Loading...
1980-02-06~February 6, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from January 23, 1980) An adjourned meeting of the 6, 1980 at 3:00 Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia held on February P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Build Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from January 23, 1980. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr. (Arrived at 4:15 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roud. (Arrived at 3:55 P.M.). Absent: None. Officers Present: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St.. County Attorney; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 3:08 P.M. by the Chairm Agenda Item No. 2. Appeal: Upper Pagebrook Farm, Lots 1-8 Final Plat. (Loca the west side of Route 710, south of Route 708; Samuel Miller District. A portion "Upper. Pagebrook Farm", located near Red Hill. Plat drawn by William S. Roudabush, dated November 30, 1979 and rev~ Mr. Fisher said he appealed on the approval of multiple entz for an internal road to serve th late because he would have abste the plat. sed January 14, 1980.) the Planning Commission decision of January 22, 19 ances onto an existing state road without any provi e subdivision. He also noted that Mr. Roudabush wi ined from this discussion anyway since his firm prel Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Planner, then presented the following staff' "Location: On the west side of Route 710, south of Route 708. Property described as Tax Map 87, Parcel 13D in the Samuel Miller District. Total Acreage: 23.50 acres. Zoning: A-1. Proposal: A request to divide eight lots with an average lot size of 2.94 acr, Reason for Planning Commission Review: Property is served by joint or shared, Topography of Area: There are no 25% or greater slopes located on this proper' Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Between Route 696 and Route 708, Route 71 accommodates 96 vehicle trips per day and is considered non-tolerable. Soils: Bedrock is generally at a depth of more than 72 inches. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Agricultural/Conservation with one dwellin~ per five acres. School Impact: Wilt be slight with a total projected enrollment of six studen' Type Utilities: No public facilities are available. Staff Comment: Staff has recommended to the applicant to redesign the lot lay, showing an internal road servicing the lots; however, the applicant has c] to do this. The plat will meet the Land Subdivision and Development 0rdinance's requirements and staff recommends approval subject to the 1. This plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: ao Health Department approval; Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval; County Attorney approval of joint entrances maintenance agreeme] February 6, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from Januar~ ~ would be inconsistent with the surrounding area since all the o~her developments dual or joint entrances onto the public road. He, as a neighbor overlooking the ~elt it would be more objectionable to have an urban type subdivision with an ad system than to have what is being proposed. Mr. Carter said the property is for agricultural purposes and does not lend itself to any use other than what In conclusion, Mr. Carter said, as both the neighbor and attorney, he urged this plat, with the recommendations of the Planning Commission. ng next was Mr. Tom Gale, an employee with Roudabush, Incorporated. He noted operty is suitable for the eight building lots. The only problem with the is that it does not look very good on paper and must be seen on the ground to .ted. 'ames McClung spoke next. She said the homes will be built away from the road visible from Route 710. The road is lined by trees at present and this request .stroy any natural beauty since none exists. .n Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, spoke next. He said Route 710 is now .ble class because right-of-way was obtained and the road reconstructed about a .sher said his appeal of this plat does not reflect on this owner or any specific .s generally concerned about development occurring on secondary roads, particularly ~re lots, each having separate entrance. He felt the Board's goal is to minimize of individual entrances onto highways. A fair amount of public money has been I get the road in a tolerable class and if every road in the County is burdened ices, a substantial problem will exist in ten or twenty years. Mr. Fisher said ~he responsibility of the County that the parcel does not lend itself to any The parcel was created by previous landowners and approved by the County as a He felt the question before the Board is whether or not the proposed use i-s for the site. Lrter said, according to the Subdivision Ordinance, any denial of the plat must lied by a statement of what can be done to have the plat approved. He did not was any evidence that the proposal will.endanger the health, safety or general the public. He did not feel the McClungs have proposed any more entrances than ltitled to by right. Two houses will be using the same entrance. Mr. Carter ~estion is whether this policy against strip development should render this land He disagreed with the statement of Mr. Fisher that the County had approved the _vision because he did not feel such required County approval since the farm had ~d from a 200-acre parcel to 65 acres. tames McClung said Route 710 was in very poor condition for a number of years and ~ry right-of-way had been given in order that the road could be'widened and She noted that the road is now in excellent condition. ~chetta said he has criticized narrow, deep lots in the past, but no action has ~aken to change County ordinances to prohibit such. Therefore, he did not feel ~n be done about this requirement since the applicant has proceeded in good faith Ls currently on the books. He felt one entrance for each two lots is much better ~ an entrance for each lot. Mr. Fisher said it appears that state highway funds ~ue to decrease and he felt the Board should be considering a policy to limit the ~ntrances onto secondary or major highways. Dr. Iachetta agreed that something ~e done, but did not think this applicant should be required to do something that ~he books. He felt the policy should be discussed when the proposed zoning is considered. Mr. Lindstrom agreed, but was reluctant to require anything F~ebrU__ _ a~¥ 6, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from January 23, 1980) Mr. Tucker felt the problem can be handled administratively. Mr. St. John sai stream does not exist, such condition can be removed administratively. Mr. Tucker this item can be removed from the Board's agenda without any further action. At 3:57 p.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 4:00 P.M. Agenlda Item No. 4. Discussion: JAUNT'S Federal Funds. Mr. Agnor said JAUNT is an aPplicant for Federal funds, known as Section 18 mo for their operational needs. The County is acting as the fiscal agent for JAUNT an actual applicant for the funds. A requirement of the Federal act is that the recip the funds execute a warranty (known as a labor protection, special~ Section !3C warr insure that the use of the funds by JAUNT will not adversely affect any employee of public transportation system in the product area, which is Planning District 10. S County is the applicant on behalf of JAUNT, the County must sign the warranty. Mr. said he is unwilling to execute the warranty. He had asked Mr. St. John for advice matter and was advised that such a warranty is not legal in the State of Virginia. Federal law does allow and provide a waiver procedure which can be applied for thro Department of Labor. The County staff initiated the waiver procedure last summer a paperwork has been returned twice for three submittals and different types of inforl Mr. Agnor did not feel that there will be much success with obtaining a waiver. Th submittal requested information on Trailways bus lines including their payroll, .rou all kinds of detailed information. During the period of time that the waiver proce been going on, JAUNT requested funding from the County for their operational needs the Section 18 monies are made available. It was estimated last summer that the Se money would be released by the beginning of 1980 and this has not occurred The pr has been approved in Virginia and~the money is available, but the Federal governmen not release the funds until the warranty issue.is resolved. As a result of this de JAUNT's expected cash flow problem has not been relieved and their financial situat very critical. A number of jurisdictions in the State have signed the warranty and John contacted them as to what their analysis of the situation was by having signed warranty. Ail of them, including the State Attorney General's office, agreed that warranty requirement is not legal under the Virginia Constitution. The jurisdictio~ signing the warranty either did not realize the warranty was included or toOk the a~ that they do not agree with the requirement but hope no issue will arise because th funding is more important at this time. Mr. Agnor said the City is deliberating th question also. The State Department of Highways and Transportation was requested s months ago to seek the waiver for all localities in the State who were applicants f. funds rather than having each individual locality seek same. However, the Highway' did~not see fit to do this. Mr. Agnor did not like the blanket statement that JAUN' operation of a system would not affect any other public transportation system. He that is a very broad statement. However, from a practical point of view, as some o other localities feel, an issue may never arise~ Mr. Agnor said he has received ca people, basically elderly, handicapped, and rural residents, who use JAUNT and have other method of transportation. He felt the Board should realize that discontinuan~ JAUNT will affect many citizens. From the standpoint of recognizing the severity o~ and the lack of any other alternative, he was inclined to execute t~he warranty reall that it is a Federal regulation which is not applied the same in all states Mr. Al concluded by asking the direction of the Board. Mr. Roudabush said this appears to be a two-edged sword because it may affect security.and job opportunities for many people if JAUNT is~their major transPortati. to and from work. ~Mr. Fisher said it seems that localities that. have signed the wa~ will receive the Federal money and serve their citizens with the money allOcated fo~ ~ion system. He also asked how much money is involved. Mr. Agnor said the ~eing asked for $4,000 a month, or $24,000, until the grant money is released. would be recovered for the period from July through December. Once the grant an annual subsidy of $6,000 is needed from the localities. lash asked what would happen if a bus company was put out of business because of 1. Mr. St. John said the warranty states that the County will reimburse them for ~as not aware of any bus company in the area that would be in a position to be business as. a result of JAUNT's operation. Miss Nash said a bus company in the ~ area has a certificate to operate. Mr. Fisher said the warranty pertains to a in operation. Mr. St. John said regardless of whether or not the County signs ~y, the situation can be called to attention by writing to the Attorney General how to proceed. Mr. Roger Wiley, City Attorney, has already done this on behalf ~. Mr. St. John also suggested communicating with Senator Byrd and Congressman Mr. Roudabush said it sounds as if some bureaucrats do not want to issue the Lss Nash agreed. Dr. Iachetta did not see how something illegal can be signed. ~n said one thing he and Mr. Agnor discussed was signing the warranty under 1 submitting a letter to the State with the warranty saying that the warranty has 1 in order to get the money but the County feels it is being done under duress to protest. This could be done to avoid an injustice of having other localities ~ funds when this County will not. Mr. Lindstrom asked the amount lost if the ~ not sign the warranty. Mr. Agnor said $181,720 for a period of about twenty ?. Seaman said the grant is retroactive to December 1978. Mr. Lindstrom was doing something illegal just because it is the most expedient way to take care ~m. His initial reaction was to contact Congressman Robinson to find out if ~n be done about the situation. He felt this should be written in conjunction Wiley's letter. Mr. St. John said another alternative is to sign it under ~ send the protest to the Congressional office. Mr. Lindstrom asked if signing ~otest was any less illegal than signing it otherwise. Mr. St. John said no. ~sked if a persuasive resume of the situation could be written and sent to the ad congressman and let them talk to the Federal people involved. Mr. Agnor said ~yrd's office was alerted to the problem last summer by a letter written by Mr. ~n, past director of JAUNT. He informed the Senator that JAUNT was applying for ~ of the warranty. The Senator was asked to review the situation. The only sceived was that they knew about the application. Mr. Agnor said he also received 11 from the Department of Labor stating what had to be done to get the paper work ~ the paper work has already been submitted so nothing has changed. There has seal made to the Congressional Office in terms of the problem that the County has ~rranty. Mr. St. John said the Federal office has not refused to grant the have requested more information as to the interworkings of the bus companies in the request for the waiver. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Department of Labor has ~ed that the warranty is illegal for the County. Mr. Agnor said yes. The Department ~s been informed that, in the County Attorney's opinion, the Virginia Constitution llow localities to sign the warranty. Mr. Agnor said the signing by other localitie ~ery pessimistic that the County will ever get a waiver approved. eaman also noted that JAUNT has to apply annually for these Section 18 grant it is unknown if the warranty is also an annual process. As for the binding n, JAUNT, as the operator, has the fiscal liability for any judgments brought, unty. The County's liability only extends under such circumstances if JAUNT's is not sufficient to cover the judgment that was made to an individual. Then, ring jurisdiction is liable for the difference. Mr. St. John said that is still nt debt. In addition to extending beyond the fiscal year, one element that is tional is that the County does not have.the power under the State Constitution to~ to JAUNT. The Constitution states that you cannot impose that kind of burden on rds of supervisors. F~ua_~y_ 6, 1980 Afternoon Me~ting_ (Adjourned from January 23, 1980) Congressional office. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Agnor and the JAUNT staff wor to see if there is any need for the County to take any further action, either to e period of time that the money can be drawn or for the Board to grant an additional of money. Agenda Item No. 5. Report from Transportation Committee: Route 29 North Bus Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated January 31, 1980: "The Transportation Committee (comprised of Mrs. Moon, Dr. Iachetta and Mr. L has reviewed the staff's work on the scheduling of buses on the Route 29 c°rr experimental Project, and the details of its operation. The project is ready for proposals from interested contract carriers and requires your approval pr to requesting such proposals. The route runs from the area of Lake Saponi near the Greene County line to th intersection of Millmont Street and Arlington Boulevard. The northern termin~ connects with a Greene County transportation system. The southern terminus interconnects with the University and Charlottesville transit systems. The subsidy from grant funds limits the initial scheduling to two units or vehicles, and the timetables for headways and travel times keeps the vehicle on Route 29. The system is designed for commuter needs daily from 6 A.M. to 9 A.M. and 3:30 P.M. The commuter runs have been designed around the beginni~ and ending times of employment at the major employers served by the corridor, i.e. General Electric, Badger-?owhatan, Sperry, Stromberg-Carlson and the University. Commuter passengers will be picked up at the northern and southe~ terminus points, at Airport Road (approximately mid-point of the route), and stops will be made for discharging and picking up passengers at the four industrial plants in the corridor on an alternate schedule centered around the times of beginning and ending shifts.. Between 9 A.M. and 3:30 P.M.,. one vehicle will operate as a shopper's service from Airport Road to Millmont Street, picking up passengers in Hollymead near the-Inn and in Four Seasons at the clubhouse, with stops at the Albemarl~ Square/Fashion Square area, Shopper's World and Barracks Road. The grant application described the project with a fare of 505 per passenger. The route is .approximately 13 miles long (each direction). A single fare regardless of the length of the trip does not seem equitable. Discussion of this concern by the Board is requested by the Transportation Committee. The project being experimental will require changes in the schedules as experience dictates. Your approval of the concept and authorization to advertise for proposals from interested carriers is requested." Mr. Agnor said the system will serve quite a few people, but will not meet thc needs in the Route 29 North corridor because available subsidy and the fare may no~ sufficient to run the system. Proposals will be taken based on the expected cost, for operations. The committee discussed whether the County should make arrangemenl Parking vehicles of. those riding the bus~a or whether the contract carriers should arrangments. The consensus of the committee, and he also recommends, was that the carrier should make all such arrangements. The only requirement from the contract will be some specific data collection asking for the routes being operated and the collected. The ffare and the subsidy will be used to subsidize the operation Mr~ February 6, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned from January sher said he and~Mr. Lindstrom~attended a meeting last week sponsored bY'the omen Voters. There were a number of people present,to talk about public, transportat ion. Mr. Fisher said it was brought to his attention that a major industry 29 North is considering purchasing vans for its employees to use. He has representative of the industry of this proposed Route 29 North Corridor project f they would be willing to delay their venture until the County's project has rway. Mr. Fisher said the reason he requested such was because after the grant this, perhaps the industry would consider helping fund-this project to serve yees as well as others. He also noted that a number of people at the meeting ral telephone, system for obtaining carpoot information should be integrated in as to give information about JAUNT. Item No. 6. Agreement to Purchase Electric Service from VEPCO. nor presented the following memorandum dated January 15, 1980: Agreement to Purchase Electric.Service - VEPCO ly 1979 - June 1982 rginia Association of Counties and Municipal League negotiations on of local governments for the purchase of electric service from YE?CO three-year period from July 1, 1979 has resulted in the following RATES PER KILOWATT HOUR Current Revised Difference 2.0645 2.7165 + 0.1125 + 4.3% ase Various 1.3895 Base 4.1055 (effective 7/1/79) 4.4575 (effective 7/1/80)~+0.'3525 4.7085 (effective 7/1/81) + 0.2515 + 8.6% + 5.6% Electric 2.6045 June-September dings 1.8365 Oct~.-May ~7~.~ Same rate as other buildings (Seasonal rate no longer used) +0.8805 +47.9% Oct.-May tes are subject to fuel adjustment clauses above or below the 1.3895 ished as an adjustment base figure. The rates are also subject to tiations during the three year period if North Anna Nuclear Unit #2 .ced in commercial operation. ization to execute the agreement is requested." inor felt this was the only choice for the County but authorization is needed to three-year agreement with VEPCO to buy the power that the County needs. Motion fered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded, by Mr. Lindstrom, to authorize the County Executive the agreement. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded rs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. February 6, 1980 Afternoon Meeting (Adjourned frOm January 23, 1980) Mr. Fisher then reported on a meeting he attended last Thursday, where the Go~ was present, to talk about gasoline taxes for road construction. The Governor said years there would only be enough money to construct fifteen miles of new roads acro entire State unless the gasoline tax is increased. Mr. Fisher said he responsed, o of the Virginia Association of Counties, that the Association would go along with a increase on gasoline tax and the Association wants an outside review of the manage~ efficiency of the Highway Department. The Association does not feel that internal audits could fulfill that need and the Association wants a joint legislative review Governor agreed. Funding for public education was also discussed. The Governor sa expected localities with a decline in school population to also reduce the number o other employees and perhaps even close a school in order to obtain maximum efficien Agenda Item No. 7. At 5:30 P.M., Mr. Fisher requested an executive session to legal matters. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush and seconded by Mr. Henley to a into executive session to discuss legal matters. Roll was called and the motion ca the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. February 6, 1980 [Regular-Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. of Albemarle County, Virginia, w February 6, 1980. This meeting scheduled for 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Cou was held in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia of broken steam pipes in the Courthouse. Present: Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Lindstrom and Miss Ellen V. Nash and Mr. W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, Georg. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. Agenda Item No. 2. Site Plan Review: Albemarle County School Board Vehicular nance Facility. Mr. Fisher noted that Dr. Iachetta had asked that this site plan b, before the Board. Mr. Tucker read the staff's report: February ~ 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) 'ucker noted that on January 22, 1980, the Planning Commission conditionally approved plan subject to the staffts conditions, but added the words ~"with buffer" to l(f) and added l(h) reading: "Show handicapped parking space (if needed)." achetta said he had asked that this site plan be reviewed because he had several about putting this facility into an area-where the Board is concerned with run-off ~eservoir. ~isher asked if there were any problems with this site plan that had not been Mr. Lindstrom said he had a question about the storage parkin~g area and its .n respect to the adjoining property and a buffer along the western property boundary ~obert Vickery, architect for this project, was present. He said this site was ~ause it is the most central site studied, in terms of bus traffic. This site can ~e a fleet of 200 buses without unduly affecting the neighborhood environment since las intense tree cover and can be screened with minimal new plantings. The site has ~ainage although an impoundment pond for run-off water will be constructed. This accommodate the needed building with future expansion possible. The building will ~-through bays with easy access and adjacent parking as well as circulation and a ~ea for all County buses. The site is ideally situated as to functional need, with ~s to County roads. The entrance to this facility will be located directly across ~ew entrance to Albemarle High School on Lambs Road. Tickery noted that the facility will be used not only for school buses, but also for ~ty vehicles. The storage area will be used only in the summer and is located on ridge line so as to do minimal disturbance to the soil~. The impoundment area will ~letely in three hours and the entire site including the impoundment area will be ~he facility will be 160 feet from'the closest house and is 140 feet from Lambs ?isher asked if the right-of-way for improvement of Lambs Road had been dedicated on y's side of the road. Mr. Tucker was not sure. Mr. Fisher felt this should be done s site plan is approved. Mr. Roudabush did not feel this would ever be a problem as ae property is under the County's ownership. Mr. Roudabush asked about the design aces. Mr. Vickery said the fences have not been designed, but will be as close to sf the parking lot as possible. Dr. Iachetta asked if there was any problem ted in providing security against vandalism and theft. Mr. Vickery said there is at possibility when there is a four-acre parking lot, but with any kind of sur- at all, there should be no problem. Lindstrom said he has been concerned that this use is inconsistent with the zoning ea. However, as far as the public is concerned, the facility is probably better at than elsewhere. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to be sure that on the border he closest dwelling,- special care is taken to buffer that corner. Mr. Lindstrom curve on Lambs Road is of concern, but given existing circumstances there is not can be done. Mr. Fisher asked if there were anything that needed to be changed on plan. Mr. Lindstrom again expressed concern about buffering the house on the property, but said he did not feel any conditions needed to be changed. N~o action by the Board. .da Item No. 3. Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department Service Agreement - Amendme~ Agnor said in June, 1979, the Board approved a service agreement with Seminole Trail ~rtment to provide fire services in the County effective July 1, 1980, continuing for ~ ~ ........ ~, ~m~l~ ~w~it ~reed to construct a fire house ~ February 6, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) THIS SERVICE AGREEMENT made this 6th day of February, 1980, by and between the County of Albemarle, Virginia, (the "County") and the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., ("Seminole"), WITNESSETH : Factual Background: (a) There is a need for increased fire protection services in the vicinity of Route 29 North and surrounding area of Albemarle County. (b) Citizens of Albemarle County have organized a volunteer fire company under Virginia Code Sections 27-8, 27-8.1, and 27-9, designated' the Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Department, Inc., which currently is providing fire protection services in Albemarle County, particularly the Route 29 North area and its adjacent territory. (c) The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County wants to insure that essential fire protection services continue to be provided to citizens living in the vicinity of Route 29 North and surrounding area of the County. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants and obligations herein contained, the County and Seminole agree as follows: (1) Services Provided: Seminole agrees, beginning July 1, 1980, and continuing thereafter for a~period of ten years, through June 30, 1990, to construct a firehouse and operate a fire department equipped with apparatus for fighting fires and protecting property and human life from loss or damage by fire. Seminole shall provide fire fighting services for the County, particularly the Route 29 North area and adjacent territory, but Seminole shall be available to provide services to any area of the County as the need may arise. (2) Payment for Services Provided: In consideration of the services to be provided by Seminole pursuant to this agrement for the fiscal years 1980-81 through 1989-90, the County shall pay to Seminole the sum of $200,000, which shall be limited to construction of a firehouse and improvements to real property. Such payment shall be in lieu of future annual payments to Seminole of $20,000 for the fiscal years 1980-81 through 1989-90, Payment of the $200,000 shall be made as needed by Seminole effective this date from a draw down account held by the Director of Finance of the County. Vote: AYES: NAYS: The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the.followir Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. Review of Comprehensive Plan Draft--Final. Mr.'Tucker proceeded to go through the amendments made by consensus to date or village, community and urban area Comprehensive Plan amendments: ~ 1) Deleted area located in the watershed of the South Fork Rivanna February 6, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) ,indstrom said in reviewing some court cases, he was concerned about showing areas laps which, in their present state, are not ready for the density shown or ready for it because of a lack of utilities. If this is due to a lack of sewer and water, the ~ not as great as in areas where the lack is due to roads. Mr. Lindstrom said-he .sed to learn that the Albemarle County Service Authority does not know where all ~er and sewer lines are located and feels that this information needs to be reflected The Board should instruct the staff to pursue this information, particularly with I roads. One of the problems cited in court cases is that the Comprehensive Plan a rate at which growth should occur, but the plan is not tied to a capital improve- ~et in a way that makes sense. For the Comprehensive Plan to be defensible in must be tied to the Six-Year Highway Plan, the zoning ordinance, and a utilities will provide that which can be realized. Mr. Lindstrom said he is afraid the Board ; the Comprehensive Plan maPs and not do the other things which.are necessary to the Plan. ]achetta said the Six-Year Highway plan conforms to the needs which can be projected dollars allotted. When the CATS report is received, it will deal with the metro- ~ea. Ail of the recommendations in the CATS report are based on statistical data ~een analyzed relative to where people now live and where they are going, and where live and might be going in-the year 2000. The estimates in that plan call for $42 road construction, without considering any rural road needs. lindstrom asked Mr. Agnor about the "Utilities-Zoning" study now in progress. Mr. 1 the report will be distributed next week. Mr. Lindstrom said since the watershed ~een deleted from the urban growth area, that will change the carrying capacity of area. He feels it is important that these maps be identified as total carrying caps, since putting "1977-1995" on the maps presupposes that this land will be in that period of time. He felt it should be made clear that the total expected ~ increase for the urban area during this planning period is only 13,600 and these ~lly show the ultimate carrying capacity of the urban area. He said the staff ?k with the Service Authority to identify existing utilities and with the Highway to identify the present road structure so this information can be put on a map in ~uture. Mr. Fisher said the Board had made a big point of asking the staff to put these maps and they have done so. Dr. Iachetta said he did not see a problem, ~hing that happens within the boundary of any given area will happen only if someone invest money. Mr. Roudabush did not feel anything will happen unless there is ~ed. ~ucker said these plans are amendments to the 1977 Comprehensive Plan. There is in the 1977 Plan that says between 1977 and 1995, 13,600 is the anticipated increase tion. Mr. Fisher suggested that the language be repeated in these amendments. Mr. said that the following language is on Page 15 of the Comprehensive Plan under ea": plan has dealt with all Of those lands extending to the logical physical iers to development of the Albemarle urban area, i.e., mountain chains and r river and stream valleys. Within this area, there is a theoretical holding city of 60,000 persons based on densities represented on the plan. It is mmended, however, that a maximum population of 13,600 be accommodat'ed within urban area in the planning period." Roudabush noted that in the "Urban Area Summary" on page 21 of the amendments, the population is only 44,980. Mr. Tucker said that came about by deleting the water- from the urban area plans. Mr. St. John asked what effect that has on the 13,600 Mr. Tucker said it had no effect; 13,600~is still the anticipated increased for the a during this planning period. Mr. Fisher suggested that the paragraph read ~^~-.~ ~ ~o~ o~~ h~ ~l~t~d to the 44.980 ~o~ulation figure. February 6, 1980 (Regular - Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked that the Board discuss Neighborhood #6. He said there was a~ designation for a piece of property at the interchange of 1-64 and Route 29 South concernedhim. He has looked at the property several times. The terrain is steep. has proximity to other areas~which are already developed for low density residenti~ suggested that the designatiohbe changed to "low density" of i - 4 dwelling units/~ Roudabush asked why the neighborhood committee had recommended industrial for this Tucker said those who voted in favor did not feel the land is conducive to residen~ development. Those who opposed the designation did so because of its proximity to residential development. Also, access to this property is by Route 702, which is by those people living on Buckingham Circle. Mr. Fisher asked if the terrain had evaluated. Mr. Doug Eckel said it had not been evaluated in any detail. Dr. Iach~ suggested that the site be given the same kind of analysis that was done on parcel: 29 North. Mr. Fisher said, low density residential is shown on another quadrant o~ interchange and he believes that residential development, which might still be lim~ terrain, would be a compatible use in this area. At this time, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to delete this site as industrial a~ as low density residential. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried 1 following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher; Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush None. Mr. Roudabush said he thought the meeting tonight was to review what the staf~ together from the work sessions held by the Board. He was not ready to vote to adz amendments until an advertised hearing is held and the public has had a chance to ~ changes made by the Board since it began work sessions last August. Miss Nash agr~ Mr. Roudabush. She said she did not know about the changes made on the Scottsviil~ that the Board had voted not to take in the Biscuit Run area until she had talked ~ Tucker. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no objection to another public hearing, althougt the major changes made by the Board had been publicized hy the press. Dr. Iachett~ was inclined to agree with, Mr. Roudabush that because of the magnitude of the plan there should be a public hearing to assess the whole package. Mr. Roudabush then ~ motion to advertise a public hearing for March 5, 1980, on the Urban Area, Communil Village amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iach~ carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr. Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. Discussion: Agenda for Zoning Ordinance Workshops. Afte~ the way the individual members would chair these informal workshops on the propose¢ ordinance, it was decided that no agenda would be used. Mr. Lindstrom volunteered each workshop and make a formal presentation explaining why a zoning ordinance is ~ the County. (Mr. Henley left the meeting at 9:45 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 6. Lottery Permits. Lottery permit application was received from the Brownsville Elementary School games to be held on April 19, 1980. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Ro~ the lottery permit was approved in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for i~ such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: February 6, 1980 ~Regular - Night Meeting) Nash said the Sign Advisory Commission should have its report ready by the end of ~e~commission will recommend that the sign ordinance be a separate ordinance and not of the zoning o~dinance.. The commission's recommendation will be based on .size of not on zoning districts. Nash noted receipt Of letter dated February 5, 1980, from Mr. E.. M. Feggans, asa member of the Welfare Board effective January, 1980. ~Nash then offered motion to appoint.Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. as the Scottsville lember of the Industrial Development Authority; term to end on January 19, 1984. was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: ~srs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Miss Nash and Mr.. Roudabush. Ir. Henley Wisher noted receipt of decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the ~cuit on the United Land Corporation of America, Z and S Development Corporation, Wood, Trustee for the Alpha Land Trust and Wendell W. Wood vs. Hartwell P. Clarke ~ R. St. John suit. He said in reading 'through the decision, he felt the legal a good job of setting ground rules and defending the actions of the Board and · . Iachetta asked if this action by the Appeals Court finalizes this case. Mr. St. the case can still be appealed to the United States Supreme Court or a rehearing ~m the Fourth Circuit. ~isher said in an issue of the Civil Digest there is an opinion that mandatory water hook-ups are requirements of the water and sewer authority and not of local govern- must be enforced by that authority. Mr. St. John said the Code of Virginia require~ ~e an authority can enforce Such a policy, the local governing body must concur in )n. Item No. 9. At 9:55 P.M., the meeting was adjourned.