Loading...
1980-03-05March 5, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from February 28, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, ¥irginia held on March 5, 1980, at 2:00 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Buildi~ Charlottesvill-e, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from February 28, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Lindstrom (Arrived at 2:16 P.M.) and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officer Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 2:02 P.M. by the Chairn Agenda Item No. 2. Work Sessioon 1980-81 Budget. Mr. Agnor presented the following categories of the 1980-81 Budget: Fire Department. Mr. Julian Taliaferro, Chief, was present. Mr. Agnor noted typographical error on page 101 of the fire department's budget in the recommended said amount to be $255,493 instead of $255,943. Magistrate's Office. Mr. Doug Hudson, Magistrate, was present. Code Enforcement. Mr. Robert Vaughn, Director of Inspections, was present. Mr. Fisher asked if the fees collected for issuance of building permits are s% to cover the departments operational costs. Mr. Agnor said they are. Mr. Fisher when'this department was initiated, it was on the assumption that the operational would be derived from the inspection fees and permits. He felt an adjustment in t~ should be considered if there is a significant difference between the two figures. Fisher said business people at Fashion Square have commented on the excellent job inspections department had done. Social Services. Ms. Karen Morris, Director, was present. Mr. Fisher said he did not understand changes in the Food Stamp Program. Ms. said the biggest change is the elimination of the purchase requirements. In the p~ a particular household was eligible for $100, they might have to pay $50.00 for thc and in return get $100.00 in value. This has now been changed and the household dc have to pay money to receive food stamps. On the above example, the household wou] receive $50.00 in food stamps. She noted regulations in ~the program have also char great deal. Ms Morris felt the biggest change is a requirement for the department more outreach and documentation. Regional Jail. Mr. John McMahan, Jail Administrator, was present. Mr. Agnor noted the Michie Bill has a great bearing on this budget. The jail had requested three new positions but the recommended budget only shows one. Mr. said he did not feel the State would a~rove three. However. if more than one is March ~ ~98P ~Afternoon Meeting--_~ourned f~om Febru~a~ ~er of the Code shall be in an amount up to 75~ of the total program budget for ~nd other operating expenses including the lease of facilities. Each county and Lcipating in a program funded by an approved grant must be represented on a youth ~itizen board. Responsibilities of the youth services citizen board are as Assist community agencies and organizations in establishing and modifying programs and services to youth on the basis of an objective assessment of the community's needs and resources. Evaluate and monitor community programs and services to determine their impact on youth. Provide a mechanism whereby all youths and their families with needs for services will be linked to appropriate services. Attempt to resolve agency policies and procedures that make it difficult for youths and their families to receive services. Actively participate with community representatives in the formulation of a comprehensive plan for the development, coordination and evaluation of the youth services program and make formal recommendations to the governing body at least annually concerning the comprehensive plan and its implementation during the ensuing year. Lgnor said this request would consolidate the present Youth Service Center, ~Youth Youth Service Council (all located in the City of Charlottesville). The Youth inter is currently funded a DJCP grant which expires in May, 1980. Application it under Section 53-337 would fund 75% of a proposed budget of $48,296; the · the City both paying 12.5% of the match. The County's share of this item would Mr. Agnor said he is not opposed to funding the program, but did not recommend .nce it is a new program this year for the County. Ruth Wadlington was present to appeal the County Executive's recommendation for rig. She said a grant application must be submitted to the Department of Corrections The Office on Youth would be a central agency and she feels it is needed ~ere are numerous groups in the area working on youth. She then noted that if agrees to fund this program, a resolution must be enacted creating a youth itizen board. Dr. Iachetta asked what ser¥ices would be provided by this agency. · said~she has proposed that the office provide information and referral on youth~ .vailable in the City and County; provide public education and information to the ~e needs of youth and the available services; conduct biennial needs and resources , including an inventory of current programs and an in-dePth analysis of the outh in the community; prepare an annual delinquency prevention action plan; working agreements among agencies delineating the methods of coordination and n; and make recommendations to the local governing bodies and serve as a public 'or the needs of youth. Dr. Iachetta asked if these services would be directed 'd youth in the urban area. Ms. Bodkin felt the rural areas would be covered as Iachetta asked what age group would be covered by these services. Ms. Bodkin hild under the age'of 18. She also noted that no agency is presently working .ren under the age of 10. Dr. Iachetta said he did not feel it is the responsibility to fund such a program, particularly for children under 10. isher asked if the local share is needed as a match before state funds can be f state funds are available without the County's share. Ms. Bodkin said the s are not available without local funding. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that this deferred until'the last work session on the budget. March 5, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from February 28, 1980) M~Fisher recommended the changes be accepted. Motion was then offered by Dr. Ia¢ seconded by Ms. Nash, to this effect. Roll was called and the motion carried by t~ following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Planning. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, was present. Volunteer Fire Companies. Mr. Agnor said actual requests were not received f~ fire companies. In conversations with some of the Fire Companies, several have ex~ a concern that the number of contributions diminish as the County increases its le~ support. Mr. Fisher asked if any response had been received from the Jefferson Col Fireman's Association. Mr. Agnor said no. Mr. Roudabush said he has not heard an5 Dr. Iachetta felt the fire companies were pleased with whatever support they recei~ However, he was concerned about the increase of fuel costs and the impact of such c fire companies. He asked if there is anything the County can do to help offset th~ and recommended $500.00 be added to each fire company contribution to offset the i~ fuel costs. Mr. Henley felt the Board should wait until the fire companies have r~ such. He also noted that the Crozet Fire Department is satisfied with the recomme~ funding. Mr. Roudabush asked if the County could aid the fire companies by allowi~ to purchase gas through the County's purchasing department. Mr. Agnor said he wou] investigate the matter and respond next week. Rescue Squads. Charlottesville/Albemarle Rescue Squad. Mr. Tom Dunn, Vice-President, was pr~ He noted problems~with the increased cost of gasoline and that the'fund raising go~ harder to meet every year. Mr. Fisher asked about the proposal for building a satellite station on Berkm~ Drive. Mr. Dunn said funds have been set aside for this and plans are to move-for~ with the building. However, they are currently trying to obtain information on tht .of the roadway at the McIntire interchange. Dr. Iachetta was puzzled because he ti the County bought the parcel of land on Berkmar Drive for the building of a satell: Route 29 North. He did not feel waiting for a decision on McIntire Road was logic; Dunn said the rescue squad hopes to have fifty percent of the building costs on ha] the building is started. Mr. Fisher said when the request was made to purchase la] the satellite station, the Board approved the request because they felt it was an: need in that area. Mr. Dunn said he would convey this concern to the squad member~ Agnor asked if the rescue squad is exempt from gasolinE taxes. Mr. Dunn said disc' are now being held with the state on such. Scottsville. Ms. Anne Hershey, President, was present. Mr. Agnor said in looking at the recommended amount of $7500 it appears the C. support has been reduced. However, such is not the case because of an appropriati. during the year of $8,160. He said the staff feels that Western Albemarle and Sco' both being new squads, need a little extra boost. He then noted that the appropri~ $8,160 was for purchase of a new ambulance and was treated as an outright gift witl March 5, 1980 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjou~nad from Febr Lindstrom asked the cost estimate for changing the payroll to the fringe benefit pposed to the~current plan~ Mr. Agnor said every July there is a computer cost g a new payroll into the computer.~ He did not feel the cos~ would be anymore s of the plan. Mr. Lindstrom then asked if there would be additional staff cost.~ n Breeden, Deputy Director of Finance, said a clerk is to be added to the payroll t regardless of this plan. ~ Lindstrom asked the status of the Federal bill affecting this FICA plan. the bill is still in conference committees. Mr. Fisher then extended his appreciation to the staff for their work on the budget. that the list of new programs for which no funding has been recommended should be lable to the Board next week for final consideration. Docketed. At 5:36 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an.executive session to discuss .... ters. Mr. Lindstrom also requested the inclusion of personnel matters. Motion sffered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn into executive ~ discussion legal and personnel~matters. Roll was called and the motion carried llowing recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ~oard reconvened into open session at 6:00 P,M. and immediately adjourned. CHAi~AN March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors~of Albemarle County, Virginia, ~ March 5, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, VJ Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roddabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Geor~ St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. moment of silence. The meeting was called to order at 7:40 P.M. by the Chairr Agenda Item No. 2. Public Hearing: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan re: Communities, Villages and the Urban Area.' (Notice of this public hearing was~publ~ the Daily Progress on February 20 and February 27, 1980.) Mr. Fisher said that the hearing tonight is a continuation of the review of ti hensive Plan which began in 1976. In 1977, a comprehensive plan was adopted for tl areas of the County with only general outlines of what is expected to happen in thc area, the communities of Hollymead and Crozet and the several villages. Since 197 committees worked up detailed plans for those areas. These plans were reviewed~by Planning Commission, which in turn sent its recommendations to this Board. ' After hearings and numerous work sessions on the Planning Commission's recommendations, presented tonight are what the Board feels are reasonable plans for development fo~ 20 years. Mr. Fisher said, the importance of planning cannot be underestimated~ pc in relation to utilities, since the Board must try to undertake funding to support population anticipated in these growth areas. Mr. Tucker then presented a brief sketch of the changes made by the Board sin~ plans were first heard at public hearings last August and September. Neighborhood #1. Plan was changed to delete the watershed area from the urban area. A western by-pass from Route 29 North at the South Fork Rivanna River to the Route 250/29 by-pass was added to the map so that citizens would be aware that this is being considered by the CATS group. Neighborhood #2. Areas such as Carrsbrook, where there is a relatively Iow density, have been included in a new category, "suburban-residential", which maintains existing densities within existing developments. Neighborhood #3. A "planned commercial district" is shown for most of the vacant land which is presently zoned B-1. This district will require a zoning text amendment. Neighborhood #4. Since there is no interchange at the intersection of Avon Street Extd. and 1-64, connector roads are shown between Avon Street Extd. and Fifth street; and between Avon Street Extd. and Route 20 South. Neighborhood #5. Deleted Sherwood Farms Subdivision from the urban area. Also shown is a realignment of Route 631 (Fifth Street Extd.). Neighborhood #6~. Show the Birdwood property for institutional uses. March 5, 1980 (Regular . Night Meeting) ~eartily endorse this position and respectfully request that it be ~ined, approved and formally incorporated in all necessary documents plans of the Comprehensive Plan, on official maps and in the zoning .nance. ~ote that the Planning Department map (generalized zoning map proposal)- ,ased on the Planning Commission's recommendation made earlier that aforementioned western part of Neighborhood #7 be zoned R-1. This · need revision. ~ lid you perchance decide against your aforementioned consensus and . retain the western part of Neighborhood #7 in the urban area, we ~ectfully request this area be designated to have a density not to ~ed 0.5, i.e., two-acre lots minimum with one single-family dwelling, to suit the many reasons we have recited to you in previous ~arances before this Board, not tha least of which is to maintain well-established character of the neighborhood." Paul Cooke, representing Charlottesville Neighborhood Associations, said these OhS appreciate the Board considering the water supply'and support the proposal to .e watershed area from the urban area plans. Roy Patterson, representing Citizens for Albemarle, said deletion of the watershed . the urban area is a goal this group has been working on for ten years. He then rpts from an editorial in a Sarasota, Flordia newspaper to show the Board that it one in what it is trying to do. Babs Huckle, representing the League of Women Voters, read from the following : LOWV supports the concept of preserving farm lands and the rural acter of the county by encouraging development to take place in the n areas, communities and villages where the infrastructure can be ided more efficiently. applaud ... commitment to preserve the character of the individual ages. pprove the removal of the watershed of the Rivanna Reservoir from the n areas. The physical and economic health of both the county and depends on the viability of our water supply. Much of the inappropriate ng presently in the area in question was placed on the land at the est of the owners when zoning was first proposed. ddition to conservation zoning in the watershed's urban fringe, we her urge the Board of Supervisors to consider the proposal of the ning Commission for a buffer strip of undisturbed vegetation around banks of the reservoir. This is a common way of protecting impoundments surface water run-off and could be done in conjunction with the City. western bypass ... does not seem like a wise solution. There are only w hundred feet between the Rio/Hydraulic road arc and the reservoir hich to locate the road. Many steep ravines leading into the reservoir d have to be crossed by the road, causing irreparable damage to the undment during construction. After construction, the traffic would ribute further pollution to the water. March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mrs. Treva Cromwell, Chairman of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Board, the following letter dated March 3, 1980: "One of the goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan is to "conserve the County's environment and the balance of its natural ecology. This requires the conservation of water supply impoundments watershed .... " That paragraph concludes with "These areas should be protected from intensive commercial, industrial, and residential development." The proposed land use amendments which delete "all land within the water- shed of the South Fork of the Rivanna from the urban growth area" would implement the Comprehensive Plan's goals by reducing density and, thus, tighten the County's ability to conserve one of its most valuable natural resources." Mr. Fred Landess was present to represent United Virginia Bank, the contract p of the Garlick Tract,and the R.E. Lee family. Mr. Landess said he had been astound comments that some people should sacrifice their property for the public good. If to live together, certain concessions must be made for the overall good, but to say should be no development because it might be detrimental, and yet not to compensate lack of development, is hard to take. Mr. Landess said he feels the question is, ~ urban area? He said this is a separate issue from how to protect a water supply. water supply is be protected, do so through specific ordinances and if it cannot bc that way, do so by acquiring the property off of which the run-off comes. Urban is as property within an area of high density. The property between Georgetown Road s Hydraulic Road is already within such an area. There is already high density in tk Public utilities are already in the area. Mr. Landess said he understands that Hy~ Road is the next priority for road improvements. The Board cannot simply draw an s line through what is already in place, with this property being right beside that ] say this is not an urban area. Mr. Landess said he understands there will be anot~ proposed tonight and he would like an opportunity to speak after that is presented. Fisher said Mr. Roudabush has indicated to the Board that he has a proposal to make Board has not yet seen that proposal. Mr. Roudabush said he would be glad to make ~Qr~h~mard mpens the public hearing on the other Comprehensive Plan amendment Mr. R. E. Lee, Jr. said he had sen~ the Board letters dated February 6 and Fe~ which outlined his feelings and opinions about the proposed deletion of parts of tX area. He said he feels that areas along Georgetown and Hydraulic roads are urban. is not rural; it has public services available and is already built up. He said t~ protection of the reservoir through the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Lee noted t~ the February 6 meeting, Mr. Fisher remarked in reference to a study done by the Co~ Engineer, that the report basically said this area could not be developed. He said a misinterpretation of Mr. Bailey's report. The study, if applied to the 70 acres Mr. Lee's mother on Georgetown Road, would permit development of 588 units on that Mr. Lee said he had a private study made which supports Mr. Bailey's findings. Us~ is considered a reasonable density, or 50% of Mr. Bailey's usage, and applying tha~ less than 15% slopes on the property would permit four dwelling units per acre. M~ report does not justify calling this area rural. Mr. Lee said he had made no atte~ this property rezoned earlier because, while watching the progress on the new zoni~ the zoning proposed for this area would be compatible with the neighborhood and wi~ plans for development, so he saw no reason to apply sooner. An unidentified lady asked when Mr. Roudabu~h would make his proposal. Mr. F~ the Board did not know such a proposal would be made until about one hour ago, and would hear that-proposal after getting all comments on the map which was advertise¢ public hearing tonight. March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) ~oudabush said Mr. Lee had sent two pieces of correspondence to the Board in the ~ys and asked that the Board reconsider the plan for this area. In the past several Roudabush said he had attempted to look at the total area.involved in this question mind Comprehensive Plan requirements. One of the items to be considered in a Comprehensive Plan, is the trends and patterns of development, and eXisting 3. Mr. Roudabush said he had prepared a map which he feels focuses on some of the that some property owners have. His main objective was that this area be treated ~ntly than any other area in the watershed. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a ~sity zoning for Crozet along with commercial and other types of development and ~zet lies in the watershed. On page 23 of the Guidelines for the RunOff Control are some factors which were developed as a result of the Betz study. These ~late phosphorus, which is the main pollutant of the reservoir, to the sediment the reservoir. The highest loading on the reservoir comes from the Mechum River, ~ns River, and the area of Buck Mountain Creek. The least pollutants come from the area and all other tributary streams. The area being discussed tonight is the Ivy and all other streams, So the impact on the reservoir is less from this area than ~ther area. For Crozet, the Board discussed providing treatment through construction impoundment on Lickinghote Creek, which a rePort by the County Engineer lists as Mr. Roudabush said he had discussed Mr. Bailey's report with him and was told are some areas in the watershed where it might be more feasible to treat run-off it would be in Crozet. He reviewed Mr. Bailey's report on the ability of the ~trol Ordinance to control pollutants to the reservoir and concluded that the linance would permit densities as high as 16 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Roudabush ~d not considered a density as high as 16 dwelling units per acre, but said the make that reflection. Mr. Roudabush said his main point, is that this area be treated any differently than any other area in the County just because it is ershed. At the same time, location of this area with respect to the remaining should be considered in determining whether it should be a part of the urban Roudabush then described his proposed line as follows: "From where Barracks Road with Georgetown Road; running up Georgetown Road until it intersects with Hydraulic owing Hydraulic Road to the "Rock Store"; down to the reservoir; and Rio Road out IA Road." He then described the following properties which are in the area being ?om the urban area: ~alem Apartments (approximately 300 units) ~cks Road Market ~ood (zoned R-3 with an approved site plan for 54 units) Jr property with a single-family dwelling ~etown West (approved site plan for 60 or 75 units) ~ ~etown Veterinary Hospital (a commercial operation in the watershed) ~ Tree (duplex development of about eight units) ~ ~ential development ~an Hills, a fully developed subdivision lee family property £n Store, a commercial grocery store in the watershed ~etown Green (110 townhouses) narle High School Jouett School ~ School ~sed County Bus Shop ~d Parcel Service · Lee office and construction yards ~et Club lyn (A farm consisting of about 60 acres in the residue) (which is the same as United Virginia Bank property) ~etown Woods ~ormon Church March 5, ~980 (Regular - Night Meeting) bank property. Mr. Roudabush said the school property is not available for develop he did not think it ever will be. It does not matter whether the school property i urban area or not, but the location of the schools does contribute to the urban nat the entire area. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Roudabush had referred to Crozet and he thinks there is distinction. It is possible that one impoundment might serve the entire Crozet are that impoundment would be built and maintained at public expense, and might possibl recreational purposes. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Bailey's report noted that there we~ islands of developable land in the watershed area, but also noted that it would ta~ small impoundments to control run-off. The problem of who would build these struct clean and maintain them, was never answered. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks there is significant difference between having one major investment to serve an area such as as opposed to a number of smaller structures which might or might not be accessible maintenance and which would create a spotty development pattern which would not be with an urban designation. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to emphasize that the high density areas whick presently shown as being developed on Mr. Roudabush's. map were created in the days Board of Supervisors had a provinciaI view of the reservoir; that it belonged to ~tk and it was not the County's responsibility to take care of that water. This densit the ultimate recognition that there was a problem that was not just the City's, but County's as well. In that sense, what happened before the problem was known cannot correlated with what will be allowed to happen after the problem is known. Mr. Fisher then reopened the public hearing for comments on Mr. Roudabush's p~ Mr. Roy Patterson, speaking for himself, said the Board has~a serious proposal Roudabush, which Mr. Patterson feels is sincere and reasonable.~ Ho~ever,~ the is.sue simple. Should an exception be made to the rule that land in the watershed will~bc out of the urban area? Mr, Patterson said if one exception is made, there will be requests, and he suggested that no exception be made. Mrs.~ Harriett Mohler said she lives on Lambs Road and would obviously like fo~ to remain as low density because she lives in the .area. It is obvious that the mot the Bank and Mr. Lee are based on investments, but she asked that the Board look bc immediate future and consider that any part of this land that has run-off into the will damage all of the citizens sooner or later.. Just because there is some high the area now, does not negate the fact that there should be no more. She urged thc not to consider this exception. Mr. Donald Nuechterlein said he lives in Colthurst. He said he is mare conce~ this whole question now that he has heard the proposal because he .did not realize construction had gone so far. He said since it has gone this far, a halt should now. Mr. John Knight said he used to live on the corner of 01d Forge and Georgetow~ During the 15 years that he lived at.this location, the whole area overdeveloped a~ feels it should stop. He did not think there should be any more apartments allowed area. Mr. Fred Landess said he felt Mr. Roudabush has made a reasonable compromise ~ the rights of the individual landowners and the right of the public in general. M~ said he does not feel the question of protecting the reservoir is the same questio~ of zoning. Under the Roudabush proposal, an applicant would have to file a plan a~ a certain density. The County Staff, Planning Commission, and the Board of Superv~ March 5, 1980 (~egular - Night Meeting) Eachetta then off~red MOTION that the Board confirm that proposal which was advertise. hearing tonight and which had been tentatively agreed to several months ago. Dr. ~aid that the area in question, to his best estimate, is still largely unoccupied. ~hat if the Board is to err, it should err on the side of keeping this area vacant area can always be made more dense at a later time. lindstrom offered second to the motion and said he feels an additional discomfort Roudabush's proposal. If he were to look at the proposal from the public's point Lt would appear to be a line drawn to include certain properties without respect to Jr aspects of land use, Although he understands and_~appreciates the arguments that made, this exception makes him uncomfortable with respect to future decisions he ~ to make.-~ Also, Mr. Lindstrom said he would not vote to invest public monies in shed to effectuate urban densities. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not feel this area Le for urban development and he does not feel it should be so designated in the sive Plan. Nash said she is troubled by the fact that development has been occurring on ~ Road. If the Soil Erosion and Runoff Control Ordinances can prevent the ruination servoir, and site plans for development have been approved up unti,1 this time, it [trary to suddenly stop. Miss Nash said she would like to vote against deleting shed area from the urban area at this time, and discuss Mr. Roudabush's proposition ~enley said he would not support the motion, because he felt it would be appropriate some land and he would like to discuss the alternative proposal further. ~oudabush said he firmly supports his proposal. Mr. Roudabush said he became the reservoir issue as soon as he became a member of the Board and he wants to see ted. He participated, along with the entire Board, in developing the Runoff ~dinance based on the Betz study. He said he would think of himself as a hypocrite not think that ordinance works. He feels the controls in the ordinance will work astance. Also, he feels the "planned residential" development would be ,effective rea. Mr. Roudabush said he is not suggesting that any of this land be designated ensity greater.than one dwelling unit per two acres until an application is received wed for a higher density designation. Fisher said he will support the motion. He said while there is some existing at in the area, he feels that the area outlined is minimal as far as the kind of that could occur if the area were fully sewered and watered, and roads built. Mr. id he is not prepared to vote for the expenditure of funds to do these things in , particularly if pump stations are required to lift the sewage out of the reservoir He said that now is the time to stop, and he will be disappointed if that is not n the Board takes. Lindstrom said if the concern is about the pattern of development that has occurred st, and the fact that the Board's action might disrupt that pattern in the future, eels the Board will be precluded from adopting the new zoning ordinance or doing that significantly alters the patterns of land use that have gone on in the past. trom said these patterns were done under a zoning ordinance that he feels is and with no respect to land use. If those existing patterns must be respected and o continue, he feels there is no use in the Board attempting to deal with the kind ng proposals contained in the Comprehensive Plan. He said the Board cannot ignore ns that are beginning to show up under the existing Runoff Control Ordinance. That does not deal with the construction phase of development, which he feels is a roblem. Mr. Lindstrom said he supports the motion, which was voted on in an .eeting of the Board to develop a consensus. He also mentioned that the Board had ~^~ ..... * *~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ a ma~ until the March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) Dr. Iachetta asked that the motion be worded so as to include what was discuss in the event that this new proposal does not have any more success than the proposa for hearing tonight. Mr. Lindstrom asked the County Attorney to phrase the motion the Board can act on either proposal at the next hearing. Mr. Sto John said he fe~ Board could act on either proposal and he did not feel any further advertisement is Mr. Fisher said the motion and second are in order, but the Board needs to choose s He then suggested that the Board set this meeting for April 9, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. ~ Courthouse. Mr. Lindstrom said he would accept that change to his motion with the standing that Mr. St. John has ruled that the Board will be free to take up any aps the urban area. The amendment to the motion was accepted and the motion carried bN following recorded vote: ~ AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. NAYS:. None. The Board proceeded to review the Village and Community Plans as revised to ds Tucker said these proposals reflect the consensus of the Board members. For Holly~ attempt was made to separate the employment center on one side of Route 29 and the residential areas on the east side of Route 29. The higher density residential usc shifted toward Route 29 nearer the commercial uses rather than sporatically locatir throughout the residential areas as recommended by the consultants. A question wa~ at one of the work sessions about recommendations for parks in Hollymead. Mr. Tuc~ that the Planning Commission has held one public hearing on the Parks and Recreati¢ and will finish this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan before the end of this fi~ The only material change on the Crozet plan was the location of a collector re Route 240 (near Acme Visible Records) down to Route 250. In the Ivy Village, exist development~in Meriwether Hills and Meriwether North.was recognized and residential the form of low density was'expanded to the west of Route 678. The question of a ~ site was-discussed several times, but no consensus was reached as to a location. ] Garden, areas which are the most conducive for low density residential were recogn~ supPort facilities located at Crossroads. On the Scottsville plan, an industrial ~ shown on Route. 795. No action is needed for the Piney Mountain plan, this plan hat adopted by the Board on January 23, 1980. It was also the consensus of the Board t Keswick, Nix and Esmont/Porters from these amendments. There were few comments abc other village plans. At this time, the public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak fo~ against these amendments, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Lindstrom then offer~ to adopt the proposals for the villages of Ivy, North Garden, Stony Point, Scottsv~ Earlysville, and the plans for the communities of Crozet and Hollymead as follows. motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher,' Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) NOTE: Densities on this map may not realizablm with exis.'..- ing facilities. e,r,~' · .: : [% ~77--~995 Map 8- Comm.~ V of Ho lym;ad March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) ~: De~sitieS~shown on this map may not be realizab!eWithexist- ,'..'.,.,;, % ',, ,,., ,,,',. ~ ,,.,, .,., kD:v:. Key ~'Low Density Res. (1-4 du/ac) OMed. Density Res. (5-10 du/ac) ~Commercial ~Public Institutions May. 9 Cro; et March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) " A March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) NOTE: Densities shown on this.map may not be realiz- able with existing facilities. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN .¢ d/ ..... : ( Key Village Res. (max. 1 du/ac) ~Commercial ~.~ ~.~. Type t Village North Garden March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) ~"~g' facilities. ' -\ .,.. ,,..~ .__..j.,.:'---_-..f~.,~ . .'.,x,..,. ' COMPREHENSIVE PLAN- Ke7 [] Village Res. (ma~ i dulac) Map 12 Type March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) PLAN Key Village Res. (max. ! du/ac) ~ Commercia! ~ Pub!ic Institutions viroD3aentally Sensitive ~ap ~s Type I' Village ,S~ony Point March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) on this map may not be realizable with exist- in~ facilities. CO~HEN$1VE . PLAN Key ~ Low Density Res. (1-4 du/ac) [] Med. Density Res. (5-10 du/ac) Map 14 Type Scottsvi le March 5, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) Not Docketed: Mr Roudabush noted that the Board had received at letter from 1 Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority dated November 16, 1979, in which it was request~ the Board afford protection to the Buck Mount~ain Creek area for two years while th~ engineering and geologic studies are accomplished to determine the feasibility of a water supply impoundment on Buck Mountain Creek. It was suggested that this pro~ might take the form of a building moratorium, special zoning or anyother means th~ felt appropriate. Mr. Roudabush said there is only one sentence in the whole Comp~ Plan which mentions that Buck Mountain Creek may be used as a public water supply. Board has taken no action to date on the Rivanna's request. Dr. Iachetta said wondered if this request should not be considered when the Board works on the zoni~ Mr. Henley said he had received a request from a property owner in the BucM Mounta area to be notified when the Board discusses this. Mr. Fisher asked Mr.,Tucker if this proposal is adequately detailed in the Comprehensives'Plan. Mr. Tucker said i detailed, but 'it does give a basis to do something further. Mr. Fisher asked what done if a property owner filed a plat for a large subdivision in this area. Mr. T the staff would try to get the applicant to redesign the development generalized flood limits of the proposed impoundment. Without the proper zoning i to specifically protect the area, that is all that could be done. Mr. St. John sa else could be done, even if there were a more-detailed plan. Mr. Roudabush said h that what is in the Comprehensive Plan is adequate until the new zoning map is ado Agenda Item No. 3. for nomination. Appointment: South Rivanna 208 Study Program. No name w Agenda Item No. 4. Approval of Minutes for September 19 (Night), November 21 December 5, 1979. None of the noted minutes had been read. Agenda Item No. 5. Request for Increase in Fees Paid to Outside Agencies .fop County Auto Tags. The Board received the following memorandum from Ray B.~ Jones d February 21, 1980: "The ordinance imposing the loca~l license on vehicles was imposed in January 1965 with approximately 10,000 decals being sold the first year. Today, we~are approaching about 35,000 decals per year. At first, all decals were issued in the Finance Department with the clerks checking each person's delinquent file manually and then composing a registration certificate manually prior to issuance of the tag. Today, we send preregistration forms to those persons listed on a Department of Motor Vehicles computer tape. These forms are mailed to all owners that have paid their personal property tax. Although the tape has some errors as to ownership and addresses, and even has non-County people listed, the error factor is relatively lOW. In October, 1967, the Board of Supervisors set a fee of 305 to be paid to outside agencies for sale of these licenses. The fee was increased from 255 to 305 when Mr. Tom Wingfield at the Department of Motor Vehicles was added to the list of outside agencies; other agencies being Crozet and Scottsville. When the Department of Motor Vehicles moved its offices to the present location, Mr. Wingfield was no longer allowed to sell County tags, so the Finance Department began selling these by mail. This has proved to be a very effective program. March 5,.1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) da Item No. 6. Request to Amend the County Code re: Auto Tags. wing memorandum from Ray B. Jones dated February 27, 1980: The Board received re are two changes that should be made in the County Code on ty Vehicle Licenses. First, Section 12-29 should be amended to it compatible with State Code Section 46.1-65(c) which became ctive July 1, 1979. The amendment requires that the applicant all delinquent taxes, whereas the existing County Code section requires the applicant to pay the previous year's tax on the cle on which the applicant is seeking a license. The courts, rneys, and some citizens, were using the old statute to evade ag perSonal property taxes befare getting a license. ad, the transfer fee needs to be increased from 505 to $1.00. 505 fee was established over 15 years ago. The cost of forms, is and labor, as well as payments to outside agencies, have led since 1964. Section 12-32 of the County Code should be led to read in the last sentence: "Such application shall ~companied by a fee of $1.00." ~n was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to advertise for a aring on April 9, 1980, at 1:30 P.M. an ordinance to increase the fee for transfer ~ plates from 505 to $1.00 and at 1:45 P.M. an ordinance to provide that no 1 shall be issued until personal property taxes on all vehicles are paid. The motion [ the following recorded vote: ssrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. ia Item No. 7. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. No other matter was ia Item No. 8. At 10:15 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.