorporated into the Metropolitan Regional Wastewater Management Plan, the James River Basin Plan, and the Rivanna Watershed Management Plan, each of which identifies the eutrophic condition of the water supply for the County and City in the South Rivanna River reservoir, and which further identifies an interc~epting sanitary sewer (the Crozet Interceptor) from the community of Crozet to the regional Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant; and WHEREAS the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority entered into an agreement with Morton Frozen Foods Division of ITT Continental Baking Company to connect to the Crozet Inter- ceptor and remove a point source discharge contributing to the eutrophi- cation of the water supply reservoir, the agreement having certain obliga- tions and time tables to make such a connection, including a commitment for funding of the project by December 1983, which have been reported to the State Water Control Board; and WHEREAS the Crozet Interceptor will remove raw sewage discharges presently flowing into the drinking water supply, and will further complete the final link in the pollution abatement program commenced in 1973; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County and the City Council of the City of Charlottesville that the Board and the Council join the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in its appeal to the State Water Control Board for favorable consideration of placing the Crozet Interceptor in the FY 82-85 Extended Planning Priority List as a divided project for funding no later than FY-83 and FY-84 in order to meet the obligations in the Morton agreement to complete the regional wastewater management plan, and to assure early utilization of the public investment in the regional wastewater facilities. Motion to adopt the resolution as presented was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. 0!9 May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. A.H.I.P. - Quarterly Report. Miss Ann Paul of the Albemarle Housring Improvement Program was present along with associate Gary Olivera. Mr. Olivera said there were four completed projects this quarter and two projects which are still in progress. He then presented slides on four of the completed projects which included one complete new construction of a 940 square foot one-story single-family residence with driveway; the repair of a roof and installation of gutters and downspouts for an elderly family in Esmont; a complete roof repair and recovering for a family in Alberene; and the framing and plumbing for a complete bathroom and fixtures and the installation of a septic system for an elderly disabled family in Schuyler. Mr. Fisher asked where the AHIP group got their volunteers. Miss Paul said many came from the St. Anne's Bellfield School and some came from the University of Virginia. Mr. Olivera said somH were referred to AHIP from Madison House.~ ~ Miss Paul also reported that the Self-Help Housing Project is almost ready to be started. Mr. Fisher said this will be the first such project in the State, and noted that participants will use their labor to pay for downpayments on homes they. will help build and own. Mr. Agnor said the wells for the self-help homes were drilled and tested last week, and are producing 11 gallons per minute; four gallons per minute more than required by the Board of Supervisors. Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: Ordinance to amend and reordain Article II of Chapter 12, Section 12-11, of the Albemarle County Code relating to parking regulations at the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 1980.) Mr. Agnor said the~Charlottesville/Albemarle Airport Board has requested the authority to train security guards to enforce parking regulations on the airport property. He noted that Piedmont College and the University of Virginia already have the authority under this code section to perform their own parking enforcement, and by adding the airport, it would relieve the sheriff and his deputies from this obligation. Mr. Fisher then read the ordinance as presented: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN ARTICLE II OF CHAPTER 12 OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, 1975, RELATING TO PARKING REGULATIONS AT THE CHARLOTTESVILLE-ALBEMARLE AIRPORT BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia that Article II of Chapter 12 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, 1975, as amended, is hereby amended and reordained to read as follows: ARTICLE II. Parking Regulations Within Boundaries of University of Virginia, Piedmont Virginia Community College, and Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport. Section 12-11. Erection of signs. (¢) The Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Board is hereby authorized and directed to cause such s~gns to be erected and such markings to be made upon the roads, curbs, sidewalks, and grounds within the boundaries or grounds of the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport as it may deem necessary and proper to carry out the provisions of this article. /Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. No one from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. There was no Board discussion on this proposed ordinance, and motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the ordinance as advertised. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: Ordinance Relating to Director of Emergency Services. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 1980.) Mr. Agnor read the proposed ordinance as advertised: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 2-44, ARTICLE VIII, CHAPTER 2 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE, RELATING TO THE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 2-44 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Section 2-44. Director--Designated. The director of emergency services shall be the chief administrative officer for the county. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There was no one present to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the ordinance as advertised. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Agnor about the possible need for a line of succession. Mr. Agnor said he believed the emergency operating plan calls for the coor- dinator to act in the absence of the director, but he said he would check this information to be certain. May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) AYES: NAYS: Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15. Public Hearing: Ordinance to Provide for Exemption from Utility Tax for Volunteer Rescue Squads. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on April 30 and May 7, 1980.) Mr Agnor read the proposed ordinance as advertised: ORDINANCE AMENDING AND REENACTING SECTION 8-19 OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE TO PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTIONS FROM ARTICLE VI. UTILITY TAX. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Section 8-19 of the Albemarle County Code is hereby amended and reenacted as follows: Sec. 8-19. Exemptions from article. The United States of America, diplomatic personnel exempted by the laws of the United States, the state and political subdivisions, boards, commissions, the authorities and agencies thereof, volunteer fire com- panies, and volunteer rescue squads, .are hereby exempt from the payment of the tax imposed and levied by this article with respect to the purchase of utility services used by such governmental agencies. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened. There was no one present wishing to speak either for or against this proposed ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the publi~ hearing closed. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adopt the ordinance as advertised. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachet'ta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 20A) Appropriation: Central Virginia Child Development Agency. Mr. Agnor explained that the City of Charlottesville held a sale to dispose of surplus pro- perty at the Lane High school building several months ago, and at that sale, two freezers belonging to the Central Virginia Child Development Agency were sold accidently. Since these two freezers were purchased with money obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture under an agreement to keep them for five years, and that time was not met, the Central Virginia Child Development Agency must repay the cost of the loan. Mr. Agnor noted that the proceeds of the sale were $230, and CVCDA is requesting the City and the County to share the cost and pay the Department of Agriculture $2,770. Mr. Agnor said he has been corresponding with CVCDA's attorney on this matter, and it has been his position that the County is not responsible for the sale of the freezers, nor was.the auctioneer, County employee Calvin Jones. Mr. St. John noted that the County cannot authorize payment of a liability claim, because the County was not liable for the loss of the propertY. He said the County could authorize payment as a beneficiary of services from CVCDA. Following a brief discussion by the Board, the consensus was that they did not support sharing in the cost of the two freezers, as they felt the CoUnty had no liability in this matter. Agenda Item No. 20B) Appropriation: Regional Library. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance requested an appropriation of $36,762.00 as the County's unpaid share of its FY 78-79 appropriation of $287,337. This amount was billed by the City and paid in July 1979 out of the fiscal year 1979-80 appropriation which will create a deficit at the end of the current year. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to approve the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $36,762.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 18B.3 Reg.ional Library. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor said the Regional'Library has received a grant of State Funds this year substantially larger than ever before, and in order for the Library to spend those funds on specific items listed in that State grant, it has been requested that the Albemarle County Board transfer funds which the County has allocated for the purchase of a bookmobile in the Capital Improvements Budget, to the Regional Library Operating Expenses Account. Mr. Agnor said he met with Mr. Jones on this~request, and found no problem with this transfer. He noted that next year the Library's budget will be revised to accommodate such State funding and the County will not need to change their budget allocations. Mr. Jones said this is strilctly an accounting procedure in the form of a transfer of funds. Mr. Agnor said this does not require the vote of the Board, but he wished to keep the Board informed on all ~ookkeeping matters. It was the concensus of the Board that smch a transfer be permitted. May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 16. Public Hearing: Ordinance for Tax on Bank Stock. in the Daily Progress on April 23 and April 30, 1980.) (Advertised Mr. Ray Jones read from his memorandum of March 21, 1980 as follows: "About two years agO, the Supreme Court of another state ruled that the Bank Stock Tax was illegal. Up until that time, the County was collecting annually about $20,000 from all banks having branches in the County. Ail the banks filed "friendly suits" to protect their interests in Virginia. The State Department of Taxation, in cooperation with the banking industry, agreed to work out the required legislation to make a similar tax legal in Virginia. This was done in the 1980 Session of the General Assembly through House Bill 994 which imposed a Franchise Tax. Under the State Law (H.B. 994) which repealS the Bank Stock Tax, the County must pass a local ordinance immediately in order to impose the tax and collect it by June 1, for 1980. The new law provides for localities to adopt the ordinance retro-active to January 1, 1980." Mr. Jones presented the ordinance as advertised as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RE-ENACTING CHAPTER 8, ARTICLE IV (TAX ON BANK STOCK) '~ BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County Virginia,that Chapter 8, Article IV (Tax on Bank Stock) is hereby amended and re-enacted as follows: Article IV. Tax on Bank Net Capital Sec. 8-7. Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, the followin'g words shall have the meaning ascribed to them by this section: A. "Bank" shall be as defined in Section 58-485.0i of the Code of Virginia. B. "Net Capital" shall mean a bank's net capital computed pursuant to Section 58-485.07 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 8-8. Imposition of County Bank Franchise Tax. A~ Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 10.01 of Title 58 of the Code of Virginia, there, is hereby imposed upon each bank located outside any incorporated town but otherw±se within the boundaries of this county a tax on net capital equaling 80 per- centum of the state rate of franchise tax set forth in Section 58-485.06 of the Code of Virginia. B. In the event that any bank located within the boundaries of this county but outside any incorporated town located herein and is not the principal office but is a branch extension or affiliate of the principal office, the tax upon such branch shall be apportioned as provided by Section 58-485.012 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 8-9. Filing of Return and Payment of Tax. A. On or after the first day of January of each year, but not later than May 15 of the 1980 tax year and not later than March 1 of any such other year, all banks whose principal offices are located within this county but outside any incorporated town herein shall prepare and file with the Director of Finance a return as provided by Section 58-485.013 of the Code of Virginia in duplicate which shall set forth the tax on net capital com- puted pursuant to Chapter 10.01 of T±tle 58 of the Code of Virginia. The Director of Finance shall certify a copy of such filing of the bank's return and schedules and shall forthwith transmit such certified copy to the State Department of Taxation. ~- B. In the event that the principal office of a bank is located outside the boundaries of this county or within any toWn located herein, and such bank has branch offices located within this county, in addition to the filing requirements set forth in Section A hereof, any bank conducting such branch business shall file with the Director of Finance of this county a copy of the real estate deduction schedule, apportionment and other items which are required by Sections 58-485.012, 58-485.013 and 58- 485.014 of the Code of Virginia. C. Each~ bank, on or before the first day of June of each year, shall pay into the Director of Finance's office of this county all taxes imposed pursuant to this ordinance. Sec. 8-9.1. Effective Da~e of Ordinance. The provisions of this ordinance shall be effective for the year beginning January 1, 1980. May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Sec. 8-9,2. Penalty upon Bank for Failure to Comply with Ordinance. Any bank which shall fail or neglect to comply with any provision of this ordinance shall be fined not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars, which fine shall be in the name of the Commonwealth and shall be presented by the attorney for the Commonwealth of this locality. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing opened, and first to speak was Miss Jill Pope of the Virginia Association of Counties, who said there is no loss of revenue under this new ordinance, which is effective only until 1982. She said it is hoped that before the 1982 expiration date of this legislation, the state will adopt legislation which will tax all financial institutions. No one else from the public wished to speak either for or against this ordinance, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley to adopt an ordinance amending and reenacting Chapter 8 of the Albemarle County Code by adding Article IV as set out above. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 21. Jordan Development Foundation Advance. Jones' memorandum of April 30, 1980 as follows: Mr. Agnor summarized Mr. On January il, 1978, the Board of Supervisors authorized an interest free advance to the Jordan Development Foundation for the Meadows Project with a maximum limit of $7,000 to be repaid from the H.U.D. Grant. The actual advance was made in the amount of $6,581.56. Costs incurred prior to the purchase of the property are not covered by the grant according to a ruling received in November 1977. The Board's resolution required that the Jordan Development Foundation repay the advance from recovered administration charges. On December 19, 1979, Ms. Payne sent a check of $1,000 and asked the County to recover the remaining $5,581.56 as indirect costs as is done with Social Services. However, to do so, would cost money. I have submitted the 1978 and 1979 Indirect Cost Allocation Plan to recover Social Services indirect costs. However, in my opinion, the County has no chance of recovery for this project for two reasons. The Meadows Project went over the budget and no run item was included in the original budget. I feel that such efforts would be in vain. The Jordan Development Founda- tion has no money; therefore, I recommend, after discussing this issue with the County Executive, that the Board of Supervisors take official action to write off the outstanding loan of $5,581.56. Mr. Agnor said he agreed with Mr. Jones' recommendation to waive the requirement for the Jordan Development Corporation to pay back the loan. Mr. Fisher said the only way he could see to raise the money would be to charge higher rents. Mr. Agnor said there is little money to be obtained from that source since the Meadows is a non-profit organ- ization. Dr. Iachetta said he wished to abstain from vote on this matter, as an employee of his did design work for this project. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Miss Nash, to waive the obligation of the Jordan Development Corporation to repay an outstanding debt in the amount of $5,581.56. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley,~Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAY: None. ABSTAIN: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 22A. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. No names were placed in nomination for appointment to this committee and it was suggested that it be carried over to the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 22B. Appointment: Community College Board of Directors. reported he was still seeking a nominee. Dr. Iachetta Agenda Item No. 22C. Appointment: Soil Erosion Advisory Board. Mr. Lindstrom offered the name of Mr. Dirk Van Der Voet of 1903 Dellwood Road, Charlottesville for appointment to this Board, for a two year term to expire June 30, 1982. He said Mr. Van Der Voet received a degree in Soil Sciencea from the University of New Hampshire, and has soil conservation experience both with the military and the Soil Conservation Service. Dr. Iachetta seconded Mr. Lindstrom's motion. Mr. Fisher noted that this appointment would be effective July 1, 1980, and that Mr. Van Der Voet would replace Mr. Stirling Williamson, Jr. Roll was then called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Henley to appoint Mr. W. Harvey Doyle of Route 2, Crozet to the Jordan Development Corporation Board for a term of office to be effective immediately, and to expire on May 15, 1981. Motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None. Ma~ 14_~ 19~80 (R_e_ ul~ D~D~y~ Dr. Iachetta asked if the two County appointees for the Advisory Council on Aging would be eligible for reappointment. Mr. Fisher said he did not know, but would check. Mr. Fisher then said the Monticello Community Action Agency required one more appointment, and suggested these two additional appointments be placed on the next agenda. At 2:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher called for a brief recess. Meeting reconvened at 3:00 P.M. Not Docketed. Mr. Fisher made note of an invitation received from the residents of the Meadows, inviting Board members to lunch on May 29, 1980 at 12:00 noon. Mr. Fisher said Board members wishing to attend should give their name to the clerk. Agenda Item No. 17. Appeal: Huntwood Phases I and II Site Plan. (Mr. Roudabush said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this item as his firm participated in the preparation of the early stages of these site plans in 1977.) Mr. Fisher noted that this site plan is brought before the Board at the request of Mr. Lindstrom who, in a letter dated April 25, 1980, listed the following concerns: 1) 2) 3) 5) Location of basketball court. Location of Units 9-13 on 25% slopes and Engineer's opinion on erosion ordinance. Buffer between townhouses and Hessian Hills, and landscaping. Protection of stream on north property boundary during and after construction. Compliance with Section 17-3-1 of County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report on the Huntwood Apartments Phase I and Townhouse Phase II Site Plans: Location: North side of Barracks Road just west of Georgetown Road. Property described as Tax Map 60A, Parcels 21 and 13 in the Charlottesville District. Total Acreage: 6.35 acres History: On June 13, 1978, the Albemarle County Planning Commission condi- t'ionally approved the revised site plan of Huntwood Apartments Phase I. That approval of the site plan has since expired. On March 18, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission indefinitely deferred action on the Huntwood Townhouse Phase II Site Plan. Proposal: The applicant is seeking reapproval of Huntwood Phase I Site Plan where 54 apartment dwellings would be located on 3.15 acres. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval for Huntwood Phase II Site Plan where 27 townhouse units (for sale) with a density of eight units per acre would be located on 3.20 acres. Topography of Area: On Phase II there are 25% or greater slopes located on the eastern and northern portion of the property. Also, there are several areas of 25% or greater slopes located at the southwest and western por- tions of the property. On Phase I there are 25% or greater slopes located ~on the northern portion of the property. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Between Route 1001 and Route 656 (Georgetown Road), Route 654 (Barracks Road) is accommodating 4,579 vehicle trips per day and is considered nontolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna Watershed Soils: No soil information is available, but it is reported that slopes are steep and that erosion control measures will be ineffective unless properly installed and maintained. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural Conservation. School Impact: The impact will be slight for Phase II with a total pro- jected enrollment of fifteen students. Phase II with a total projected enrollment of thirty-one may require additional staff depending on the actual distribution of students among the grades. Type of Utilities: Public water and sewer are available and will be used. Staff Comments: The applicant has addressed all of the concerns of the Planning Commission for Phase II. The townhouse units on Phase II will be for sale and a subdivision plat will be submitted in the future for Planning Commission review. At that time, the plat must meet requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. Both Phase I and Phase II site plans meet Article 17 (Zoning Ordinance) requirements and staff recommends approval subject to: Recommended Conditions for Approval: PHASE I: No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of specifications for a commercial entrance with curb and gutter; and a 200-foot right turn lane and taper with curb and gutter along the turn lane portion; Mai~_~14~ 1980 (Regular Davy Meeting) b. Show approved alignment of connection between Phases I and II; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval; d. Provide an easement from Phase I to Phase II; e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of sidewalks along Route 654; f. Compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance; g. Fire Official approval; A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Tot lot equipment approval by the Planning Staff. PHASE II No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the specifications for commercial entrance with curb and gutter; and a 200-foot right turn lane and taper with curb and gutter along the turn lane portion; b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval; c. Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; d. Fire Official approval; e. Grading Permit; f. Delineate tot lot and define the equipment to be used for staff approval; g. Provide easement from Phase I to Phase II. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on April 15, 1980, approved the Huntwood Apartments Phase I Site Plan with the conditions recommended by the stgff but added the following words to condition l(e): "along existing alignment or in accordance with planned improvements if available. Note: the Commission's intention was to have some type of walkway along the property on Route 654." Mr. Tucker then said, the Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 15, 1980, approved the Huntwood Townhouses Phase II Site Plan with the conditions recommended by the staff, but adding condition l(h) reading: "Staff approval of screening behind Units 9-18. Note: The Commission expressed a strong concern about maintaining the character of the area and providing satisfactory screening for the adjacent property owners (especially Mr. and Mrs. Cooper)." Mr. Lindstrom said he would review his reasons for calling this site plan up for review. He said he was concerned about the stormwater detention basin being located so close to the proposed recreation area; the steepness of the slopes, especially in Phase II, where five townhouse units were originally located and one has now been eliminated due to steepness of slope; he felt too many units were being squeezed between the 25% slopes and the buffer area; he is concerned about the protection of the stream which runs directly into the reservoir and was not able to determine if this plan had been reviewed under the Runoff Control Ordinance during preliminary site plan stages which is allowed under the Site Plan Ordinance. Dr. Iachetta requested the County Engineer's opinion of the probable holding time for water in the detention basin. Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer said this information has not yet been presented in final form. There was a runoff permit approved for Phase I. He said with the addition of Phase II, it required a new permit be issued for the total of the two phases. Mr. Fisher asked if all the drainage goes into the detention basin. Mr. Williams said part does and the remainder goes into a pipe which is then released into the stream. It is questionable as to whether this will be allowed under the Runoff Ordinance and the applicant is aware of this. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels this type of thing should be worked out in detail before the Planning Commission makes its recommendation particularly since the Site Plan Ordinance was amended to allow the County Engineer to make a review of these plans before they go to the Planning Com- mission. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about protection of the creek, and if it cannot be proven that the creek is protected, then he felt this site plan should probably not even be before the Board. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant noted that his calculations of the effects of a ten-year storm on the basin would take 58 minutes to fill the basin full; 23 minutes to drain the basin, and when the basin is full it would have 4.6 feet of wate~ above the pipe. Mr. Sinclair said he made the pipe that drains the pond more restrictive than the area upstream would require so that the basin retains more water than is required by the ordinance. He felt this made up for the amount of water which escaped the basin from other areas of the development. Mr. Lindstrom said this did nothing to protect the reservoir, since half of the runoff from the property goes directly into the stream. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the Runoff Control Ordinance should be revised if this type of interpretation is permitted. Mr. Ron Carter, the applicant, said some people may be concerned about this type of development backing up to Hessian Hills, but the zoning has been on the property for years, in fact, he bought the property already zoned and, by right, could have planned for 70 units and placed those units much closer to the property line. Dr. Iachetta said that is one of the problems with zoning placed erroneously in the first place. Next to speak was Mrs. Robert H. Cooper who said Phase II would back up to within 34 feet of her property line, which goes down the center of the creek. Mrs. Mary Masloff said she was concerned about the reservoir. Mr. Carter asked why Mr. Roudabush was not present. Mr. Fisher indicated that Mr. Roudabush stated he wished to abstain from vote on this matter as his firm participated in Phase I of this project. Mr. Carter said the discussion has centered on Phase II of the project with which Mr. Roudabush had no con- nection. Mr. Fisher said if Mr. Roudabush wished to return and vote on this matter, that was Mr. Roudabush's choice. May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. St. John if the provisions of the Soil Erosion Ordinance can be waived and referred to the last paragraph of Mr. J. Ashley Williams' memorandum of March 19, 1980 as follows: "Reference is made to the development of units 9-13 and 19 (Phase II) on a 25% slope. In~ reviewing the slopes map of this site plan, it was noted that 25% slopes were in the vicinity of the front of units 9-13 and almost the entirety of unit 19. Although the Soil Erosion Ordinance speaks to not allowing grading or construction of dwellings in areas of 25% or greater slopes, we are of the opinion that this isolated case in front of units 9-13 is not what was intended by this ordinance. The slope itself is only 35 feet in length and is 50-75 feet from the stream channel. On the other hand, unit 19 does meet what the intent of the ordinance speaks to about 25% grades beginning at the stream and extending up continuously. It is our opinion that, if there is any discretionary power over the appli- cation of this ordinance, then it is not applicable to the development of units 9-13 but is applicable to unit 19." Mr. St. John said he did not feel this is a waiver of the application of the ordin- ance, but rather an interpretation of what the ordinance directs him to do. Mr, St. John gave as an example: (a general slope which is less than 25%, but within that slope there is a step of about 6". If the 6" was measured, then the slope would be more than 25%. A matter of interpretation would say that area would not be categorized as more than a 25% slope.) Mr. St. John said he believes this is the kind of interpretation Mr. Williams addresses in his memo. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the distance mentioned in the memo is 35 feet. Mr. St. John said, in adopting the Runoff Control Ordinance, the Board discuSsed whether there should be some standards placed in the Ordinance to address this type of question; in other words, whether the slope would have to be related to some type of contour intervals. The Board opted not to do that and to leave it for the runoff Control officer to use his common sense. If this can be referred to as discretionary, then the answer to Mr. Lindstrom's question is yes. Mr~ Williams said this is a small slope and he could see from the plan that Unit 19 is on a continuous 25% slope, while Units 9-13 were in a portion of the 25% slope, however it was a choice of picking between that site and putting the units closer to the stream and causing more erosion and possibly more detriment in that area. 'Mr. Lindstrom then asked Mr. St. John if the Board has the authority under the site plan section of the Zoning Ordinance to require a buffer zone. Mr. St. John said he felt the Board does have such authority. Mr. Lindstrom asked what standards should be followed to provide such a buffer. Mr. St. John said the Board would use these powers on a case by case basis, taking into account what is necessary to Protect the adjoining property without making the lot in question unuSable. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if the site plan section of the Ordinance (Section 17.3-1) had not been amended to provide for review by the Runoff Control Official, before a plan is presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. St. John said this section refers to preliminary site development plans and does not mean that the final runoff control plan would have to,be submitted. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it did mean that sufficient information could be required to ascertain whether the preliminary plan provided was feasible under the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. St. John agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel that sufficient information has been provided in this case. Mr. Williams said that on the plans for Phase I of this development, the detention basin was sized to accommodate the runoff from the acreage in Phase II. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said if the detention basin for Phase I was also expected to retain runoff from Phase II, it would immediately put suspicion on the basin's ability to handle the additional capacity. Mr. Bailey added that there are other methods for con- trolling water runoff other than. ponding, which may be used in Phase II. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt that Section 17.3-1 of the Site Plan section of the Zoning Ordinance should h&Ve been used to obtain additional information for review of Phase II by the Runoff Control Official before it went to the Planning Commission. In fact, for any site plan submitted for any property in a watershed subject to the Runoff Ordinance provisions, the County should be sure sufficient information is on the plan at the prelimina~ review stage to provide the Runof~ Control Official with some reasonable degree of accuracy in determining whether significant changes will be required on the plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that is his interpretation of'the law as it stands. Mr. St. John said the reason this section of the Zoning Ordinance was amended was to prevent the applicant from obtaining site plan approval from the Planning Commission and then finding out from the Runoff Control Official that nothing he had planned would work. This is really for the applicant's protection. Mr. Lindstrom said that Mr. Carter has stated a concern that he called this plan before the Board to delay construction and allow time to make changes in the site plan section of the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said that is not his intent, but that the law as it stands needs to be followed more specifically. He added that he was not~ sure of the best course of action on this plan, whether to overturn the Planning Commission's action, send the plan back to the Runoff Control Official so he can get the information he needs, or let the plan stand in abeyance. He added that he would not want to approve the site plan with a condition that the runoff controls would be determined after the approval had been granted. Mr.~ Fisher asked if a preliminary plan has been filed with the Planning Department to cover Phase II runoff control Mr. Tucker said no,~ but that a plan was received with the application for Phase I indicating a basin large enough to accommodate Phase II. Mr. St. John said if it is the intent that a final runoff plan be presented to the Planning Commission before it acts on a plan, that is not required by the ordinance'at this time. Mr. Lindstrom said the ordinance states that the applicant "shall"~file a preliminary plan ~i~h the Runoff Official, so the official can determine whether the plan will comply or whether significant changes must be made. Mr. Lindstrom said he interprets this to mean that the Runoff Official's comments should be a part of the staff report that goes to the Planning Commission and he does not feel that is a part of the ordinance, but is a policy matter. Mr. Henley said he thought the preliminary plan was to show how the May 14, 1980 (Regutar Day Meeting) runoff would be handled. Mr. St. John said the applicant is supposed to submit a pre- liminary site plan "to assure that the development will be feasible in light of all applicable law." Mr. Lindstrom felt a preliminary plan should contain sufficient infor- mation to give the Runoff Official a basis to determine if changes need to be made to comply with the Runoff Control Ordinance. As a matter of policy, the Runoff Official's comments should be in writing and made a part of the file. Mr. St. John said for this applicant to go back and present a preliminary pl&t and have it reviewed by the Runoff Control Official and back again to the Planning Commission, is not what the ordinance envisions. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not feel the applicant should go back, but he would suggest that before the Board takes any action there be information provided so the Runoff Official can determine if Phase I and II together are feasible. Mr. Henley said this very thing was discussed when the Runoff Ordinance was adopted. It was determined that the applicant would have to provide this information for the Runoff Official to review. Mr. Lindstrom said there are some other parts of this plan for Huntwood which might need to be changed after such a review process. Mr. Carter said Phase I Site Plan and Runoff Control plan have already been approved and the bond amount set. He said it seems that the feasibility has already been' spoken to. Mr. Fisher said the Runoff Official has not seen any plans for Phase II. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom that the Runoff Official be provided suf- ficient information to make a determination of feasibility and when those comments are received, this item be placed back on the Board's agenda for further review. Motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta asked if a time limit should be placed on this review to be ~f$~r to~h~ applicant. Mr~, Fisher said he did not know how much time would be needed, as iv wou±m mepenm on now soon the applicant can get the information to the Runoff Official and how much work is involved. Mr. Fisher said when the report is re- ceived from the Runoff OffiCial, this item will be placed on the next agenda. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Henley said he felt the other five points in Mr. Lindstrom's memo should be addressed now. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the 25% slope limitation is too lenient and he has a problem with locating townhouses on 25% slopes. He also is concerned about the buffer zone. Also, the drainage basin is not the correct location for the recreation area, since the recreation area will be rendered virtually useless due to sedimentation. Mr. Fisher said he agreed that the recreational area should be relocated to a usable site. He then asked if Mr. Lindstrom was suggesting that these be offered as conditions of approval. Mr. Lindstrom said it could be conditioned to approve it as it stands, if the buffer zone is respected, and that there not be any construction on slopes of 25% or more, and that the basketball court be located some place other than the drainage basin. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to the effect that if the Runoff Official determines that this pattern of development is feasible, then these items be additional conditions to the site plan. Mr. Fisher asked if Mr. Lindstrom meant to approve these site plans with these conditions. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the site plans should be returned for further Board review. Mr. Carter asked if the Board was acting on both Phases simultaneously. Mr. Lindstrom said his motion applied to both phases. Mr. Carter said he hoped the Board realized that Phase I has already been approved. Mr. Fisher said that site plan for Phase I had expired. Mr. Carter said it was reapproved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher said the site plan has not been approved or disapproved at this time. This review will be placed on the Board's agenda again in the near future. Agenda Item No. 18. James McFarland Final Plat Appeal. Mr. Tucker read the planning staff report as follows: Location: On the north side of Route 29 adjacent to Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Property is described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 104, in the Charlottesville District. Total Acreage: 6.37 acres Zoning: B-1 Business Proposal: A request to divide two lots with lot sizes of 1.37 and 5.00 acres. Reason for Planning Commission Review: Property is served by a private easement. Topography of Area: There are a few 25% or greater slopes located on this property. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 29 North on the nrth bound lane accom- modates 15,000 vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Commercial in the urban area. ~:,'~% ,. '~!~t~'~,_~ Type of Utilities: Public water is available from an 18 inch line along the west side of Route 29 North. Public sewer is available, but only up to a limited capacity. Staff Comment: The Highway Department recommends third lane development as approved in the Route 29 North Corridor Study and that a single commercial entrance serve the two properties and that this entrance be located as far north as possible. The Highway Department will require a deceleration lane to the commercial entrance. The actual design of the entrance will be determined at the time of site planning. This plat will meet Subdivision Ordinance requirements and Staff recommends approval subject to: -' May 14, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Recommended Conditions of Approval: This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Note on the plat: Access to parcel A-i(A) shall be limited to the entrance of parcel A-I(B); b. County Attorney approval of a~cess easement maintenance agreement; c. Check to see if building locations on the plat are correct and make the necessary corrections, if needed; d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commercial entrance approval; e. Service Authority approval of water and sewer. Mr. Fisher said this appeal was brought before the Board at the request of Mr. David G. Sutton, Attorney representing the applicant, Mr. James McFarland. Mr. Fisher added that Dr. Iachetta also.wished this plat reviewed in order to discuss water and sewer provisions. "May 2, 1980 Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Director of Planning County of Albemarle 414 East 'Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: James McFarland Final Plat Dear Mr. Tucker: On April 22, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission conditionally approved a subdivision plat submitted by my client, James McFarland. Enclosed is a copy of the plat which was submitted and a letter from the Planning Commission enumerating the conditions imposed. Mr, McFarland and I feel the conditions imposed are unreasonable and therefore request that this matter be appealed to the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible. Specifically, Mr. McFarland wishes to appeal the imposition of conditions l(a), (b), (d) and (e). He believes that con- ditions l(a)~ (b) and (d) are not relevant considerations at this stage of the proceedings. These conditions are more properly imposed if necessary at the site plan approval stage where more information is available re- garding what the landowners intend t© do with the property. At this stage of the proceeding, it is impossible to determine the actual access ease- ments which will be necessary for the use of the property. In addition, it is Mr. McFarland's feeling that this land would be best served by a joint entrance being constructed on the property line between Lots A-!(A) and A- l(B) to serve both parcels. It appears from the plat that a main sewer~ line is contiguous to the Southeastern boundary of Parcel A-l(b) and thus there would be no need for the sewer line easement requested by condition l(e). I will be glad to provide you with further information about my client's objections to these conditions at any time. Yours very truly, (signed) David G. Sutton" First to speak was Mr. Sutton who said Mr. McFarland wished to use a single joint entrance along the property line, and eliminate a second entrance. He felt entrance requirements would be more appropriate at the time of site plan approval. He next re- quested the condition to provide a sewer easement across parcel A-i(A) be eliminated because parcel A-i(B) has access to sewer along the back property~line. Mr. Jim Hill, representing Dr. Charles Hurt contract purchaser of the property, said they were concerned about the sewer easement because a use has not yet been decided. He also requested that .a joint entrance be allowed between the A and B parcel, rather than a single entrance on the B parcel only. Dr. Iachetta said he thought there was a policy that when a use changed on property located on Route 29 North, that the new use be served by public sewer. He said he did not believe that requirement was being met in this instance. Mr. Sutton said this is a plat appeal, and states no intended Use for the property. Dr. Iachetta said he assumed that since the property is being divided, that some additional use for the land is planned. Mr. Tucker said the Subdivision Ordinance states that public water and sewer should be used when "reasonably available". Mr. Tucker added that the staff felt that water and sewer were reasonably available, and that if this requirement were not made during this stage of development, parcel A-i(B) could possibly be developed without site plan review and therefore retain its present septic tank and leechfield system. Dr. Iachetta then noted that he felt the common entrance should be pursued, as similar requirements have previously been imposed on other properties along Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker said the common entrance was not pursued because it would cause the entrance to be located within 500 feet of the nearest crossover. Mr. Fisher then read the following letter from Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, dated May 13, 1980: "Reference is made to the (McFarland) subdivision plat and our meeting of May 6, 1980. It appears that the best access to the two parcels in this subdivision would be at the existing entrance which~is some 600 feet north of the crossover provided the access easement to Parcel A-i(A) is located some 50- 100 feet from the edge of Route 29 pavement. If the access easement is adjacent to the Route 29 right of way, congestion will occur in the entrance. May 14,1980 (Regular Day Meeting) If the County cannot or will not set the access easement back from Route 29, then a joint entrance along the common property line between the two parcels would be the better entrance. An entrance at that location could be designed at site plan time to set back internal access the some 50-100 feet desired. If the entrance along the common property line is approved, we recommend that the existing entrance be closed. We also recommend that the "Gentle- men's Agreement" access across Dr. Hurt's property which serves the back of the business be closed. I will be at the Board Meeting to discuss the Department's position when this matter comes before the Board. Yours truly, (signed) D. ~. Roosevelt" Mr. Richard Walden asked if it would be legal for the County to allow the entrance to be shared, thereby causing it to be within the 500 foot distance requirement of the State. Mr. Roosevelt said the 500 foot requirement is part of the Albemarle County Ordinance, not the State, and therefore the County has the right to waive it. Mr. Walden said if the 500 foot requirement was set as a safety feature, then the County should respect that distance. Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Roosevelt's opinion of a compromise location for the entrance. Mr. Roosevelt said any movement of the present entrance would create congestion on Route 29 North. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hill if there were any possibility of moving the property line between parcel A-i(A) and A-i(B). Mr. Hill said he did not know if that is possible. Mr. Fisher said he felt that if the property line were moved only 50 feet, a common entrance could be established without causing problems with the requirement of 500 feet beyond the crossover. Mr. Fisher said he did not wish to waive the 500 foot requirement. Mr. Hill asked if the Board could defer action on this matter in order to allow time for the owner of the property and the contract purchaser to meet and discuss the possibility of moving the property lines as suggested by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said he would suggest deferring this discussion un~il the applicant brought back something in writing stating his intent regarding the property line of the parcels or the entrance. He suggested Dr. Iachetta meet with the staff regarding condition l(e) to attempt to settle the question of sewer hookup for the two parcels. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Miss Nash, to defer this item pending a conference between the interested parties to resolve the entrance problem. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. (Note: Mr. Roudabush returned to this meeting at 4:56 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 19. Transit Service Contract. Mr. Agnor presented the agreement dated April 23, 1980, between the City of Charlottesville and the County of Albemarle for transit services on U.S. Route 29 North between University Hall and Lake Saponi. He noted that several changes have been proposed, and then proceeded to discuss each one indivi- dually. The first modification in paragraph one in Section One under General Responsibilities of City is to add the gollowing words as the second sentence of that paragraph: "The City's initial proposal contemplated the use of the intersection of Millmont Street and Arlington Boulevard as the southern terminus of the route. The City reserves the right to use that location if the use of University Hall causes significant schedule delays or other operating problems." Board members were in agreement with this proposed change, and the consensus of opinion was to include this wording as requested. The second recommended change located in Section l(c) reads: "However, if such requirements are hereafter interpreted or altered to require that the vehicles used to provide service hereunder be equipped with wheel chair lifts or ramps, the County shall pay all costs incurred in furnishing such equipment. " Mr. Agnor noted that he felt the Federal Government would not require such expensive equipment for an experimental project of such short duration. Board members were in agreement with Mr. Agnor, and the consensus was to include this sentence at the end of Section t(c). Mr. Agnor next noted a suggested change in words recommended by the City. To be consistent, the City suggested the term "vehicles of at least 15 passenger capacity" be used in Section 3 and Section 4 rather than the term "15 - passenger vans". Mr. Agnor said the word van was restrictive, and that if the City felt the need for larger vehicles on that route, a vehicle holding more than 15 persons could be used. Board members were in agreement to change the word "van" to "15 passenger vehicles" wherever it is mentioned in Sections 3 and 4. Mr. Agnor next read the following proposed change for Section 6(b) as follows: "(b) The City shall receive from the County the sum of 655 for each mile traveled by its vehicles e~-~e-~-~e~-~e~e-~&~-~e-~eee~&~-~e~ for the purpose of providing such service. The County shall ~e~e~-~-a-e~e~A~-~e-~&~-~m-~e-~e~a~-ame~-e~-~a~ee-ee~ee~e~ ~-~e-~&~-~&~-~e-~eee~&~-me~-a~-e~a~-~a~-~e-~a~a~ee ~e-~e-~&~ advance to the City not later than July 1~ 1980 the May ~4, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) sum of $5,000 to cover the City's initial costs, which sum shall be credited against subsequent monthly billings. On or before the tenth day of each month during this contract, the City shall bill the County for mileage traveled during the preceding month~ less a credit for fares collected on the route during such month. Such monthly bill shall be paid by the County on or before the last day of the month in which it is rendered." Mr. Agnor said essentially what this means is that the County would advance funds for the City to start this project. Mr. Bob Stripling, Assistant City Manager, said the purchase of vehicles and the marketing will cost much more than the $5,000 even before the transit service is begun. This is why the City felt it was appropriate to receive this money in advance. Mr~ Agnor said he felt this request was reasonable. Board members did not discuss this additional wording to Section 6(b), and Mr. Agnor proceeded to the re- quested changes in Section 9 as follows: "If any portion of Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation grant funds disbursed to the City by the County are used by the City as "local matching operating funds" to obtain a federal grant, the City agrees that all proceeds, og-a~-.~o~-~o~e~-~ over and above those used to cover any operating deficit for the service provided under this contract~ will be used to continue or expand the public transportation services provided under this Project and not absorbed into the City's Charlottesville Transit Service budget. The City also agrees that if Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation funds are used for local match for administrative costs-reimbursement for the two budget line items (insurance and marketing) eligible under the Section 18 program~these funds will be used to continue or expand the public transportation services provided under this project. The City will retain any federal grant funds for reimbursement of the overhead costs listed in the project budget." Mr. Agnor said what was initially intended was that if the Highway Department should make available grant funds to the City over and above the cost of this project, then those funds would go into the funding of this project. This would prevent those funds from being used for the City's transportation system. Mr. Agnor said the City agreed that the local funds would be used for administrative costs for two budget items, insurance and marketing. He added that the City would retain, however, any federal grant funds above overhead costs. Mr. Stripling said this pertained mainly to staff costs. Mr. Fisher said he did not understahd this proposed change. Mr. Agnor explained that Section 18 money is actually Federal money and reimbursement of Section 18 money can be obtained in several categories.. If it is an operational cost, it comes back to the costs that generate it, therefore coming directly back to the Route 29 North Corridor Project. If they are administrative costs, then of the three categories eligible for administrative cost reimbursement under Section 18, two will be returned to the Route 29 North Corridor Project but the third one, representing staff time, will be retained for transit oper- ation. Mr. Fisher asked what sort of dollar amounts this would involve. Mr. Agnor said it would total between $3,000 and $4,000. Mr. Lindstrom asked how this will impact the County. Dr. Iachetta said it will allow more money to be put back into the project, if the City is able to receive reimbursement funds from Section 18. Miss Nash asked if this would not in fact be paying the City double for their administrative costs. Mr. Agnor said they are talking about costs they already have with their present staff, and they will allow other funds to flow back to the project. Mr. Fisher asked if~this .revised agreement has been approved by the Charlottesville City Council. Mr.~Stripling said it has not yet been approved by the City. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the amended version of the contract with the City for providing the transportation project on Route 29 North, and ask the City Council to sign same. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said assuming that this revision is approved by the City Council on May 19, 1980, when can the project be expected to begin. Mr. Stripling said approximately six weeks after all parties agree to the contract, but it was noted that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation must also sign. Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 23. Statements of Expenses of the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for April, 1980, were presented. On motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Miss Nash, these Statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 24. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for April, 1980, was presented. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Miss Nash, this statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS: None.