Loading...
1979-05-16NMay 10, 1979 Adjourned Meeting (Adjomrned from May 9, 1979) 307 At 8:29 P.M., Mr. Fisher asked for a motion to adjourn in executive session to discuss property acquisition and legal matters. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to this effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened into open session at 9:05 P.M. and immediately adjourned. May 16, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on May 16, 1979, at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Messrs. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Jim Butler. Mr. Fisher recognized Mr. Jim Butler, Extension Agent for the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service for Albemarle County. Mr. Butler read the following letter into the record: "May 16, 1979 To: The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Dear Sirs: This is to inform you that I plan to retire from my Extension Service position here in _Albemarle County, June 30, 1979. I have enjoyed my work with the people here in Albemarle County very much. I have also enjoyed my relationahip with the county governing body~during these years. I have not accomplished all that I wished to but I hope I have made some contributions to a better life and conditions for the people of this.county. I think you and the people of Albemarle have made it possible for me to enjoy some accomplishments that many agents have not had. I appreciate having had the opportunity to work here. Sincerely, (Signed) James R. Butler Extension Agent" Mr. Fisher noted the regrets of the Board to hear of Mr. Butler's resignation. He said Mr. Butler had been named Outstanding Extension Agent in the State a year or two ago and the Board recognizes the fine work Mr. Butler has done for the County these many years.~ Agenda Item No. 3. ZMA-79-06. Liberty Land Ltd. To rezone 485' acres from A-1 to RPN/A-1. Property located on northeast side of Route 250 East and joins the north side of Glenorchy approximately one mile southeast of the intersection of Routes 250 East and New Route 20. County Tax Map 78, Parcels 55, 55A, 55C and 51 (part thereof); County Tax Map'79, Parcels 1 and 2 (part thereof). Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 2 and May 9, 1979). Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has deferred action on this item to their'May 29, 1979 meeting. He requested the Board to defer the public hearing to June 6, 1979. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to defer the public hearing on this petition to June 6, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 4. ZMA-79-09. Eglinton Investment Company. To rezone 32.8 acres from A-1 to RPN/A-1. Property located on the south side of the C and 0 Railroad, and on the west side of Route 708 just south of the intersection of Routes 708 and 738. County Tax Map 57, Parcel 81F (part of); County Tax Map 58, Parcel 11. Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1979). 3O8 May 16, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "Character of the Area This site is open land as are properties to the west and to the north across the railroad. Property to the south is wooded. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends' Agricultural Conservation in this area. Staff Comment The applicant is seeking this rezoning to permit flexibility in development of this long, narrow site. In addition to the shape of the site, topographic features warrant the RPN approach. A deep swale runs lengthwise through the property complicating its development in two-acre lots. Staff recommends approval of this petition for the following reasons: The proposal would be less disruptive environmentally than a conven- tional two-acre subdiVis'ion: Under the proposal, less land area would be disturbed than under conventional.development. In addition, the applicant proposes 73% of the site in common open space over which the County would have controls as opposed to little or no control in a conventional development; Staff opinion is that the development wouId be as compatible to t~e area as potent'i'al developme~nt u~nder~e~Xis'ting zoning: Under existing zoning, eight rental or sale duplexes (16 units) could be located on the property with site plan approval. Considering problems of shape and terrain in subdivision for conventional development, staff would assume the applicant would choose a rental situation· Another reason for the RPN approach is to permit smaller lots so units could be sold. Recommended Conditions of Approval Approval is for a maximum of 16 units subject to conditions contained herein. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with the approved plan. In the final site plan and subdivision process, open space shall be dedicated in accordance with the number of lots/units approved. No grading shall occur within any area of the site until final site plan/subdivision approval for that area. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, road or other feature approved in a final plan are to be located shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state. County Attorney approval of homeowner's agreements prior to final approvals to include use of open space for septic facilities. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic field locations for each unit. All units to be served by a central water system approved in accordance with the Virginia Department of Health, Code of Albemarle County and all other applicable laws. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of improve- ments to Route 708 and commercial entrance. Fire Official approval of fire protection system. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on April 24, 1979, unanimously recommended approval of this petition with the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Stevenson, the applicant, was present. He said his original plan called for quadraplexes and the Planning Commission imposed conditions No. 6 and No. 8. Since it was not economically feasible to build storage tanks or fire hydrants, Mr. Stevenson said he went back to the Planning Commission a week later and amended his site plan to "eight duplexes with individual wells". Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on May 2, 1979, gave unanimou approval of the duplexes with individual wells. Mr. Tucker said the fire official would not oppose individual wells for each duplex; therefore conditions No. 6 and No. 8 are no longer required. With no one else present to speak for or against this rezoning, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher clarified that conditions No. 6 and No. 8 in the above staff report are no longer a part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-?9-09 subject to conditions No. 1 through 5 and condition No..7 of the Planning Commission's recommendation dated April 25, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded tha foregoing motion and the same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 5. SP-79-15. Southern Capital Fund, Inc. To amend the conditions of approval for SP-450 (Buck Mountain Planned Unit Development). Property located on the northeast side of Route 667 and 601 and is north of Free Union. County Tax Map 17, Parcels 5, 26, 26A through 26K, and 27A through 27I. White Hall District. (Advertised in 'the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1979). May 16, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting 309 Mr. Tucker read the staff's report: '~Request: Amend Condition #3 of SP-450 Buck Mountain Planned Community (SP-450) was approved for 130 dwellings on 698 acres (one dwelling unit/five acres) on April 23, 1975. As originally planned and recommended by the Planning Commission, six clusters (53 lots) within the development were to be served by private roads. However, in final approval, public roads were required throughout the development: Condition 3: Ail roads are to be built to State Highway specifications and Albemarle County Street Specifications. The applicant is seeking to amend this condition to permit private roads as originally planned. Staff finds no problem with this request due to the current private roads provisions and recommends the following amended condition (other conditions of SP-450 to remain unchanged): Dashed roadways on the plan entitled "Buck Mountain - Preliminary Subdivision Layout" marked "Received 2/24/?5" shall be Subject to private roads provisions of the subdivision ordinance. Ail other roads shall be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation standards for acceptance into the State Secondary System. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on April 24, 1979, by unanimous vote, recommended approval of this amended condition. .~ Mr. Fisher asked if Mr; Tucker could tell the Board something about the clusters and why this request was submitted. Mr. Tucker said he felt that with the clusters the applicant is proposing, the private roads would make it a much nicer area. He said the "dashed" roads are in the cluster areas and the public roads run with the contour of the land. The public hearing was opened'at this time. Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicants, was present. He said this community was planned with the purpose of preserving as much of the mountain topography as possible. Most of the clusters are located on knolls and private drives would take up a minimum amount of land and disturb less topography~ State roads would disturb a large amount of vegetation. There is presently a Homeowners Associabion in existence and there will be separate sub-associations for each of the clusters. With no one else present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier offered motion to approve SP-79-15 as recommended by the Planning Oommission. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and the same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-79-07. M. O. Whyte. To rezone 2.000 acres from A-1 to B-1. Property located on the northwest side of Route 743 across from Earlysville Heights. County Tax Map 31,. Parcel 14. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1979}. ~ Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "C~aract'er of '~e Area This property contains a non-conforming garage and surrounds "Whytes Store." Other intersection quadrants are in residential use inclUding Earlysvilte Heights across Route 743. Earlysville Green, a commercial development, is directly across Route 743. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Earlysville as a larger Type I village appropriate for commercial development. Staff Comment In the past, staff has not recommended favorably on B-1 requests in villages and rural areas of the County (ZMA-76-20 Walter Radford; ZMA-76-21 Dean Strong; ZMA-76-22 Black Cat Road Assoc.; ZMA-78-01 Grant Cosner), especially when the uses are provided in the A-1 zone. Public garage is a use by special use permit in the A-1 zone. Additionally, various B-1 uses are, in staff opinion, inappropriate to the village scale. As with similar requests in the past, staff recommends denial of this petition. Additional Staff Comment In the staff reports for these two petitions (ZMA-79-07 and ZMA-79-08), staff has referred to four previous petitions in which staff recommended denial. One of these petitions (ZMA-78-01) was withdrawn and the other three were approved. Additionally, all four of these staff recommendations were prior to proffered zoning and in these current applications, staff met with the applicant some months ago prior to the adoption of the proffered zoning provisions. Therefore, there areJ currently three ways in which the garage and store could be made conforming: 1. Approval of a conventional B-1 rezoning; 2. Approval of a proffered B-1 rezoning; 3. Approval of special use permits in the existing A-1 zone. 310 In review of these sites in the field, staff noted that due to current de- velopment, physical improvement (i.e., controlled access; parking away from the roads) was doubtful, therefore, that aspect of a special permit approach would be of little utility." - Agenda Item No. 7. ZMA-79-08. M. O. Whyte. To rezone 0.532 acres from A-1 to B-1. Property located on the west side of Route 660 at the intersection of Routes 660 and 743. County Tax Map 31, Parcel 14J, 14B and 15. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1979). "Character of the Area This property contains "Whyte's Store" and a single-family dwelling. Other intersection quadrants are in residential use including Earlysville Heights across Route 743. Earlysville Green, a commercial development, is directly across Route 743. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Earlysville as a larger Type I village appropriate for commercial development. Staff Comment In the past, staff has not recommended favorably on B-1 requests in villages and rural areas of the County (ZMA-76-20 Walter Radford; ZMA-76-21 Dean Strong; ZMA-76-22 Black Cat Road Assoc.; ZMA-78-01 Grant Cosner), especially when the uses are provided in the A-1 zone. General store is a use by special use permit in the A-1 zone. Additionally, various B-1 uses are, in staff opinion, inappropriate to the village scale. B-1 zoning would make the dwelling on this property a non-conforming use (barring further County approvals). As with similar requests in the past, staff recommends denial of this petition. Additional Staff Comment (See ZMA~79-07 above) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission on May 1, 1979 unanimously recommended denial of these two petitions. However, the Commission did indicate to the applicant that had he proffered uses under the B-1 zoning consistent with the village type character the Planning Commission is proposing in the new zoning ordinance under the C-1 district, the Planning Commission could have supported his application. Mr. Tucker submitted the following proffer which he had received from Mr. Whyte on May 15, 1979: "I, M. O. Whyte, have applied for the rezoning of certain real properties situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, from A-1 to B-I, as set forth in the two zoning petitions filed by me designated as ZMA-79-07 and ZMA-?9-08, said properties being Albemarle County Tax Parcels 31-14, 14J, 14B and 15. Some concern has been expressed as to whether or not the uses permitted by right and by special use permit in the present B-1 District are in conformity with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Under the existing Comprehensive Plan, Earlysville is recommended as a larger Type I village appropriate for commercial-development. The Albemarle County Planning Commission is presently working on a new zoning ordinance and zoning map which would be in conformity with the existing Comprehensive Plan. Under the proposed zoning map presently being considered by the Planning Commission., the parcels which are the subject of these two rezoning petitions are shown as CommerCial District C-1. Under the proposed zoning ordinance, Commercial District C-1 has many of the same or comparable uses by right or by special use permit as the B-1 District under the zoning ordinance presently in effect, with the exclusion or modification of certain uses. The elimination or modifi- cation of these certain uses by right or by special use permit as a condition for the rezoning of these parcels would bring the uses of these parcels into conformity with the Comprehensive Plan as it is being implemented under the proposed zoning ordinance. ~ Accordingly, and pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.1-491.2, I do hereby voluntarily proffer the condition in each of said rezoning petitions that upon rezoning of said parcels to B-1 District the following uses permitted by right and by special use permit under the existing zoning ordinance would be excluded or modified as hereinafter set forth: (1) Excluded uses: 7-1-2 7-1-17 7-1-21 7-1-29 7-1-39 7-1-42 7-1-43 7-1-44 7-1-48 Automobile sales, service and rental. Hotels and motels. Newspaper publishing. Public Utilities: office, equipment storage, dispatch centers and warehouse facilities. Theaters (indoor). Motor vehicles sales, service and rental. Printing shops. Condominiums with site plan approval. Assembly and testing of electrical appliances, electronic instruments and devices, radios and phonographs. Also the manufacture of small parts such as coils, condensors, trans- formers, and crystal holders. 7-1-42(2) Drive-in Theaters. 7-1-42(3) Machinery sales and service. 7-1-42(4) Veterinary or dog or cat hospStals. 7-1-42(5.) Wholesaling and processing not objectionable because of dust, smoke, noise, odors, or heavy traffic. May 16, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 311 7-1-42(6) Mobile home and travel trailer sales and service. 7-1-42(7) Pri~ate educational institutions. 7-1-42(10)Warehousing, light. 7-1-42(12)Unless such uses are otherwise provided in this Article USES PERMITTED in Article 6, RESIDENTIAL GENERAL DISTRICT R-3, in compliance with regulations set forth therein, and such conditions as may be imposed pursuant to Section 11-13. 7-1-42(13)Helistop 7-!-42(t4)Contractor's office and equipment and materials storage yard. (2) Modified uses: 7-1-19 Laundries, coin-operated (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation). 7-1-42(9) As stated, but excluding multi-legged tower structures. WITNESS the following signature this 15th day of May, 1979. (Signed) George B. McCallum, III, Attorney for M. O. Whyte." Mr. Tucker said there were only two uses the applicant did not exclude that are presently allowed in B-1 zoning. They are retail nurseries, and the sale of fire extinguishers which could come under hardware stores. These uses are permitted in the B-1 zone and also the proposed C-1 District. The Planning Commission had no problem if the applicant wanted to make use of them. He said the applicant has limited himself to uses proposed in the new C-1 district which the Planning Commission feels are more suitable Type I village uses. The public hearing was opened. Mr. George McCallum, attorney for the appl±cant, and Mr. Whyte, were present. Mr. McCallum said if all uses listed in the proffer are removed from the current uses in the B-1 zone, what is left are the uses under the C-1 zone in the proposed zoning ordinance and uses contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan. He said Mr. Whyte owns a store and garage in Earlysville. Across the road from these structures is a commercial area known as Earlysville Green which is zoned B-1. In the middle of that B-1 property is the Post Office, shops and a restaurant. Mr. McCallum said both stores and the garage are 40 years old and because they are in the A-1 zone, they are non-conforming uses, so cannot be changed. The applicant would like to rebuild and enlarge them. The garage would be rebuilt and enlarged to a bigger and safer structure. The grocery store (6,000 sq. ft.) is not large enough for Mr. Whyte's needs and he intends to build a larger grocery store across the road. He would like to have another commercial use for the present grocery store building. Mr. Whyte would like to have this rezoning so he can proceed with construction plans. Mr. McCallu~ said the Planning Commission recommended denial because they objected to some of the heavier uses allowed in the B-1 zone and it is these heavier uses that Mr. Whyte has excluded in his proffer. He urged the Board to accept the proffer and approve these zoning requests. With no one else present to speak for or against these petitions, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Fisher asked the County Attorney if the proffer was correctly before the BOard. Mr. St. John said the statute says the proffer should be tendered before the first meeting with the Board, so he felt that the proffer is correctly before the Board. Mr. Fisher asked if the proffer supplants the ori~inal application. Mr. St. John said no, the proffer modifies the original application. Mr. Roudabush said these petitions sound more complicated than they really are. ~he people in the community of Earylsville know Mr. Whyte and know the type of businesses he has there. Mr. Whyte has non-conforming businesses on the property now and he would like to continue those businesses under the proper zoning category. Mr. Roudabush said he has not heard any objections raised in the community; in fact, there has been support for Mr. Whyte's applications. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve ZMA-79-07 and ZMA-79-08 with the proffer set out above. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-79-10. Charles W. Hurt. To rezone 26.002 acres from A-1 to RS-1. Property located on the southwest side of Route 657 south of the Rivanna Reservoir. County Tax Map 44, Parcel 36 (part thereof). Jack Jouett District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress May 2 and May 9, 1979). Mr. Tucker read the following staff report: "Character of 't~he 'Area Development along Lamb's Road (Route 657) is primarily single-family dwellings though a small duplex development exists on the east side Of the road. Several parcels in the area are of a size compatible to RS-1 zoning. Zoning in the Area Properties across Lamb's Road are designated as Planned Community, R-2, R-3, and RS-1. Properties on the west side of Lamb's Road are zoned A-1. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends low-density residential use in this area at an average density of 2.5 du/acre. Staff Comment In November, 1978, the Commission approved the Ivy Ridge subdivision plat (11 lots) on this property with an average lot size of 2.4 acres. Staff May 16, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) In order to develop at the one-acre density under RS-I, one central utility would be required. Public water appears reasonably available to the property and extension of waterlines to this site would permit similar development in the area, should other properties be rezoned. Staff opinion is that th&s request substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval of this petition. Mr. Tucker said on May 1, 1979, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this rezoning. Mr. Tucker said a separate item came up at the Planning Commission meeting which really has no bearing on the rezoning request. An adjoining property owner, Mrs. Peggy Fitzgerald, who is present tonight, brought to the attention of the Commission a drainage problem that occurs on her property. The applicant has graded his property and improved Lamb's Road according to State Highway requirements for a new-entrance to his property. There is a culvert under Lamb's Road and when this culvert was cleaned out and the drainage reditched, the drainage runs across Mrs. Fitzgerald's property. This was brought to the Planning Commission's attention and the Commission requested the Engineering Department to look into this and try to arrive at some solution to the problem.' The Engineering Department has met with Mrs. Fitzgerald and representatives of Dr. Hurt and are still trying to determine what is the best method and whether or not the applicant can do something to correct the problem. At the Planning Commission hearing, the blame was placed on the Highway Department for their recommended improvements to Lamb's Road. As it turns out, the Highway Department is not taking any of the blame; saying the applicant should correct the drainage problem. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Fitzgerald had contacted him some time ago about this drainage problem. He contacted the Highway Department and it was discovered that the Highway Department had never obtained a written easement, therefore, they do not feel it is their responsibility to make any corrections. Mr. Fisher asked what access road serves this development. Mr. Tucker said Lamb's Road. Mr. F~sher then asked the condition of Lamb's Road. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department did not give a tolerable/non-tolerable report on this road. Mr. Fisher said a rezoning to a higher density will certainly increase the usage of the road and there is no mention of this in the staff report. Mr. Lindstrom said if the "rule of thumb" of the Highway Department of seven_vehicle trips per day per dwelling is applied, this will mean an additional 162 vehicle trips per day. At this time, the public hearing was opened. Mr. James Hill, representing the applicant, was present to answer questions. Mrs. Peggy Fitzgerald was present and showed pictures of he?yard taken on March 24, 1979 in which the drainage problem was visible. She said she is only concerned with the increased amount of water draining across her property since the applicant made improvements to the road and started grad&rig. Mr. Fisher asked Mrs. Fitzgerald if the drainage problem was remedied, if she would object to the rezoning request. She said she would not object. Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Hill what could be done to keep the water out of Mrs. Fitzgerald's yard. Mr. Hill said before improvements were made at the entrance to this property, Lamb's Road was only 12 feet wide (more or less with shoulders), and had a bad curve at this point with no sight distance. The applicant contacted the Highway Department for their recommendati¢ and help on improving this road. No pipes were installed, since the pipe was already there. The work was performed under a soil erosion and grading permit and a Highway permit. The Highway Department furnished the stone, the applicant had the stone laid and the Highway Department hardsurfaced the road. He talked to the Highway Department to see if they would participate in trying to divert this drainage. The Highway Department sa±d no, the problem had existed for over five years, the lots were graded wrong when the existing houses were built-and road drainage was not taken into consideration. Mr. Hill said the applicant has done everything that he was supposed to do. He will do what he can to help Mrs. Fitzgerald with this problem, but does not feel he should be totally responsible since he did not create the problem. The problem existed before he bought the property. Mr. Dorrier asked where the water was going before the applicant installed the culvert. Mr. Hill Said the applicant did not install the culvert, it was already in place; but was clogged up. The only thing the app!ioant did was open up the culvert so it would operate properly. Mr. Lindstrom said Mrs. Fitzgerald had contacted him before the applicant started clearing for the road improvements. Mrs. Fitzgerald agreed, but said the water drainage has increased since the applicant started clearing and grading. ~r. F.isher asked if the Engineering Department had made a report. Mr. Tucker said no, Mr. Ashley Williams met with Mr. Hill and Mrs. Fitzgerald at the site yesterday, but has made no report yet. Mr. Lindstrom felt this should be put on the agenda for the next day meeting to see what the Highway DePartment will do to correct the situation. Mr. Dorrier asked if this rezoning request is specifically causing the problem. Mrs. Fitzgerald said the amount of water has definitely increased since the grading was started. Mr. Lindstrom said regardles of whether the rezoning is approved or not, there is a problem in the area. He then offered motion that the Highway Department be requested to prepare a report on the drainage problems, such report to be presented at the next day meeting. Also, the Engineering staff is requested to make their recommendation at the same meeting. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher said the traffic problem on Lamb's Road has not been addressed. He is not ready to take action to increase the density on the property in question, thereby increasing the vehicle trips per day, until such time as some statement from the Highway Department is received about the existing condition of Lamb's Road. He feels the road is not capable of handling any increase in traffic. IS Dr. Iachetta said the Board is worried about the wrong problem. ~ mu~h more severe problem exists because the property is located uphill from the Reservoir and is proposed to be served by septic drainfields. Mr. Lindstrom agreed with Dr. Iachetta but said if the Board is going to encourage cluster development in the urban areas, there has to be some place it can be done. Mr. Lindstrom said he is more concerned about the effect of the Runoff Control ordinance. He does not feel the Board is able to perceive the cumulative effect of the 5% impervious cover exemption; also the effect of the Stormwater Detention Ordinance and how the two ordinances interrelate. Dr. Iachetta said he would like to know where the nearest public sewer is located. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to defer ZMA-79-10 to June 1.3th at which time th~ Highway Department should report on the traffic and road conditions of Lamb's Road; the Engineering Department staff report on the drainage problem; as well as receiving a comparison of the Runoff Control and Stormwater Detention Ordinances. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. SP-79-12. Albemarle County Service Authority. To amend SP-78-50 to increase treatment capacity by an additional 150,000 gpd to bring total capacity to 265,000 gpd. Property located on the north side of the North Fork of the Rivanna River,approximately 1000 feet east of Route 29 North. County Tax Map 32, parcel 5D. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 2 and May 9, 1979). Mr. Tucker said this petition was withdrawn before the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 10. JAUNT. (a) Appointments: There were no nominations made at this time. (b) Discussion of Grant Project Proposals. (Deferred from May 9, 197'9). Mr. Agnor said the Committee, (Mr. Lindstrom, Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Agnor), met on the afternoon of May 15, 1979. The Committee discussed various grant proposals, but will not have a recommendation until the May 23rd Board meeting. Dr. Iachetta said the committee is studying Dr. Lester Hoel's report (Transit Service and Organizational Alternatives For a Low Density Suburban- Rural Area: A Study of Public Transit Options for Albemarle County, Virginia, February,~ 1979) and have also requested information from the School Administration on the possible use of school buses for mass transportation. Agenda Item No. 11. Youth Services Center - Appoint Committee. Mr. Agnor said during budget work sessions, a request was before the Board for funding of a Youth Services Center connected with the Family Service Center. This request was later withdrawn. Mr. Agnor said he and Mr. Cole Hendrix, City Manager, met and asked~several agencies for coordination of youth activities to avoid duplication and overlap of services. As a result, a committee comprised of representatives of the City and County Social Services Departments, the law enforcement agencies, the Juvenile Court, and the City and County schools, under the Chairmanship of Mr. Satyendra Huja, City Director of Planning and Community Developme examined the activities of five different agencies. In February, 1979, House Bill No. 1020, Delinquency Prevention and Youth Development Act, was passed. This Bill provides for grants for local delinquency prevention ~efforts, with a 25% (constant) local match. This funding enables localities to esta. blish a local Office on Youth, which is directly responsible to a Youth Services Citizens Board. The Youth Services Citizens Board is appointed by the governing body and includes elected officials, representatives of public and private agencies serving youths, citizens not. employed by government or service agencies, at least one member who is below the age of 18 years, and a majority of the board must be citizens who are not employed by government or service agencies and who are not elected governmental officials. Mr. Agnor said the City/County Ad Hoc Steering Committee now requests two things fr6m the Board. (1) Recognition of this group as the Youth Services Citizen Board called £or under House Bill No. 1020 and appointment of representatives from the County to serve on this Board (Mr. Donnie Garrison, Albemarle County Sheriff's Department; Mrs. Karen Morris, Albemarle County Social Services; and Mr. Charles Simmons, Albemarle County Schools, are presently on the Ad Hoc Steering Committee) and (t) Authorization to apply for a grant to develop an Office on Youth. (Grant applications need to be filed by May 15, 1979). Mr. Agnor said he had talked to Mrs. Morris and Mr. Garrison and they recommend that the Board not r~ecognize the Steering Committee members individually as official appointees of Albemarle County~ but take the group and divide the appointments among the various jurisdictions in the Planning District in order to have a more definitive group of people and (29 authorize the application for a grant with the qualification that, depending upon the vote of the jurisdictions in the Planning District as to whether a Youth Office would be supported by local monies, the applicat would be subject to later approval by the local governing bodies in Planning District 10. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to recognize the Ad Hoc Steering Committee and to authorize the application for a grant with the qualification that the application will later be subject to approval by the governing bodies in Planning District 10. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and also said he would like to serve as liaison between the ~o'ard and this committee as he is interested in juvenile delinquency problems. Roll was called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Lt , on May 16, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 12. Request from Crozet Volunteer Fire Company. Mr. Agnor presented the following letter: "April 9, 1979 Gentlemen: By deed, dated August 18, 1937, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 237, page 8, Fruit Growers Cooperative of Crozet, Virginia, conveyed to "Crozet Fire District, County of Albemarle", what is believed to be the "old" fire company building. This parcel of land is designated on the County Tax Map as 56A(1), parcel 68, and according to the County Assessor's Office is in the name of "County of Albemarle." I have checked with George R. St. John, Attorney for the County of Albemarle, as to the ownership of this property and it is'his opinion that the property belongs to the County of Albemarle and not Crozet Fire Company. This property is now and has been for many, many years used by the Crozet Fire Company. In the past,~ it has been used for storage of fire equipment. It is, at present, used by the Western Albemarle Rescue Squad, but they will be moving out soon, and the property will again be used to house new fire equipment. At the rate the Crozet area is developing, the Fire Department is having to purchase more and more fire fighting equipment. The Crozet Fire Company, until recently, had thought it owned this property and has shown to own it on financial statements for many years. It has just learned that it does not own it. This letter is to request the County of Albemarle to deed the property to Crozet Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. Yours very truly, (Signed) David J. Wood, Jr." Mr. Fisher said the question is how the County acquired the land and for what purpose. Mr. St. John said he would get this information and bring it along with the deed to the June 13th Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of minutes. February 14, 1979, February 16, 1979 .and February 21, 1979 (Afternoon). Mr. Fisher reported no corrections on the February 14 minutes. Mr. Roudabush had not read the February 16 minutes. D~. Iachetta reported no corrections on the February 21 minutes. Mr. RoUdabush then offered motion to approve the minutes of February 14, 1979 and February 21, 1979 (Afternoon). Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following-recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. '14. Other Matters not on the Agenda. Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter from Mr. Roy Patterson on behalf of Citizens for Albemarle in reference to the hearings on the revised Zoning Ordinance text and zoning map. Mr. Fisher said he has received a letter from Mr. Mike Gleason dated May 15, 1979 and read same in the record: "Dear Gerry: Obviously, I am much more busy during the day than I'd like to be, and I have not been able to make recent Sign Commission meetings. Rather than cause further problems for the CommissiOn, and because of eyer' increasing business and personal responsibilities, I find I must resign. Wfth a copy of this letter I will be notifying Bill Edwards, now Chairman of the Commission. Sincerely, (Signed) Mike Gleason" Ma~ .~6~ ~1.979 (Reg_ular Night Meeting) Mr. Fisher said the Board has received a letter for D. B. Hope, District Engineer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, advising the Board of the public hearing on the proposed location of the McIntire Road Extension to be held at Walker Middle School in Charlottesville on June 27, 1979 at 7:30 P.M. Mr. Fisher said he has not had an opportunity to meet with Colonel Washington of the Planning Commission regarding the status report on the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He does plan to meet with Colonel Washington in the near future. Mr. Lindstrom said he has reservation about the generalized map which is proposed by the Planning Commission to appear in the newspaper. He feels a black and white newspaper print will not be very helpful. Mr. Dorrier said he agrees but also feels if the property owners can see the zoning classification placed on their property, the Board would receive some public comments on the text. Mr. Fisher said he has a copy of a letter dated May 7, 1979, to Mr. Ben Dick, Zoning Administrator, from Susan J. Walker, a Soil and Water 'Conservation Specialist, Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission, giving a review of local erosion and sedimentation control programs. Mr. Henley said a member of the Piedmont Baptist Church had called him to ask that a representative from the Board meet with the Reverend Jones in front of the Courthouse on May 17, 1979 at 12 noon to receive a proclamation from the NAACP. Mr. Fisher said he had already received a call from the Reverend Jones and Mr. Dorrier has agreed to represent the Board. Mr. Agnor mentioned a letter from the Isaac Walton League announcing a meeting on May 31, 1979 and inviting local government officials. The meeting will provide information on the Clean Water Act and related Federal environmental laws and how they influence land use decision making in the State. The meeting runs from 9:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. with a charge of $1o.oo. Dr. Iachetta said the State Highway Safety Commission meeting will be held on May 24, 1979 at the Sheraton Inn in Charlott'esville, starting at 9:00 A.M. Mr' John Hanna and his staff will be present. Mr. Lindstrom said he 'had spent the day with employees of the Albemarle Housing Improvemen Program nailing sheetrock and feels that AHIP would like to have other Board members volunteer their help. Agenda Item No. 15. Dr. Iachetta moved at 9:45 P.M. to adjourn this meeting to May 23, 1979, at 1:30 P.M., in the Board Room. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. May 23~ 1979 (Adjourned Day Meeting) ~p~frman An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on May 23, 1979, at 1:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from May 16, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., (arrived at 1:40 P.M.)v, Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 1:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Discussion: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Agnor said he had been contacted by Mr. Jim Elmore, Executive Director of JABA, to have the Board cosponsor this annual meeting, which in previous years has been held on a regional basis with very little participation. This year JABA is holding meetings in each participating Jurisdiction of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District in order to get more comments from elderly citizens. Mr. Elmore was not at the meeting, but Mrs. Debbie Willis, staff member of JABA, gave the background of services and activities of JABA. Mrs. Willis noted some of the services and activities available to the senior citizens of Albemarle County. Transportation for shopping, doctor appointments, and a nutrition program are provided through JAUNT. Outreach service is provided for either home visits or visits to the JABA office for help with problems. Community service days are held at the nutrition sites so senior citizens can get help at one location for.different problems or needed services. Para-legal services are provided for aid in Social Security questions and the writing of wills or other legal matters that are not criminal in nature. Home ~e May 23, 1979 (Adjourned Meeting) (Adjourned from M_a~. 16= 1979} . . _ service is provided for help doing light chores or for personal care for the temporarily homebound senior citizen. Housing assistance is available to help elderly persons locate low-cost housing. The nutrition program is a service that provides hot meals three times a week. The Friendly Visiting program has many student volunteers who visit home bound citizens. The I.D. program has issued cards to about 10,000 senior citizens and a large number of the merchants in the area now give discounts to these card holders. There is now a full-time retired person soliciting more merchants for participation. Recreational and volunteer opportunities are provided through the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, but more volunteers are needed. Mrs. Willis then asked the senior citizens who were present for their ideas and comments about the services and activities provided or for additional needed services. There were about 25 senior citizens present. The concensus of the' comments was for more transportation services and the need for more time to shop. Mrs. Brenda Arrington, staff member of JABA, said JAUNT's cost per ride is already high and JAUNT cannot supply additional services without adding more buses, which would increase the cost of the fare. Mrs. Marcella Washington, senior citizen from Esmont, and Mrs. Beatrice Monroe, senior citizen from Howardsville, would like to have at least two hours to shop. They agree that one hour is not enough time to shop when most of the hour is spent waiting in the check out line. Mr. Fisher thanked Mrs. Willis, staff members of JABA, and the senior citizens for their interest and concerns for the elderly. He said he has seen an increase in services and activities designed with the elderly in mind over the past several years. Mr. Lindstrom said he, as one member of the Board, would be very glad to give senior citizens any help he could. Mr. Dorrier said he feels the nutrition program in Esmont is a big improvement and has created a community spirit. The Board recessed at 2:20 P.M. and reconvened at 2:28 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Discussion: Lane Building Renovation Plans. Mr. Agnor said the preliminary design work on the Lane Building is finished in terms of the floor plan layouts and the approvals needed from the State for the Social Services Departme The project is ready for the final design stage but the cost is considerably higher than originally estimated. Although the County has resources with which to finance this project without incurring indebtedness, the project cannot be financed entirely from Federal Revenue Sharing funds. There will have to be some funds taken from the General Fund. Public hearing on the five-year capital improvement budget has been deferred until August in order to give the school division more time to develop their cost estimates. This causes a problem in the timing for the Lane project because inflationary costs are projected at one per cent per month. There is-also the problem of renewing leases for agencies presently in the building and moving County offices out of rented properties. Mr. Agnor distributed the following memo dated May 23, 1979, outlining differences in costs of the project: "Re: Lane Project Cost Estimates The following summary of cost comparisons between the feasibility report and the preliminary design estimates are provided to indicate the differences: Site Work The feasibility report estimated $15,000 for repaving the parking lot and repairing existing sidewalks-. The site plan design includes the following new items: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Grading new parking area and west road Relocating entrance off McIntire Road Drainage improvements Employees outdoor lunch area Seeding, landscaping Installing gas pump and tank Erosion control Paving, striping, walkways Possible cuts Total Net $ 4,193 1,330 14,926 7,000 20,961 3,000 3,000 $ 54,410 36,529 $ 90,939 - 27,659 $ 63,280 Demolition Feasibility report estimated $7,400 for locker and ceiling tile removal. Floor plan design includes the following new items: East and west stairs Existing partitions and equipment Bearing wall penetrations Window removal Locker removal Sub Total Total $ 3,475 9,760 7,500 $ 20,735 16,150 8,000 $ 44,885 Building Exterior The feasibility and preliminary design report compare as follows: .t.