Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1980-09-10
September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on September 10, 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 (arrived at 9:05 A.M.), J. T. Henley Jr. (arrived at 10:23 A.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (arrived at 9:06 A.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:10 A.M.) and Layton R. McCann (NOTE: Mr. McCann was appointed to replace Mr Roudabush, who res ned in August ..... ~as .... . .......... ~ .............. i BOARD MEMBER ABSENT: Miss Ellen V. Nash. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Attorney. Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. Call To Order. At 9:16 A.M., the meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Gerald E. Fisher. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a document entitled "Virginia Local Planning Legislation" which was ordered by the Clerk at Mr. Fisher's request for all members of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher then noted that Mr. Henley will be arriving late for today's meeting, and that Miss Nash is on vacation in Europe. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: January 14, January 23, and March 12, 1980. No Board member had read these minutes, and Mr. Fisher requested they be deferred to the next meeting. Agenda Item No. 3A. Highway Matters: The Meadows Road. Mr. Agnor reported that in January, 1980, the Board adopted a resolution requesting the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to accept Meadows Drive into the State Secondary Road System. Mr. Agnor said repairs to get the road ready for final inspection took longer than anticipated. The Jordan Development Corporation has offered to pay the maintenance fee in the amount of $225 and has requested that the County be responsible for the performance bond in the amount of $3,750 in case the road fails within the first year after acceptance into the System. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the County Executive's recommendation and notify the Department of Highways and Transportation that the County of Albemarle will pay over all, or any portion, of the $3,750 performance bond that may be required during the first year that this road is a part of the Secondary System. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 3B. Request to Take Road Into Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said the road leading into Albemarle High School was changed due to construction on the gymnasium and must now be reaccepted into the State Secondary Road System. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: 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 Department, the following road at Albemarle High School: Albemarle High School - Beginning at the northern edge of pavement of State Route 9655, around Albemarle High School, thence in a north- westerly direction 260 feet to the edge of pavement of State Route 9855, the entrance road to Jack Jouett and Greer Schools. The pave- ment design is ten inches of aggregate base with prime and double seal surface tratement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 30-foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this road. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. None. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Agnor next presented a request for resolution to accept Turkey Ridge Road and Big Oak Road in Section II of Peacock Hill Subdivision into the State Secondary Road System. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt a resolution to accept these roads into the State Secondary Road System. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. (NOTE: Following the meeting, it was discovered that the necessary drainage easements had not yet been recorded, and that this request for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System would have to be presented again at some future date.) September 10, 1980 (Regut~r Da~ Meeti~) Agenda Item No. 3C. 01d Forge Road Sewer Project~J Mr. Agnor no~ed receipt of a letter dated August 18, 1980, from Mr. D. B. Hope, District Highway Engineer, as follows: "We are in receipt of a letter of August 1, 1980, from Mr. J. W. Brent, Executive Director, Albemarle County ServiCe Authority, to Mr. Byron Coburn in which he is requesting that the 50 foot paving requirement and 100% stone backfill for ditches in their 01d Forge Road - West Park Drive Sewer Project - be waivered as recently done for the Westmoreland Project. Mr. Brent also stated that they will guarantee street repairs caused by this work throughout the expected lifetime of the present surface. In this connection, we would appreciate your verification that the Board of Supervisors will go along with Mr. Brent's proposal." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom to inform the Highway Department of its intent to support the Service Authority in.its request for waiver of road repairs. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer of the Department of Highways and Transportation, was present, and suggested that if it is the intention of the County to support requests for waiver of required road repairs by the Albemarle County Service Authority each time construction of sewer and water lines require such repairs; that the County adopt~ a resolution to the Highway Department stating it is the policy of Albemarle County to allow such waivers. Dr. Iachetta said he wished to amend his motion to adopt a resolution stating such a policy. The motion to adopt the following.resolution was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom: WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority must install sewer lines to correct health problems in several existing subdivisions in Albemarle County at the expense of affected property owners; and WHEREAS, such installations require ditching in existing State road- ways; and WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation utility construction permits include a fifty-foot paving and 100% stone backfill requirement to assure roadway restoration to.protect scarce road maintenance funds; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Service Authority seeks relief from this requirement to minimize project costs with the guarantee that road repairs throughout the expected lifetime of the present surface will be paid from Service Authority funds; and WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of~SUpervisors desires to correct health problems at the least cost Without impacting road maintenance funds, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of High- ways and Transportation be, and the same hereby is, requested to waive these permit requirements on Albemarle County Service Authority projects. with the understanding that road repairs caused by these projects throughout the expected lifetime of the present surface of any State-maintained road, as determined by the Resident Engineer, will be paid for by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda i. tem No. 3D. Statewide Transportation Plan. Dr. Iachetta reported that he attended a re~e.~t Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission meeting; also present were members of the D~partment of Highways and Transportation, the .Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission ('J~ARC) and various other State officials. Dr. Iachetta reported that a request has been r~ceived for a status report for statewide planning regarding roads in order to accomplish a Statewide Transportation Plan. Dr. Iachetta said Albemarle County's comments on this should be presented at a hearing of the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission being held on September 12, 1980, in the General Assembly Building. He felt this report should emphasize the matter of funding new roads and road repairs which has become increasingly difficult over the last several years due to inflation and decreased budgets. He felt it essential to present this view to the Commission with the hope that some alternative funding source for roads might be found. Mr. Fisher asked Dr. Iachetta if he would be able to carry a statement from the Board of Supervisors to this meeting. Dr. Iachetta said he personally would be unable to attend. Mr. Fisher said he felt it necessary to make a strong statement at this hearing, because members of the General Assembly make up this Commission and will be acting-on legislation based on the results of thiS hearing. Mr. Agnor suggested that the staff prepare a statement to be delivered to the hearing on September 12th stating the concerns of the County. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accept the recommendation of the County Executive. Roll was called and the~motion carried by the following recorded vote.: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. AS a result of the above motion, the following letter was mailed: September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) "September 11, 1980 Honorable Theodore V. Morrison, Jr. Chairman, SJR-50 Subcommittee Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission 910 Capitol Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Mr. Morrison: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors respectfully requests the fol- lowing statement be considered in the deliberations of your committee on the financial needs of the highway system, specifically secondary road improvement needs. In 1973 a study of secondary road needs in Albemarle County indicated that 419 miles of roadway, 185 bridges, and 13 railroad crossings were in need of improvement. It was estimated these improvements would require 57.18 million dollars. That estimate in 1980 dollars is 105.1 million. The needs are staggering. in 1978, a six-year plan for secondary road improvements was adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The plan included 34 projects using an expected allocation of 9.32 million dollars. In 1980 this plan was updated as required, with the number of projects dropping to 17, and the funds being reduced to 8.04 million dollars. The.resources have diminished, the needs have increased, and inflation has continued its impact on costs. Please add this concern to the many problems facing your committee. Respectfully, Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman" Agenda Item No. 3E. Letters from Highway Department. Mr. Agnor presented the following letters dated August 18 and August 20, 1980, respectively, from Mr. Leo E. Busser, III, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer of the Department of Highways and Transportation: "As requested in your resolutions dated January 9, 1980, June 14, 1980, and July 9, 1980, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective August 18, 1980; and September 1, 1980. ADDITIONS LENGTH SUNRISE ACRES SUBDIVISION (Effective August 18, 1980) From Route 810 to 0.15 mile West. 0.15 LOGAN VILLAGE SUBDIVISION (Effective September 1, 1980) Lawrence'Road - From Route 676 to end of cul-de-sac. CAMELOT SUBDIVISION (Effective September 1, 1980) Jester Lane - From Camelot Drive S.W. to end of cul-de-sac. 0.24 Mi. 0.27 Mi. Camelot Drive - From end of State maintenance 1510 northerly 0.09 mile. 0.09 Mi." "As requested in your resolution dated May 29, 1980, the following addi- tions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effectiVe August 20, 1980. ADDITIONS LENGTH WINDSOR SUBDIVISION Brighton Drive - From Route 743 to end of cul-de-sac. Warwick PlaCe - From Brighton Drive to end of cul-de-sac. Bradford Drive - From Route 743 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.15 Mi. 0.15 Mi. 0,20 Mi.,' Agenda Item No. 3F. Request for Street Signs. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a letter dated August-13, 1980, from property owners in Terrybrook Subdi~vision for street signs at three intersections within the subdivision. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. McCann, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Proffit Road (State Route 649) and Terrybrook Drive (State Route 1505) at the northwest corner of its intersection; Terrybrook Drive (State Route 1505) and Pineridge Lane (State Route 1506) at the northeast corner of its intersection, Terrybrook Drive (State Route 1505) and Crestfield Court (State Route 1507) at the northeast corner of its intersection; and -'258 September 10~ 1980 (Regular Day Me~ 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: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. None. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 3G) Other Highway Matters. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said he had received a request for a status report on the acceptance of the earth dam in Hollymead. He said approximately one year ~ago, subsequent to a request from Virginia Land Company to rezone land north of the dam to R-3, requests were made of Dr. Charles Hurt to supply data on soil and materials used in the dam (completed by Mr. E. L. Gooch and received July, 1978) and a hydrologic analysis, which has not yet been received. This hydrologic analysis was requested on November 30, 1979. Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. Jim Hill ~f Virginia Land Company should be requested to be present at the day meeting, and this item be placed on the agenda for discussion to determine whether the rezoning (ZMA-79-33 Albemarle Land Corporation) will be pursued or withdrawn. Mr. Fisher added that the acceptance of the road over the dam is extremely important, and must be dealt with at e rezoning stage of approvals. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Roosevelt the Highway Department's position on maintaining the road if accepted. Mr. Roosevelt said before the road can be accepted into the system, there must be an alterna- tive access to the property which is also state maintained. Mr. Roosevelt said if the dam were to wash out, the State's responsibility would be to replace the road bed and road surface to its original condition, but that the replacement of the dam itself would be someone elses responsibility. Mr. St. John said that if a subdivision plat is put to record, the fee to that roadway over the dam vests in the County, and unless there is a specific statement on the plat that replacement costs to rebuild the dam are covered under homeowner agreements, then it becomes the responsibility of the County to replace that dam. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that this item be placed on the agenda of the October 8, 1980, and that Virginia Land Company be properly notified to be present for the discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. None. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher asked about an erosion problem on Route 682. Mr. Roosevelt said he spoke with Mr. Tomlin who indicated he was going to place some stone in the ditch line of the road at the edge of his property in an attempt to stop the erosion. Mr. Roosevelt said he told Mr. Tomlin that the next time it rained following the placement of the stone, he would visit the site to determine where ditching needed to be done. Mr. Lindstrom said he spoke with Mr. Jim Bergold in Canterbury Hills who requested maintenance on the road edges along Westminister Road, Woodhurst Road and Woodhurst Court. Mr. Bergold said the edge of the road is crumbling and causing drainage problems and that either gravel or resurfacing is required. .~ Dr. Iachetta asked the status of the culvert replacement for Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said the pipe is on order, the easements from property owners, both up and downstream, have been obtained, the utility companies have reviewed the plans, and now the pipe must be placed. Mr. Roosevelt said if the pipe arrives before mid-November, it will be laid this year, if it does not arrive before that date, it will be done in the early Spring. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Roosevelt for completing the Ivy Landfill Road. He complimented him on a very nice job which is sensitive to the area and Properties it crosses. Mr. Lindstrom said that in June a permit was approved for the Fairfield.Bridge Company for work on the Mechum.River Bridge. Mr. Lindstrom said he went out to view the work following rains last week and wished to note that he considered this site the best example of soil erosion control he has ever seen. Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: David and Joseph Wood Site Plan. (Plan shOWing the site development of Parcel B-2, 0.924 acres near Berkeley Community on U.S. Route 29 and Dominion Drive, Charlottesville Magisterial District, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Assoc., Ltd., dated July 14, 1980, and revised August 12 and August 18,~ 1980.) Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning read the planning staff report and Planning Commission action as follows: September 10~ular Da~ Meetin~ Location: At the corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North (southbound lane). Property described as Tax Map 61M, Parcel iD in Charlottesville District. Acreage: 40,237 square feet. Zoning: B-I, Business History: August 16, 1977 - The applicant withdrew the proposed Pizza Inn Site Plan. September 27, 1977 - The Planning Commission approved the Pizza Inn/ Mr. Donut Site Plan. October 12, 1977 - On appeal, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan and requested that this item be recon- sidered by the Planning Commission. October 25, 1977 - The Planning Commission deferred the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan in order that a representative of the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation could be present. November 1, 1977 - The Planning Commission deferred the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan again in order that a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation study of the Dominion Drive and Route 29 North intersection be completed in order to determine if a traffic signal would be needed. November 15, 1977 - The Planning Commission resolved to forward the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. The resolution came about as a result of a stalemate in the voting after various motions failed. December 21, 1977 - The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan with access and egress limited to Shopper's World. Proposal: A request to locate a restaurant with 4,140 square feet of gross building area. Topography of Area: Slopes gently from the northwest corner to the pro- posed stormwater detention pond. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 29 North (southbound lane) accommodates 15,000 vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable. Dominion Drive accommodates 4,139 vehicle trips per day and is con- sidered tolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Urban Area. Commercial in Neighborhood #1 of the Type Utilities: Public facilities are available. Plans will no~ be necessary since the water and sewer lines are existing. Staff Comment: The Highway Department recommends an additional 12 foot lane be established on the northeast side of Dominion Drive allowing a bypass lane similar in design to that constructed with the Pizza Inn Site Plan. This will allow four lanes of traffic from the inter- section with Route 29 to the entrances and will .allow left turn lanes into the restaurant site from Dominion Drive. A grading easement should be shown in the area from the existing right of way. line on Route 29 to the curb line at the parking area for the future regrading necessary at this intersection in conformance with the Route 29-North Corridor Study. Adequate sight distance can be obtained through the removal of the vegetation along Dominion Drive on State right of way. The applicant has conformed with the State Highway's recommendations. Staff feels that if the applicant has access to Shopper's World Shopping Center that the site plan should incorporate the acc.ess; this will have to be worked out with staff. This site plan will meet/the requirements of Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and Staff recommends approval subject to: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: ae Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; Grading Permit; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; Fire Official approval of the marking of fire lane and fire flow of 1000 gpm and hydrant location; County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement of stormwater detention facilities; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of extending the water line for relocation of fire hydrant if needed. '260 September 10, 1980 [Regular Da~ Meetin_~_) Mr. Tucker said that on August 19, 1980, the Planning Commission denied the site plan on the basis that the site should only have access to Shopper's World Shopping Center~ Mr. Fisher next noted receipt of the following letter of appeal dated August 21, 1980: "Board of Supervisors, County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Site plan Dominion Drive and Route 29 North Dear Sirs and Madam: On August 19, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the site plan for the development of the corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North for the location of a restaurant. The Albemarle County Planning staff recommended the approval of the site plan with certain acceptable conditions. The Planning Commission, after hearing the presentation, denied approval of the site plan on a vote of three to two. This letter is to respectfully appeal the decision of the Planning Commis- sion and ask for a rehearing of the same by you. The Planning Commission denied approval of the site plan because of its access to Dominion Drive, indicating that it felt that the access to Dominion Drive caused a safety hazard and that this property should be served only by an access through the Shoppers World parking lot, a right which has been reserved by the owners when Shoppers World was purchased. Our reasons for requesting the rehearing are as follows: 1. In 1956, when the Berkeley Subdivision was developed, the front 40 acres were designated on the plat for future commercial development, and all purchasers in Berkeley have always been awar~ that this property could someday be commercial, with access to Dominion Drive. This property has .always been zoned commercial, and the residents of Berkeley could not have expected anything but commercial development, with access to Dominion Drive. 2. In 1977, a site plan was presented to the Planning Commission and to you with access to 29 North or Dominion Drive, and both were denied. Sinc~ that time, approximately 30 commercial developers have contacted us con- cerning the development Of this property for their uses but, upon learning that only access through the shopping center is available, all have indicated such access is unacceptable. 3. ~here is a 16 foot difference in elevation between the corner of 29 North and Dominion Drive and the diagonal corner of the subject property. This is equivalent to a two-story building, and a ramp to the said diagonal corner would be at an approximate 17% grade and totally unacceptable to a commercial venture. If an entrance to the parking lot could be obtained through a revision of the parking lot site plan to the other two corners, it would still be so inaccessible as to be unacceptable to a commercial developer. Therefore, although legally this property enjoys an access right of way through the parking lot, physically it is an unacceptable solution to the access problem. 4. Since 1977, two commercial lots have been developed on the south side of Dominion Drive, one of which serves the Pizza Inn. Dominion Drive has been widened to a three-lane road, the traffic situation has been much improved and Pizza Inn has resulted in very little inconvenience to the residents of the Berkeley Subdivision, and I would submit no additional traffic hazard. 5. At the hearing on August 19th, Mr. Roosevelt, the Highway Engineer, noted that the site plan offered an additional turn lane on 29 North and an additional lane on Dominion Drive, both of which were very desirable and both of which would probably never ha~e been achieved through public funds if not accepted in conjunction with this site plan. Mr. Roosevelt noted that any access to any public road had certain detrimental effects to the road, but the advantages of the new lanes on 29 North and Dominion Drive far, far outweighed the disadvantages of a new access on Dominion Drive which would certainly serve only a limited amount of traffic. 6. It is wise planning to make every effort to restrict additional access to Route 29 North, but every corner lot on 29 North in this vicinity, to- wit: Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, Westfield Road, Berkmar Drive, Rio Road, and Dominion Drive have access to the side street entering 29 North, and to deny this one lot access would certainly appear to be discriminatory. For the reasons above stated, we respectfully ask that you hold a hearing on the site plan and approve the same. Yours very truly, (signed) David J. Wood, Jr. and Joseph M. Wood, II" September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) First to speak was Mr. Dan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, who said he approved of this proposed plat because of the extra lanes which would be made available to the Highway Department at the intersection of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said the right turn lane from U.S. 29 North into Shoppers World would be extended and go all the way to Dominion Drive, also an additional lane in front of Pizza Inn on Dominion Drive would be useful as a right turn lane onto · U.S. 29 allowing the other lane as a stacking lane for cars turning left onto U.S. 29 North. Mr. Fisher said at the time the U.S. 29 North transportation study was done, he remembered Mr. Roosevelt's opinion on side road access to be different than what he is presenting today. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct, bUt that since that study was done, a number of things have changed in the area, namely the opening of Fashion Square Shopping Center, the new street light system which was installed due to the new shopping center, and the opening of Pizza Inn. He said all these things caused his opinion to change and he now feels that any additions to the road system that approval of this plat will cause, well justifies its approval. Dr. Iachetta asked if it would not be safer to now have entrance to this parcel on U.S. 29 rather than on Dominion, because access on Dominion creates a crossing action by turning vehicles -- such action is not the case for vehicles turning into the property from U.S. 29. Mr. Roosevelt said he felt access from U.S. 29 would not be better, because with the new traffic light system, .traffic will be moving at the full allowable speed (45 m.p.h.) and that without a turning lane to this property, it would cause a slowing action on U.S. 29 or dangerous sudden stops. Mr. David J. Wood said they have had many inquiries about development of this pro- perty but none of those commercial ventures were interested when they discovered that the ~only access into the property was through Shoppers World. Mr. Wood said that due to the topography, a 17% grade ramp would be required as access from Shoppers World to this property, this is unacceptable. (Mr. Henley arrived at 10:23 A.M.) Mr. Wood said he is unaware of any lot along U.S. 29 between the City and~Rio Road which does not have access onto a side road. Next to speak was Mr. James Cosby~ representing the Berkeley Community Association. Mr. Cosby reviewed the history of this property. Mr. Cosby then presented photographs showing traffic p~oblems which presently exist on Dominion Drive. He noted the difficulty with which vehicles now~cross U.S. 29 to enter Dominion Drive, and said that an entrance to the proposed parcel on Dominion Drive will create an obstacle which will cause cars to back up on Dominion Drive toward U.S. 29 and therefore make it even more difficult to cross the major highway and more hazardous to enter Dominion Drive. He said he agreed with Dr. Iachetta's concern about the crossing pattern an entrance on Dominion Drive would create. He concluded by requesting the Board to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny this site plan. Mrs. Joan Graves reviewed the history of the area stating that many other businesses have located on similar lots with limited access and developed successfully. She felt the safety aspects alone should cause the Board to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Cosby presented three letters in support of his earlier statement to deny this site plan. The letters, all dated September 9, 1980, are from the Four Seasons Patio House Association, signed by Mr. Collin E. Ostrander; the Four Seasons Condominium Associa- tion, Inc., signed by Ginger Slavic, Secretary; and the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc., signed by Gregory A. Johnson. (NOTE: These letters are on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Wood said he had one last point to make, that being that the peak traffic hours on Dominion Drive and U.S. 29 are from 7:30 to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 to 5:30 P.M.; the main hours of operation of the restaurant proposed for this parcel would be approximately 6:30 to 9:00 P.M. He stressed that these times are not conflicting and therefore would create no additional traffic problems. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he feels this parcel should have some viable access, but now that the Highway Departmen~ has changed its opinion, he's not sure which view to support. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt which access the Highway Department would prefer to have; access through Shoppers World or onto Dominion Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said because of the road improvements the site plan pre- sents, the Highway Department prefers the Dominion Drive access at this time, especially since these improvements could not be accomplished using State Highway funds. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an access onto Dominion Drive would cause a conflict with vehicles turning from Dominion onto U.S. 29. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not feel such a conflict would occur. Mr. Henley said the main reason he originally voted not to allow access onto Dominion was that he felt customers from Shoppers World would use this as egress from that shopping center. Dr. Iachetta said he must consider the safety and welfare of the residents of the Four Seasons and Berkeley communities and feels an obli- gation to preserve the residential character of the street. Mr. McCann said he mas on the Planning Commission at the time this site plan was denied. Mr. McCann said since the Board of Supervisors was on record in favor of the U.S. 29 North Corridor Study, he felt it was important to obtain any highway improvements offered to reach the goals the Corridor study recommends. Mr. Lindstrom said that although he originally voted to deny access onto Dominion Drive for the Pizza Inn parcel, he feels the benefits to U.S. 29 derived from this proposed site plan are an opportunity to improve that highway that the Board of Supervisors should not pass up. Mr. Lindstrom said if access is allowed to Dominion Drive, then access to Shoppers World should be eliminated completely in order to prevent potential abuse of this parcel as a~shortcut to-Dominion Drive. Mr. Fisher said if an additional turn lane is created on U.S. 29 to go into Dominion Drive, this will cause those people turning from U.S. 29 North, left into Dominion Drive to cross three lanes rather than two, and that this could be a serious problem. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Highway Department had ever considered closing the crossover on U.S. 29 opposite Dominion Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said that in the U.S. 29 Corridor Study it is stated that the Dominion Drive crossover is too close to that at Shoppers World for instal- lation of a traffic signal, and that if it becomes too hazardous to cross at this point, the recommendation would be to close the Dominion Drive crossover. September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meetin.$) Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve .this site plan with the conditions as recommended by the staff and additionally that the road.improvements stated by the applicant be completed prior to occupancy and that the entrance through Shoppers World be eliminated. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann who .stated that he wished to make clear to the applicant that road improvements included curb and gutter as stated by Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Wood said he would agree to those conditions but wished that the condition requiring the closing of the Shoppers World easement state Only vehicular traffic be denied access. He said he would like to build a stairway for pedestrian access to Shoppers World. Dr. Iachetta said he would be vehemently opposed to a pedestrian access, since Shoppers World does not have parking spaces available for this parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said a pedestrian access would lessen traffic, allowing people to walk from Shoppers World to this site rather than having to drive. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with a pedestrian walkway, and Mr. McCann agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the motion with the conditions as amended because on the whole, this site plan will improve the traffic situation at this intersection. Mr. Henley said he felt the residents of Four Seasons and Berkeley were making out very nicely on this vote. Dr. Iachetta said he does not agree with the Highway Department that the turn lanes this site plan makes available will improve the traffic situation and create safer conditions. Roll was called and the motion to approve this site plan, with the conditions which follow, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: Dr. Iachetta. ABSENT: Miss Nash. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: f. g. h. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; Grading Permit; Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; Fire Official approval of the marking of fire lane and fire flow of 1,000 gpm and hydrant location; County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement of stormwater detention facilities; Albemarle County Service Authority approval of extending the water line for relocation of fire hydrant, if needed. There will be no vehicular access to Shoppers World property, and the easement will be abandoned. Ail road improvements shown on this site plan will be completed prior to occupancy of the building. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Highway Department's new subdivision road policy and County's private road ordinance. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said basically, this new subdivision road policy has reduced the horizontal and vertical curvature requirements for low volume, dead end and fixed volume roads. Mr. Roosevelt said the change is in the design speed for sight and stopping distance, indicating that where the distance had been 15 feet, it will now be 25 feet and where is had been 20 feet it will now be 25 feet. Mr. Roosevelt said another change made is in the bonding and maintenance fees; where bonding had been $5,000 per mile, it is now $15,000 per mile, maintenance fees have increased from $600 per mile to $2,400 per mile. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any reduction in the right of way required for roads with capacity of 250 vtd. Mr. Roosevelt said there is no right of way reduction, which remains 30 feet for up to 250 vehicle trips per day with curb and gutter. Without curb and gutter the minimum right of way is 40 feet. Mr. Roosevelt said these new regulations will greatly improve the chances of many rural roads being accepted into the State Secon- dary System. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, to compare the new state regulations with the County's private road standards. Mr. Williams said regulations are based on the number of lots served. He noted that for 13 lots or more (which represents 251 vehicle trips a day or more) private road requirements are the same as those for the State Highway Department, however there is no verticle or horizontal alignment. Mr. Williams noted that right of way for private roads is 30 feet. Finally, he noted that the maximum percent of grade allowed for private roads is 15%, with the exception of roads less than 300 feet in length~ which are allowed grades of 18%. Mr. Robert Tucker presented figures showing that 112 subdivisions were approved this past year, 40 of which were on existing state roads. There were 56 subdivision plats involved with private roads, and 740 lots equalling about 16 miles of private roads. There were 16 subdivision plats approved with 463 lots using state roads, equalling seven mil.es and 35 streets. Mr. Fisher said he was very much concerned that there are becoming far too many private roads, and that this will cause great problems in the future. He suggested the possibility of a "middle ground" standard for 10 lots or more. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that judging from the preliminary census figures .received by the county, there has been a population increase of 71%. in housing units, and that something must be done soon to assure properly maintained roads for future use. Dr. Iachetta said there should be a definite cut-off point for use of the private roads, and anything above that certain number of lots should be state maintained. Mr. Fisher said that time was running out for further discussion of this matter, and suggested deferring the discussion to October 8, 1980. Motion was offered to defer to October 8th by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. N~YS: None. ABSENT: Miss Nash. September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 6. Renewal of Soil Conservation Service Contract re: Soil Survey. Mr. Agnor said this is an extension of an existing contract with the Soil Conservation Service to conduct a soil survey. Mr. Agnor said all the financial obligations have been met with regard to this contract, and this simply confirms the County's willingness to authorize the continuance of the survey. Mr. Agnor requested authorization for the County Executive to sign the contract as follows: "In accordance with Paragraph 3.e. of the Cooperative Agreement No. 58-33A~-9-11, for soil surveys in Albemarle County, Virginia, the Soil Conservation Service hereby agrees to renew the Agreement for the period October I, 1980 through September 30, 1981. Although you as Cooperator under this agreement have fulfilled your obligation, work by the Soil Conservation Service is continuing. ~lease indicate your cbncurrence by signing below and returning the original copy to this office. Please retain a copy for your records. (signed) Manly S. Wilder State Conservationist" Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the County Executive to sign the renewal agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the.following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs: Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 7. Request to vacate plats in Ivy Farms Subdivision and Carrsbrook Subdivision. (Note: The Ivy Farms request was brought to the Board by Mr. Alan Brill, in order to subdivide the property. The Carrsbrook request was brought to the Board by Mr. Larry J. McElwain in his letter dated August 21, 1980.) Mr. Agnor said this request is to set public hearing dates for the vacation of these two separate plats. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to set public hearing dates of October 8, 1980, for each of these two requests. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 8. Renewal of O.A.R. Lease. the Board dated September 5, 1980, as follows: Mr. Agnor summarized his memorandum to "In 1977 the County leased to the national offices of Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR/USA) the old jail building for use as their~ offices and for the development of a prison museum open to the public. The term was. for three years~;'the rent was free; OAR paid utilities and interior main- tenance; the County maintained the utility systems and the exterior. The lease expires September 30 and OAR is requesting a renewal. A proposed lease has been drafted similar to the original three year lease, but is for a five year period. Mr. Fahy Mullaney, OAR Executive Director, has been told that the Board had not yet considered the disposition of the jailer's building, once vacated by its present occupants. Mr. Mullaney requested a lease addendum for the Board to consider as an indication of OAR's interest and need for additional office space. He also sent a letter in which he details his reasoning for requesting a rental of $200 per month for the jailer's house .... The three year experience with the current use of the jail ~buitding~has been satisfactory from the County administrative viewpoint. The use and the peDestrian/vehicular traffic has not caused any problems that have not been r~solved. The development of a public museum has not been completed, although considerable research and writing on the jail's history has been finished. The building has served a useful purpose and been made functional by OAR. If offices were to be established by OAR in the future in the jailer's building, the development of a museum would be more easily accomplished from ai space standpoint. Renewa~ of the.current lease as proposed is recommended D~cision. on.~he addendum is recommended for deferral until further discussion by the Board on theI disposition of the real estate assessment offices as well as the jaileri's building." Mr. HeNley said at a meeting of the Jail Board, there had been some discussion of possibly converting the old jailer's home and old jail into a work release facility, and suggested the possibility of extending the OAR lease for only three y~ars rather than the requested f!ive. Mr. Fahy G. Mullaney, Executive Director of OAR/USA, said a five year lease would provide stability to his organization's efforts to provide its service as well as work on the historilc preservation of the building. Dr Iachetta said he would like more time to consider t~e idea of establishing a museum. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to accept the iCounty Executive's recommendation to renew the lease, without the addendum, to the year 19183, and to authorize the County Executive to execute same. · 2G4 September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeti__~) Mr. Mullaney said OAR has applied for a $10,000 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities for equipment and restoration of the facility as a museum. He said such a short term lease might discourage approval of such a grant, and urged the Board's recon- sideration. Mr. McCann said if a museum is created, it must first be discussed who will be respon- sible for the maintenance of the museum. Dr. Iachetta agreed that further discussion of the idea of a museum must be held before the County commits itself to such a long term project. Dr. Iachetta's motion to approve the following lease agreement was seconded by Mr. Henley: This lease, made and entered into this 18th day of September, 1980, by and between the County of Albemarle, hereinafter referred to as "County" lessor, and the Offender Aid and Restoration of the United States, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "OAR/USA" lessee. W I T NE S SETH (1) For and in consideration Of the mutual covenants herein con- tained, the County hereby leases and demises to OAR/USA the building, located on High Street in the City of Charlottesville, formerly used as the Albemarle County Jail, for use as a prison museum open to the public, offices for OAR/USA and for display of prisoners' arts and crafts. (2) The term of such lease shall be for a period of three years beginning October 1, 1980, and ending September 30, 1983. (3) The building shall be leased to OAR/USA rent free; however, OAR/USA will pay the County for heating, lighting and water costs. (4) The County agrees to be responsible for the operation, main- tenance and repair of the utility systems, and to perform all maintenance of the exterior of the leased premises. (5) OAR/USA agrees to perform normal custodial and janitorial func- tions and interior maintenance of the leased premises, and to maintain the premises in a clean, safe presentable condition at all times. (6) OAR/USA or its subtenants shall be responsible, for insuring the contents of the building against fire, theft or other peril, and the County expressly disclaims any liability for damages or loss of any nature whatso- ever which may occur to the property of OAR/USA, its members, or others while such property is located on the leased premises. The County will maintain fire and extended coverage insurance on the leased premises in an amount it deems adequate. (7) OAR/USA agrees to indemnify the County, its officers, agents and employees and hold them harmless from any loss of any nature whatsoever, which may occur by reason of 0AR/USA's use of the leased premises. OAR/USA shall maintain in force comprehensive public liability insurance coverage with an insurer authorized to do business in Virginia. Such policy shall not be cancelled without thirty days written notice to the County. OAR/USA shall submit evidence of such insurance coverage to the County Executive for approval prior to opening the premises to the public. (8) The County retains the right to approve sublease of space within the leased premises by OAR/USA to the Charlottesville/Albemarle Historical Society or any other organization. Ail subleases shall expire concurrently on the 30th day of September next following their execution, and no such sublease shall extend beyond the term of this lease. (9) OAR/USA agrees to submit any rules and regulations pertaining to the operation of the building to the County Board of Supervisors For review and comment, and to use its best efforts to 'operate the building in accor- dance with the purposes for use as'stated previously. In this regard OAR/USA will soiicit the assistance of the local historical society in establishing the prison museum. (10) OAR/USA shall not undertake, or permit its subtenants to under- take any structural modifications of the leased premises without the prior consent in writing of the County. (!1) The lease may be terminated by either party for breach of any covenant hereof by the other party provided such breach has not been remedied after thirty days written notice. (12) This lease may be amended or modified at any time by written agreement of both parties. (13) OAR/USA agrees to surrender the leased premises, upon termin- ation.or expiration of this lease, in as good condition as when they were initially occupied, normal wear and tear excepted. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Miss Nash. September ~lar ~ 285 Mr. Agnor said all the properties owned by the County surrounding the jail must be. discussed as far as disposition of same when all County offices move to the Lane Building. Mr. Fisher said he feels there is time over the next few months to discuss disposition of properties which will be abandoned by County offices. Dr. Iachetta said he hoped his motion was clear, that the addendum was not to be approved, and that the matter of leasing the Jailer's House should be further discussed before leasing to anyone. Mr. Fisher said that was understood. Agenda Item No. 10. Report: North 29 Transit Service. Mr. Agnor reported that for the first full calendar month of operation, the month of August, 1980, 2,300 passengers used the servic~ for an average of 89 passengers per day. This is an increase over the previous month's average which was 73 passengers per day. Mr. Agnor further reported that there were no major mechanical breakdowns or accidents, that eight calls were received from citizens interested in extending the service hours or route of the bus, and that no major complaints were received. Financially, Mr. Agnor noted that the project cost was 655 per mile ori a total of $5,627.05, 8,657 miles travelled. Receipt~ from fares totalled $1,111.62 leaving an operating deficit of $4,515.43. Mr. McCanni asked if figures could be presented next month as to where the ridership is entering andl exiting the system. Mr. Agnor said he thought those figures could be obtained. ~ Mrs. Joan ~raves, said she wished to state that she has twice noted Albemarle County buses going thrlough stop signs, and that if it occurs again, she will make a formal complaint to thle Sheriff. Mr. Fisher said he would see 'that the contractor is informed of this complaint and that the highway laws are to be obeyed. Agenda Item No. llA. Special Appropriation -:Capital Improvements Program. Mr. Agnor said as ai result of the public hearing held on August 14, 1980, he recommends that appropriations Ifor several projects be approved. Also, Mr. Agnor requested that $96,0~2.~'22 be transferred iin the School Construction Fund to make additional money available for architect fees lon the Albemarle High School Renovation project. Dr. Iachetta asked if this would cause a temporary stopping of the Albemarle High/Burley study and the Green- wood/Crozet study. Mr. Agnor said those studies have already been completed The money being requested for transfer is the balance of funds left from those studies] Motion was tion and adopt on this item, a called and the AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Miss ~ash. ABSTAIN: Mr. M'cCann. offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to accePt the recommenda* the following resolution. Mr. McCann said he wished to abstain from vote s he was not fully aware of the significance of these actions. Roll was motion carried by the following recorded vote: Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. BE I~ RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, 'that $279,000 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General F~nd and transferred to the General Operating, Capital Outlay Fund and distributed to the following codes: Administration and Courts, County Office Building (Lane) Phase II Archi- tects, $39,000 to code 9700-7060.72 Miscellaneous, Community College Expansion, $95,000 to code 9700-7060.14 Parks andiRecreatzon, 9700~7060.31 $ 25,000 9700,7060.33 60,000 9700~7060.34 15,000 970047060.52 8,000 970047060 53 8,000 9700W7060]54 ~18,00o ~ 970047060.55 10~000 i $134,000 Solid Waste, Keene Landfill Trench, $15,000 to code 9700-7060.69. Mint Springs Road Paving Chris Greene Road. Paving Beaver Creek Road Paving Hollymead School Crozet School Scottsville School Broadus Wood School FURTHER RESOLVED that $96,012.22 be, and the same hereby is to be transferred from the following codes to code 19.19C for BE I~ authorize~ Albemarle High Renovation: 19.19B AHS-Burley Study 19.30 Greenwood-Crozet Study $41,610,39 54,401.83 Agenda It~m No. liB. Appropriation:- School Board, In-Service Training. Mr. Agnor said the Schoo~ Board, on August 11, 1980, approved two in-service programs. The SED (Seriously Emo$ionally Disturbed) program witl provide training for teacher and parents and has fundin~ from the State in the amount of $22,875. The other is funded by the Federal Government and provides training aimed at the identification of gifted students. There are no 19cal monies involved. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Dr. Iachett~ and Seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. BE I~ appropria$ tion Fund FURTHER RESOLVED that $50,000 be, and the-same hereby is, ed from the General Fund and transferred to the School Construc- code t9.17K, for miscellaneous repairs; and September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $27,875 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Fund and transferred to the following codes: $22,875 to Code 17J-299G for In-Service (SED) $5,000 to Code 17J-299H for In-Service (Gifted ID) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. None. Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. llC. Appropriation: Temporary Attendant Keene Landfill. Mr. Agnor presented a memo from the County Engineer dated June 23, 1980, describing a problem with waste being deposited after hours at the Keene Landfill gate. The County Engineer re- commends employing an attendant for a one or two month period at night to monitor the gate area and collect information to aid in determining if the problem can be improved or if the service should be withdrawn. It is estimated that sixty days of coverage will cost $1,250 which includes wages, radio communications, lighting, and transportation. Hours are proposed to be from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. weekdays and 1 p.m. to 8 p.m., Sundays and holidays. Mr. Agaor requested an appropriation of $1,250. Mr. Fisher asked what enforcement capabilities this person would have. Mr. Agnor said the attendant would have direct radio contact with the deputy sheriff in the area if he required assistance, but his main duty would be to inform citizens what is allowed to be placed in the dumpsters and what is not allowed to be deposited; if there are any problems, license plate numbers can be taken. Mr. Agnor noted that by taking license numbers, an idea can be obtained as to where the people using the landfill live. The volume of night deposits at the landfill has grown considerably over the last few years, that the County Engineer has considered discontinuing the service. Mr. Fisher said per- haps more and more people are working in the day and find night the only convenient time to go to the landfill. Mr. Fisher said possibly the hours of operation should be changed to accommodate the peak hours of use. (NOTE: At 12:18 P.M., Mr. Lindstrom left the meeting.) Mr. Rey Barry said he uses the landfill on weekends, and noted that usually by 11 a.m. Sunday the four dumpsters are full. Also, he said a lot of people rummage through the waste looking for scrap cans which accounts for a lot of the trash being on the ground. Dr. Iachetta said this is just one site example of what would happen along the highways if dumpsters were placed throughout Albemarle County. Mr. McCann said he would rather see the trash in dumpsters than along the road. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said he intends to advertise this change in hours and the addition of the attendant and plans that the attendant be readily identified. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, to accept the County Executive's recommendation and adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia that $1,250 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and transferred to Code 4204-3090 for Temporary Attendant at the Keene Landfill. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and McCann. None. Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: Mr. Henley said he had read the minutes of March 12, 1980, and found no corrections necessary. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve those minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and McCann. None. Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 12. Executive Session. At 12:30 p.m., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session for the purpose of discussing acquisition and disposal of real property and discussion of personnel matters. Dr. Iachetta said he would make the motion, but noted that he will have to leave the executive session at 12:45 p.m. since he was not able to find someone to cover his 1:00 p.m. class. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and McCann. None. Mr. Lindstrom and Miss Nash. At 2:10 P.M., the Board reconvened into open session and the meeting was called back to order. It was noted, by Mr. Fisher that Mr. Henley left the executive session at 1:45 p.m. and would not be returning to the meeting. (Mr. Lindstrom had returned to the Board meeting at this time.) Agenda Item No. 13. Public Hearing: An ordinance concerning the control of noise. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 1980.) Se emb r 8 r ' Mr. Fisher said he was not going to read the entire ordinance at this time because of its length, but briefly described some of the areas of coverage. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened and asked Sheriff George Bailey to speak first. Sheriff Bailey said.he requested the adoption of this ordinance, but said it would be almost impossible to enforce the 10:00 p.m. time set out in the ordinance. He said almost everyone who has ever had a party at their home has had guests beyond that hour, and stated a more reasonable hour would be 11:00 p.m. Mr. Fisher asked Sheriff Bailey if he had any comments about the use of 65 decibels as the level constituting offensive noise. The Sheriff said the County Attorney's office obtained that figure from similar ordinances in other counties. No one from the public wished to speak, and Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed and the matter before the Board. Dr. Iachetta asked the sheriff what would trigger the enforcement of this ordinance. Mr. St. John answered saying usually a telephone call from a complaining citizen or sometimes a deputy will happen upon a violation. Dr. Iachetta asked how the sheriff would handle a complaint. Sheriff Bailey said the sound meter would be taken to the edge of the complaining citizen's property and if a measurement of 65 d.b. or more were monitored, he would first ask the offending party to lower the noise. If that request were unsuccessful, then he would make an arrest. Discussion ensued regarding the enforceability of the 10:00 p.m. startup time. It was the concensus of the Board that if the Sheriff felt 10:00 p.m. was too early to start enforcement, then the hour should be changed to something he feels could be enforced. Sheriff Bailey said ideally he felt midnight would be the best hour, but that he would be willing to compromise and settle for 11:00 p.m. Mr. Fisher said before Mr. Henley left the meeting he stated his concern about the wording in section 5 reading "The foregoing shall not be deemed to'include sound generation from any bona fide agricultural activity, including noise caused by livestock, unless the same may ge prevented or moderated by reasonable measures." Mr. Fisher said Mr. Henley requested the removal of that portion of the sentence reading "unless the same may be prevented or moderated by reasonable measures". Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the ordinance as advertised, but change the beginning hour of enforcement from 10:00 P.M. to 11:00 p.m. and delete that part of Section 5 reading "unless the same may be prevented or moderated by reasonable measures." The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. McCann said he would prefer to see the enforcement begin at 12:00 midnight. Mr. Lindstrom said if a person calls in a complaint at 11:00 p.m. it possibly could be midnight before a deputy arrives with the monitoring equipment. Roll was then called and the ordinance which follows was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE CONTROL OF NOISE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County that the following ordinance be, and it is hereby, adopted: Sec. 1. Declaration of findings and policy. The board of supervisors hereby finds and declares that excessive sound is a serious hazard to the public health, welfare, peace and safety, and the quality of life; that a substantial body of science and technology exists by which excessive sound maybe substantially abated; that the people have a~right to and should be ensured an environment free from excessive sound~that may jeopardize the public.health, welfare, peace~and safety or degrade the quality of life; and that it is the policy of the County to prevent such excessive sound. Sec. 2. Definitions. The following terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings hereinafter ascribed to them, unless otherwise clearly indicated by the context: (a) A-weighted sound level. The sound pressure level ~in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the A-weighting network. The level so read is designated dB(A) or dBA. (b) DeCibel (dB). A unit for measuring the volume of a sound equal to twenty times the logarithm to the base ten of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference pressure, which is twenty micro- pascals (twenty micronewthons per square meter). (c) Emergency. Any occurrence or set of circumstances involving actual or imminent physical trauma or property damage which demands immed- iate action. (d) Emergency work. Any work performed for the purpose of preventing or alleviating the physical trauma or property damage threatened or caused by an emergency. (~) Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR). The value specified by the manufacturer as the recommended maximum loaded weight of a single motor vehicle. In cases where trailers and tractors are separable, the gross combination weight rating (GCWR), which is the value specified by the manufacturer as the recommended maximum loaded weight of the combination vehicle, shall be used. September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) (f) Motor carrier vehicle engaged in interstate commerce. Any vehicle for which regulations apply pursuant to Section 18 of the Federal Noise Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-574), as amended, pertaining to motor carriers engaged in interstate commerce. (g) Motorcycle. Any motor vehicle designed to travel on.not, more than three wheels in contact with the ground and any four-wheeled vehicle weighing less than five hundred pounds and equipped with an engine of less than six horsepower, excepting farm tractors. (h) Motor vehicle. Any self-propelled device or device designed for self-propulsion, upon or by which any person or property is or may be drawn or transported upon a street or highway, except devices moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary wheels or tracks. (i) Noise. Any sound which annoys or disturbs humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans. (j) Property boundary, An imaginary line along the ground surface, and its vertical extension, which separates the real property owned by one person from that owned by another person, but not including intra-building real property d~visions. (k) Residential zone. Any location Within an A-i, RS-i, R-i, R-2, R- 3, PUD or RPN district as shown on the Albemarle County Zoning Map. (1) Sound. An oscillation in pressure, particle displacement, particle velocity or other physical parameter, in a medium with internal forces that causes compression and rarefaction of that medium. The description of sound may include any characteristic of such sound, including duration, intensity and frequency. (m) Sound level. The weighted sound pressure level obtained by the use of a sound level meter and the A-frequency weighting network, as spec- ified in American National Standards Institute specifications for sound level meters. (n) Sound level meter. An instrument which includes a microphone, amplifier, RMS detector, integrator or time averager, output meter and weighting networks used to measure sound pressure levels. Sec. 3. Administration and enforcement. The noise control program established by this chapter shall be enforced and administered by the sheriff with the assistance of other county depart- ments as required. Sec. 4. Testing of metering devices. in order to implement and enforce this chapter effectively, the sheriff shall, within a reasonable time after.the effective date of the chapter, develop and promulgate standards and procedures for testing and validating sound level meters used in enforcement of this chapter. ~Sec. 5. Maximum nighttime sound levels in residential zones. No person shall operate or cause any source of sound in such a manner as to create a sound level in a residential zone during the hours between 11:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. in excess of 65 dBA when measured at the property boundary of the receiving land. The foregoing shall not be deemed to include sound generation from any bona fide agricultural activity, including noise caused by livestock. Sec. 6. Motor vehicle maximum sound levels. (a) No person shall operate or cause to be Operated a public or private motor vehicle or motorcycle on a public right-of-way at any time in such a manner that the sound level emitted by the motor vehicle or motor- cycle when measured at a distance of fifty feet or more, exceeds the level set forth in the following table: SOUND LEVEL IN dBA SPEED LIMIT SPEED LIMIT VEHICLE CLASS 35 MPH OR LESS. OVER 35 MPH Ail motor vehicles of GVWR or GCWR of 6,000 lbs. or more 86 90 Any motorcycle 82 86 Any other motor vehicle or any combination of vehicles towed by any motor vehicle 76 82 (b) The foregoing provision shall not apply to any motor carrier vehicle engaged in interstate commerce, as defined in Section 2(f). September 10p lq80 (Re_~ular D~y Meet~2g) Sec. 7. Emergency exception. The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to (a) the emission of sound for the purpose of alerting persons to the existence of an emergency, or (b) the emission of sound in the performance of emergency work. Sec. 8. Penalties. (a) Any person who violates any provision of this chapter shall be deemed to be guilty of a misdemeanor. (b) Each day of violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute a separate offense. Agenda Item No. 14. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 11, Article II, Division 4 of the Albemarle County Code by adding a Section 11-60.1 (Business License Ordinance) concerning show and sale. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on August 27 and September 3, 1980.) Mr. Agnor said this ordinance was requested by the Finance Department. He said the purpose of this ordinance is to allow itinerant merchants to display their merchandise under the sponsorship of an established merchant. The established merchant would hold the show and sale license, thereby eliminating the need for each individual itinerant merchant to purchase such license. Mr. Fisher asked if licenses would be issued for any 365 day period, or if it were based on a specific time period. Mr. Melvin Breeden of the Finance Department said it would be based on the licensing period from May 1 to April 30th, and that fees would be prorated accordingly. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing opened. There being no one from the public wishing to speak either for or against this ordinance, Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher then asked about the sales tax involved with itinerant merchants. Mr. Ray Jones said if descrepancies are discovered, the State agent is called in to investigate. Mr. Breeden said most itinerant merchants operate throughout the State of Virginia and have a sales tax number through which they remit taxes. There being no further discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the Show and Sale ordinance as follows: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING Chapter 11 of the Albemarle County Code By Adding a Section 11-60.1 Concerning Show and Sale BE IT ORDAINED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that Chapter 11 of the Albemarle County Code is amended by adding a Section 11- 60.1 concerning show and sale as follows: Section 11-60.1 SHOW AND SALE A show and sale shall be defined as an offering of goods at a specific location by exhibitors who do not have established places of business in the County and who would otherwise be classified as Itinerant Merchants. (a) Any County Resident, County Business, or Non-profit Community Organ- ization may act as a sponsor for a show and sale after purchasing the required license (b) License fees under this section are set as follows: For an unspecified number of show and sales within a seven-day period -- $50.00 - For an unspecified number of show and sales within a 30-day period -- $15o.oo For an unspecified number of show and sales within a 365-day period -- $600.00 A license issued under this section shall be in lieu of an Itinerant Merchant's license which would be otherwise required of any seller who participates in such show and sale under the sponsorship of such person or organization. This section shall be applicable on and after September 10, 1980. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 15. Appeal: Milkey Tract Lots 1-5 Final Plat. (Plat showing Lot 1 to Lot 5 being a portion of Parcel 32 on Sheet 44, County Tax Maps, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman &Assoc., Inc., dated July 9, 198-0, and received by the County Planning Department on August 13, 1980.) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning read the Planning Staff report as follows: September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Location: Parcel 32 (portion) on Tax Map 44, Jack Jouett Di'strict; located on the south side of Ivy Farm Drive, east of the intersection with Route 658. Acreage: 10.2173.acres. Zoning: A-i, Agricultural Proposal: To divide the 10+ acres into five lots with an average size of 2.04 acres, leaving 29~ acres residue. Topography of Area: Level. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: This section of Ivy Farm Drive carries 115 vehicle trips per ~day and is listed as tolerable. This section of Route 658 carries 373 vehicle trips per day and is listed as non- tolerable. Watershed Impoundment: South Fork Rivanna. Soils: The Soil Conservation Service reports that soils on this site are deep and well drained with the depth to bedrock deeper than 60" Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation with a re- commended density of one unit per five acres. Type utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comment: Staff has received several letters from adjoining property owners stating concerns over road stripping, piecemeal development, the amount of road frontage on each lot and most have requested that a preliminary plat be submitted to allow for orderly development. These letters are attached with the staff report. In the past, staff has recommended that a preliminary plat for a total property be submitted prior to approval of one section but this is not a requirement. Staff has also recommended in the past that lots with frontage on a state road be redesigned to front on an interior road in order to minimize the number of entrances on the state road. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (On August 19, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission approved this final plat with the same conditions as those recommended by staff.) 1. The plat-will be signed when the following conditions are meT: County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans for Willis Road for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System; Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance and the entrance to Lot 1; c. Health Department approval; d. Compliance with the Runoff Control & Soil Erosion Ordinances. Mr. Fisher noted that eleven letters of appeal have been received, all stating the same basic concerns, that the proposed five lots are for two acres or less whereas estab- lished lots in the Ivy Farm Subdivision are all five acres of more; that each of the proposed five lots has frontage and access onto Ivy Farm Drive which is inconsistent with the remainder of the area; that the main access road--State Route 658 is already over- crowded and dangerous; and that property owners wish to see plans for the entire proposed development, not just the small portion as presented on this subdivision plat. Mr. Fisher said letters of appeal were received from the following citizens: Richard P. Wenzel, William T. Gildea, Michael E. Johns, William A. Edgerton, C. Preston Locher, Edward W. Davis, Terri A. and Philip H. Cooper, R. B. Ooghe,, Karen Jane Gtoeckner and Jim Fernald. Mr. Fisher said he would first hear from those citizens who wrote letters of appeal. First to speak was Mr. William T. Gi!dea representing the Board of Directors of the Ivy Farm Homeowners Association. Mr. Gildea said his appeal is not based on a legal finding, but from a planning standpoint. He said the entire plan should be presented, since it is apparent from the partial plat submitted that this new area will change the entire character of the area. Mr. Gildea said the County should require that any developer when presenting a plan which would potentially change the character of an already established area, pre- sent the entire plan for approval, not just a small portion as has been done in this instance. He said this would allow the Planning Commission and the Board to see how the final development would effect the watershed--schools, etc. Mr. Gildea said the Board should seriously consider the potential water problem in the area. He said homeowners in Ivy Farm had to drill extremely deep wells in order to obtain minimum water flow, and suggested that additional wells in the immediate area might cause the already existing wells to run dry. Another point noted by Mr. Gildea is the overcrowding of the area school. He said that the potential for 15 or more additional students would worsen an already bad situation. He noted the inadequacy of Route 658 and the dangerous situations it would create having the additional traffic created by this additional development. Lastly, he said Dr. Hurt was breaking his promise to homeowners in Ivy Farm Subdivision to retain the rural character of the area and keep large wooded lots in surrounding developments He said this last point was a matter of ethics, but he hoped Dr. Hurt would show good faith and fulfill his promises. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors is bound by the laws of the County and asked Mr. Gildea precisely what he and the other property owners are asking the Board of Supervisors to do; deny the the plat approval or only revealing the problems so County ordinances may be changed to prevent similar happenings in the future. Mr. Gildea said he wished to see both. September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Next to speak was Mr. William A. Edgerton who stated he sent a letter to Mr. Tucker with copies to each Board member regarding this plat. He said he felt this plat was impossible to evaluate in its present form, as it only represents a quarter of the total parcel. He then presented a petition to the Board containing nine signatures of adjacent property owners which states "We the undersigned, adjoining property owners to the Milkey Tract, hereby urge the Board of Supervisors to require that a preliminary plan for the entire tract be submitted to the County of Albemarle for review prior to the approval of the five-lot subdivision before you for consideration on the 10th of September, 1980. We oppose the five lots as proposed on the final plat currently before the County." Dr. John Kattwinkel, Mrs. Jane Gloeckner and Dr. Henry Weinschenk, all property owners in the Ivy Farm Subdivision said they supported the statement made by Mr. Gildea. Next to speak was Mr. Jim Hill, representing Virginia Land Company, developer of the Milkey Tract. Mr. Hill said there is already a precedent for two-acre lots in the area of Ivy Farm Subdivision, and to place two-acre lots on the Milkey Tract would be compatible with present development. Dr. Iachetta asked the approximate distance from Ivy Farm Subdivision to Garth Road. Mr. Hill said approximately one-half mile, but citizens from Ivy Farm Subdivision thought it more like one mile. Mr. Jim Fernald, a resident living on Ivy Farm Drive said the two-acre lots mentioned by Mr. Hill have substantial road frontage, and that is his main concern. Mr. Fernald suggested reducing the number of lots fronting on Ivy Farm Drive to four rather than the five proposed. Mr. Fisher then declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Tucker said that a precedent has been set by the Planning Commission to require a preliminary plat on certain large tracts in order for the Commission to envision the entire impact of the total development. He added that it is wise many times for the applicant to do such a preliminary plat, because it saves the expense of redoing the~final plat if changes are required. Dr. Iachetta questioned condition iA requiring County Engineer and Virginia Depart- ment of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans for Willis Road for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. Dr.~Iachetta asked how this could he required, when all that is shown of Willis Road on this plat is an entrance with no homes fronting on it. Mr. Tucker said the requirement is for the entrance to be made acceptable for the future accommodation of a road into the state system~for the remainder of the tract. Mr. Fisher asked if it could be required to have lots three_and four front on Willis Road rather than Ivy Farm Drive. Mr. Tucker said yes; he thought that could be required. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt it would be beneficial to take the entrance of lot one off Route 658. Mr. Tucker said the only way he could see that happening would be.to redivide the entire parcel or require an easement from Willis Drive down to lot one. Mr. St. John said the Board has the authority and power to require the applicant to redraw the entire plat showing no additional access onto Ivy Farm~Drive or_State Route 658. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to~'deny this plat with the suggestion that the applicant resubmit the plat showing only one entrance for the.property on Ivy Farm Drive. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. McCann said he could not_support the motion since the plat already meets all of the requirements of the Subdivision 0rdinance. Mr. Jim Hill said the plat presented is within the requirements of the law, and said the Board is trying to create stumbling-blocks for the developer° Mr. Lindstrom said he would clarify the motion further stating that all lots shall enter in such a way that there is only one entrance on Ivy Farm Drive and no entrances onto State Route~658 or.other state roads. Roll was called and the motion to deny carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom.~ NAYS: Mr. McCann ...... ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Proposed~.Gold and SilYer. Ordinance. Mr. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney, was~present. He said he.~was requesting consid- eration of this ordinance because of the recent rash of burglaries involving the theft of gold and silver. Mr. Dorrier said the recent high prices on these valuable metals has encouraged the increased thefts. Mr. Dorrier said he has received copies of model ordinances from the Attorney General's office and from Spotsylvania County and modeled his proposed ordinance to fit Albemarle County's needs. He suggested that the ordinance be adopted as an emergency measure today. Sheriff George Bailey said he has come.across thefts as small as one piece of silver to as large as $8,000. Sheriff Bailey said another problem is when he is able to trace a stolen piece to a dealer, most times the dealer has already destroyed the piece. He suggested this ordinance be designed after an ordinance regulating pawn shops which requires the owners to keep the piece, in tact, for a certain period of time before it can be~.resold, broken~_down~or melted ....... Board members stated their concern that the proposed ordinance seemed~to cover itinerant merchants only, and did not require any record keeping or holding of merchandise by dealers with an established address. Mr. Fisher asked if an emergency.~really existed in Albemarle County whereby ~the Board should adopt this proposed ordinance today. Mr. Dorrier and Sheriff Bailey said technically there is not an emergency in~Albemarte~County, but they would like to see the ordinance adopted as soon as possible. ~. It was the concensus of the Board that they did not wish to adopt this ordinance on an emergency basis, and motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to set October 8, 1980 as the date to hold a public hearing on this ordinance. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Dr. Iachetta commented that since the Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff agree that there is no real emergency in Albemarle County, he did not want to abuse the use of adopting emergency ordinances in this case. Roll was called and the motion to set October 8, 1980 to hold public hearing on an ordinance to regulate the purchase and sale of gold, silver, platinum and gems in Albemarle County, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. None. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. 272 September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 17. ?resentation of Virginia Community Diversion Incentive Act. Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Commonwealth's Attorney, was present, and summarized his memorandum of September 4, 1980, as follows: "The 1980 Session of the Virginia General Assembly adopted the Community Diversion Incentive Act. The General Assembly allocated one million dollars to the program during the 1980-82 biennium. The Act enables counties and cities, or combinations thereof, to develop, establish and maintain Community Diversion Programs for non-violent felons who may require less than in- stitutional custody, but more than probation supervision. This legislation will allow local government, the judiciary and citizens to develop alterna- tives to incarceration which are appropriate for the community and which will rehabilitate the felon. Work release, alcohol treatment, restitution for victims, intensive community supervision and group residential care are a few of the program options which communities could develop. I have been appointed by the Virginia Department of Corrections to a Technical Assistance Manual Committee which is drafting standards for localities that are awarded funds through the Community Diversion Incentive Act. A community corrections resources board will be set up in each community which is funded for this program. The appropriation of one million dollars will be used by the Department of Corrections to fund programs in three to five communities on a pilot basis and if successful the department will expand the program to other localities. I am convinced that Albemarle County should join with Charlottesville and the other localities using the Joint Security Complex to establish a Community Diversion Program in this area. For every felon diverted, $4,000 will be sent back to the locality with the only stipulation that $400 must go for diagnostic screening of the prisoner and the remainder cannot be used for capital expenditures. The remaining $3,600 of funds may be spent on-any program or service that might aid the convict or future felons. I see many beneficial uses for these funds. In order to apply for this program, any locality considering applying for funds must submit a letter of intent to the Regional Administrator for Community and Prevention Services by October 15, 1980. The application for funding must be completed and filed by November 21, 1980. Accordingly, I am requesting the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $750 to hire Mr. Stephen Blair, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission Criminal Justice Planner, for the month of October to prepare the application for Albemarle County and Charlottesville. I intend to request $750 from the Charlottesville City Council for preparation of the application. The potential for the community is $100,000 annually for the Program with a large portion of that money being used for services for diverted felons. This will decrease the pressure on the Joint Security Complex and also on the State Corrections system. I have discussed this program with Judge David F. Berry and he endorses the concept ~and recommends that an application be made by Albemarle County and other local governments using the Joint Security Complex." Dr. Iachetta said he agreed that the program sounded like a good idea, but questioned whether a $4000 return from the State would be a sufficient amount to rehabilitate anyone. He said this type program was too late in coming and too short on funds. Mr. McCann said he agreed with Dr. Iachetta, but added that he would support an appropriation to hire a planner to submit the application. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to hire the planner at a cost of $1,500 to write the application, present that application to the Board of Supervisors for review before submittal to the State, and that this approval be contingent upon the City of Charlottesville joining Albemarle County in paying one-half of the $1,500. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Dorrier requested a letter from the Albemarle County Executive stating the County's desire to participate in the Virginia Community Diversion Incentive Act, which letter would become a part of the application which must be submitted to the State in October. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, authorizing Mr. Agnor to write said letter as part of the required application. Roll was called,~ and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann~ NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 18. Appeal: Berta Jones Final Plat (deferred from September 3, 1980). Mr. Lindstrom said he wished to abstain from discussion and vote on this matter because Mr. Franklin W. Peters, attorney for one of the parties involved in this site plan, is his landlord. Mr. Franklin W. Peters, attorney for Mrs. R. Warner Wood and Admiral William C. Mott, requested from Mr. F±sher a ruling as to whether or not Mr. Layton McCann had a conflict because at the time this plat was approved by the Planning~Commission, Mr. McCann was a member of that Commission and Mr. Peters felt Mr. McCann should not again sit in judgment of this plat. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John for legal advice on this question. Mr. St. John said in research done by his office he has reached the conclusion that Mr. McCann September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) holds a legislative position, and there is n© law which requires legiSlators to be totally impartial or Unbiased in their decision making. Mr. McCann said he did not wish to step down on this discussion, because he felt all his decisions were made with his best attempt to follow the letter of the law. Mr. Peters requested Mr. Fisher to reopen the public hearing in order to discuss the problem of water in the area. Mr. Peters said he had brought with him Dr. William E. Cox of Virginia Polytechnicat Institute to discuss the problem of water. Mr. David Wood, representing the applicant, said the problem of water was thoroughly discussed by the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and by the Board of Supervisors, and the only decision to make is whether to extend the Service Authority lines to allow for public water or drill wells. Mr. Fisher said he realizes the problem, but felt it appropriate to hear from Dr. Cox at this time. Mr. Peters reviewed Dr. Cox's credentials, indicating he is well qualified to address this subject. Dr. Cox stressed that the Board's decision be. based on a comprehensive framework and on the basis of the best possible evidence available as to the impact on the land and water supply. Mr. Peters then stated he had been to the office of the Environmental Protection Agency in Philadelphia, PennSylvania, and reviewed the application of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority for additional funding for diagnostic study of the reservoir. Mr. Peters accused the County of improperly using those funds because in his opinion, there are no actions taken with the protection of the reservoir in mind. Mr. Fisher said for as long as he has been on the Board, the foremost concern has always been the reservoir. He said the Runoff Control Ordinance has been implemented, and a great deal of work goes on daily to try and improve the condition of the reservoir. Dr. Iachetta said as he understood the legal opinion received from Mr. St. John on September 3, 1980, there is no legal basis to totally deny th±s subdivision plat. Mr. St. John said this plat has a right to be approved, and if there are areas which the Board feels are improperly presented on this plat, it can be denied with a statement of what must be done to correct the plat for future approval. Mr. Fisher asked about a central well. for this subdivision. Mr. St. John said the Subdivision Ordinance has a provision for requiring central wells, based on the size of lots within a specified area. Mr. McCann said he would like to see this subdivision on public water'to avoid problems - created with wells. Mr. Fisher said the Comprehensive Plan does not call for the en- couragement of development in this area, which would conflict with the availability of those public utilities. Mr. St. John said the Subdivision Ordinance speaks specifically regarding central wells to serve "25 or more lots of two acres~or less". Dr. Iachetta asked where the closest-water service is located at the present time. Mr. Wood said there are A.C~S.A. water pipes on the property itself. Mr. Fisher asked which side of the creek the lines are on. Mr. Tucker noted that the water lines are on the adjacent property, not the Berta Jones estate property. Mr. ~Fisher said he felt it was time to "draw the line on t~ jurisdictional areas, and~Ivy Creek is a reasonable place to draw that line." Mr. Fisher then asked the Board to consider approving this plat without the requirement for public water. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that the requirement for public water be deleted from the list of conditions of approval (i~e. conditions 1.c and 1.g.). The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. Mr. Fisher noted that Mr. Tucker has requested that lot 36 be added to condition 2 which would read: "Waiver of double frontage granted for lots 2, 36, and 39 through 42." Dr. Iachetta and Mr. McCann accepted this change in condition 2. Roll was called, and the motion to approve the Berta Jones Estate Final Plat with the following conditions, was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. ABSTAIN: Mr. Lindstrom. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met: Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrances, including left turn lane for the commercial entrance; 'Note: "No buildings to be located on stopes, greater than 25%, subject to County Engineer review of building sites prior to the issuance of a building permit;" .......... c. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; de Compliance with the private road provisions, including: 1. County Engineer approval of the road plans~ (approval shall include the provision of street' signs); 2. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements; Compliance with the Runoff Control Ordinance; 2. Waiver of double frontage, granted for Lots 2, 36 and 39 through 42. Agenda' Item No. 19. Amendments: Comprehensive Plan re: Pubtic W~ater and Sewer~ Areas. Mr. Tucker presented a map of the proposed.public water and sewer areas~for amendment to the comprehensive plan, He said this map also reflects the Piney Mountain growth area. Mr. Fisher said considerable discussion regarding this map has taken place at work sessions and hearings· Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to amend the Compre- hensive Plan by the addition of a map entitled Amendments to the..Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas dated September 10, 1980; said map showing water and sewer service areas· (NOTE: On permanent file in the office of the Clerk to the Board. of Supervisors.) September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Mr. McCann said he wished to abstain on vote of this matter, since he was not present at the hearings or work sessions. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 20. Amendments: Albemarle County Service Authority Project Areas. Mr. Tucker said the map presented today reflects the actions taken by the Board of Super- visors through its meeting of September 3, 1980 concerning the project areas of the Service Authority. Mr. Tucker said the following notation has been added to the map: "Note: Where a project area boundary is indicated to follow a river, creek, or branch, or other body of water, said boundary shall be construed to follow the centerline at low water or at the limit of jurisdiction, and in the event of change in the shoreline, such boundary shall be construed as moving with the actual shoreline. Where a solid line follows a roadway on either or both sides Of the roadway, the service so denoted may be granted to parcels contiguous to the roadway on that side, provided said parcels have been recorded prior to-the adop- tion of this map." Mr. Tucker said a detailed section is shown on the map of the Georgetown Road area and the Scottsville area. Mr. Tucker said he has not had the opportunity to speak to Mr. St. John about the area where the boundary line follows the ridgeline of the watershed. He said those ridgelines were approximated on this map, but wondered if they should not be surveyed for accuracy. He asked if it would be possible to state in the record that that is the intent; those areas in the urban area where the water and sewer lines are con- 'tiguous to one another would follow the ridgeline, then if a plan is received involving this area, the ridgeline could be established. Mr. St. John said this is what he had in mind. Mr. Lindstrom said to be consistent, he would like to see the service area east of Route 29 north deleted. He then offered motion to adopt the map as amended to date with one final correction; delete service area on the east side of Route 29 North (approved RPN plan known as University Village) with the understanding that services will be provided to this property the same as the Board intends to provide service to the Evergreen property under an existing RPN plan, should the property be developed. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. McCann said he wished to abstain on this matter since he was not present at the public hearings or work sessions on this matter. There being no further discussion, roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. ABSTAIN: Mr. McCann. Agenda Item No. 21. Dennis Marcelio: Request regarding Buck Mountain Creek Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Marcello could not be present today, and requested this discussion be deferred to the October 8, 1980, meeting. Agenda Item No. 22. Richard Hughes: Agnor said Mr. Hughes was not present. Request regarding dogs in County Parks. Mr. Agenda Item No. 23. Appointments. Mr. Fisher said an appointment is required to replace Mr. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., on the Clean Community Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. McCann, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to appoint Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom to this Commission. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 24. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonwealth's Attorney for the month of August, 1980 were presented. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann~ NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 25. Statements of Expenses the Regional Jail for the month of August, 1980, were presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and salaries of paramedics and classification officers. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, these statements Were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Na~h. September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 26. the Board's information. Report of the County Executive for July, 1980, was presented for Claims against the County which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of July, 1980, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia-Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund Cafeteria Fund School construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville 1% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Debt Service Fund Grant Project Fund Mental Health Fund $ 1,t71.27 861,194.48 686,238.94 61,386.49 334,664.80 45.36 65,814.15 282.91 291,861.66 3,469.60 338,404.37 6,255.00 157~214.41 $2~808~003.44 Agenda Item No. 27. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of July, 1980, was not ready for presentation at this time. Agenda Item No. 28. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter dated August 29, 1980 from Mr. Charles F. Long, presenting an audit of the Bicen- tennial commission--Queen's Medal Committee activities. Mr. Fisher said he felt a letter of appreciation should be forwarded to Mr. Long for the work he and his committee did over those years. Motion was offered by-Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to forward a letter of appreciation to Mr. Long. Roll was called and the motion carried by the fol- lowing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. None. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher noted a letter received from the Virginia Association of Counties re- questing localities to Send legislative items they wish presented at the next session of the General Assembly no later than October 1, 1980. Mr. Fisher said items he would like to see discussed by the General Assembly are the Hilton Case, the interest rate on delin- quent taxes which needs to be tied to the prime rate. Mr. Fisher said these two items could be forwarded to VACO in the same or updated form as previously presented. Mr. Fisher said a new, emergency item he would like to see forwarded to VACO is in regard to redistricting and time tables which must be met prior to elections in the County. Mr. Fisher said due to the census being taken, it seems certain that changes in district lines will be required. However, he is not sure the present time tables will allow receipt of the census report in time to make the necessary district line changes. Dr. Iachetta asked what was being done with respect to funding of highways. Mr. Fisher said the position taken by the Board of Supervisors last year was to support at least a 2S/gallon increase in the gasoline tax for road funding. Dr. Iachetta said he felt this should be presented to VACO as an emergency item to see if any other localities are receptive to this issue. Mr. Fisher presented a resolution to be acted on jointly by the County and City to be directed to the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.~ for periodic inspection and maintenance of runoff control devices required by the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Fisher said he is scheduled to appear before City Council on September 15~ 1980, and will request their concurrence on this resolution. Dr. Iachetta asked why this is necessary when the posi- tion of Watershed Management Official is jointly funded by the City and County. Mr. Fisher said no agreement has yet been reached as to who will handle inspection and main- tenance of these devices. Mr. Fisher said it is assumed from this resolution that the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will pay for the inspections and maintenance required. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to adopt the following joint resolution: WHEREAS, the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir was built in 1966 by the City of Charlottesville to provide public water for residents of the urban area; and WHEREAS, the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority was formed in 1972 by a joint resolution of the County and the City for the purpose of maintaining facilities to supply drinking water to both communities; and WHEREAS, the South Rivanna Reservoir has developed sedimentation and eutrophication problems; at least partially caused by runoff from developed lands in the watershed; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County has enacted a Runoff Control Ordinance to reduce the detrimental effects of development in the watershed; and 278 September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) WHEREAS, the Runoff Control Ordinance requires the construction of certain devices for the protection of public drinking waters and the long- term effectiveness of these devices is vitally dependent on the uniform maintenance and replacement of said devices; and WHEREAS, there has been no agreement between the County of Albemarle and the City of Charlottesville as to the method of inspecting and main- taining these devices; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council do hereby request the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to initiate and to proceed with a program for the periodic inspection and maintenance of runoff control devices required by the Runoff Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. Mr. Lindstrom commented that ideally the original developer of the runoff control device for each development should maintain their own devices, but since properties change hands so frequently, there-would be-no way to assure that maintenance is taking place. Dr. Iachetta said he would not like to see this inspection and maintenance become a general "tariff" on the citizens of the county. Roll was then called and the resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher said he has been reappointed by the president of the National Association of Counties for the fourth year as Chairman of the Land Use and Growth Management Steering Committee. Mr. Agnor said the County had recently been notified that it is eligible for a Section 8, Moderate Rehabilitation Grant, from the Virginia Housing Development Authority. This represents an increase to 25 units. Mr. Agnor noted that a contract on this grant will be coming back to the Board for approval at a later date. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of letter notifying of the intent to increase rates from Lynchburg Gas Company. Hearing to be held on October 16, 1980 in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from the State Corporation Commission t-hat an application has been received to transfer a certificate of public convenience and nec- essity from Merchants' Storage Company of Virginia to Student Services, Inc. Public hearing to be held on September 3, 1980 at 11:00 a.m., in Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from the State Corporation Commission of the intent to increase rates for the Potomac Edison Company. Public hearing to be held on August 10, 1981, in Rimhmond, Virginia. Agenda Item No. 29. Adjournment. Mr. Fisher said several Board members would be leaving this meeting to attend a dinner meeting with the Governor at the Mount Vernon Motel. He asked Mr. St. John if the Board should adjourn or recess and reconvene at the Motel. Mr. St. John said since a quorum would be present at the Governor's meeting, a recess would be appropriate. At 5:39 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the Board in recess, stating that the meeting would reconvene at the Mount Vernon Motel at 6:30 P.M. At 7:55 P.M., Mr. Fisher declared the meeting adjourned. Chairman