Loading...
1979-04-18A 258 April 18, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from April 11, 1979) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, wa.s held on April 18, 1979, at 1-:30 P.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from April 11, 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. Officers Present: County Attorney. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:40 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Mr. Fisher said the resolution adopted by the Board on April 11, 1979 on the Route 29 and Route 20 projected priorities has been sent to~ the Richmond Stat,e Highway Office for consideration. He then introduced a new employee in the Office of the Clerk to the Board, Ms. Dorothea Govoruhk. Agenda Item No. 2. Appeal: General Electric Addition Site Plan. Mr. Fisher read the following letter from Mr. Roudabush dated April 6, 1979: "I hereby request that the site plan for the General Electric Addition on Route 29 North, approved by the Planning Commission on MarCh 27, 1979, be brought to the Board of Supervisors for review. My concern is with the word'ing of Condition No. 2. I have asked the Clerk to place this review on the Board's agenda of April 18, 1979 at 1:30 P.M." When discussing this with Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, Mr. Roudabush said it was the feeling that Condition #2 did not accurately state the r.eal intent of the Planning Commission. Also, since the Board has received a request from General Electric to operate a modular sewage treatment plant, this should also be considered at this time since Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, has expressed concern about the request. Mr. Tucker then presented the following staff report: "Location: Between Route 29 North and Route 606 just south of Route 763. Acreage: 41.5 acres Zoning: M-1 History: The Planning Commission approved the original site plan on January 3, 1978, and an amended plan on June 13, 1978. Proposal: Addition of office, laboratory, training center and parking. Staff 'Comment: Staff has no problem with these proposed amendments, although the method for treatment of sewage has not been determined as yet." Mr. T~ker said the Planning Commission at ~their meeting on March 27, 1979, recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1.A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Location of fire hydrants on site plan as recommended by Fire Prevention Officer; b. Staff approval of amendment to Landscape Plan; 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Approval of appropriate agencies of sewage treatment facilities. Mr. Tucker said the concern of the Service Authority was that the proposed treatment facility be temporary and approval of such facility be conditioned in such a way that General Electric would connect to the Camelot Plant when the capacity is available. Agenda Item No. 3. tr~eh~t plant. Request from General Electric Company to operate a modular sewage Mr. Fisher noted the following letter dated March 22, 1979 from Mr. Fred S. Landess: "This letter constitutes an application by the General Electric Company for 'the approval of the Board of Supervisors for the location on the ~property of thee General Electric Company, lying between U.S. Route 29 North and State Route 606, of a modular sewage treatment plant with a capacity to treat up to 25,000 gallons of Sanitary sewage discharge. It is anticipated that this plant will ser~e only the General Electric Company Plant, the first phase of which is now located on such property and the second phase of which is presently being designed, and will be a temporary usage until such time as public sewer is reasonably available to the property." Mr:~ E. E. Thompson, Jr., Executive-Director, Albemarle County Service Authority, presented the following letter dated April 6, 1979: "The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors has asked t~e Albemarle County Service Authority to state their position concerning a letter from Fred Landess, attorney for General Electric Company, dated March 22, 1999, requesting Board of Supervisors approval for a modular sewage treatment plant on the GE property. I understand the Board of Supervisors will consider this matter at their meeting on April 18, 1979. Although I cannot speak for the Board of the Service Authority, which does not meet until April 12, 1979, I do have the following comments. By letter dated December 5, 1977, GE and Wendell W. Wood requested the Service Authority to expand the Camelot Treatment Plant to serve their separate '~eeds. Thereafter, the Service Authority, GE and Wendell W. Wood entered into negotiations concerning the expansion of the Camelot Plant by these developers. As part of its site plan approval of the GE project, the Albemarle County Planning C~mmission, on January 3, 1978, authorized GE's temporary use of a septic system until GE.could complete contract negotiations with the Service Authority to expand the Camelot Plant, have a sewer line constructed to the plant, and connect to the public system. This requirement was reaffirmed when the Planning Commission approved GE's amended site plan on June 13, 1978. Finally, the Planning Commission approved another amended site plan of GE on March 27, 1979, again requiring approval of appropriate agencies of sewage treatment facilities. At GE's and Wendell Wood's request, the Service Authority applied to the Board of Supervisors in the fall of 1978 for a special use permit to expand the Camelot Sewer Plant, partially to serve GE's needs. On September 20, 1978, the Board of Supervisors approved SP-78-50, authorizing the expansion of the Camelot Plant to 75,000 gallons per day, an amount sufficient to serve GE. Thereafter, negotiations between GE and Wendell Wood and the Service Authority continued. To date, the Service Authority stands ready to expand the Camelot Plant as soon as GE or Mr. Wood is ready to proceed contractually. However, to date GE and Mr. Wood have not resolved between themselves several problems, including the allocation of-the cost of the plant expansion and the allocation of the additional sewer capacity resulting from the plant expansion. Given the above, my position is as follows: 1) GE is within the Service Authority's jurisdictional area. It has been required by the County planning process to hook up to public sewer facilities. GE's property is adjacent to the Camelot Plant. GE previously has indicated its desire to expand the Camelot Plant and hook up to this plant. The Board of Supervisors should require GE at this time to expand the Camelot Plant, as they requested originally, up to their needs and hook up to the plant. 2) The public would not be served by having two modular sewage treatment plants, one private and one public, located side by side. Public sewer is now reasonably available to GE. 3) Problems between GE and Mr. Wood are private problems and should not be problems of the Service Authority." Mr. Fisher said the Board on September 20, 1978, gave approval of a special permit for the Service Authority to expand the Camelot Plant by 75,000 gallons per day. The Board is not involved in who should pay for this expansion. Mr. Thompson said the method for expansion and financing is the decision of the Service Authority. There was an agreement between three parties to pay for the expansion, but one party dropped out. Mr. Thompson noted the agreement was to expand the plant at whatever the cost might be. Mr. Lindstrom asked if it would be beneficial to have a time limit for General Electric to hook onto the Camelot Plant. Mr. Thompson felt that was a reasonable approach. Mr. Agnor said special permits have an eighteen-month limitation for commencing the work or the permit expires. Mr. Fred Landess, attorney for General Electric, was present. He pointed out that General Electric does not desire to be in the sewer business. He then reviewed the history of the matter. General Electric entered into a contract in 1977 which had a clause requiring the developer to build a sewer line within ninety days. A meeting was held between the developer and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority after the contract was closed at the end of November 1977. Another meeting was then held with the person who had control of the remaining capacity of the existing Camelot Plant to see if General Electric could use some of that~capacity. From the end of 1977 through July 1978, there were numerous meetings and contracts between the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, Albemarle County Service Authority, the developer and General Electric about the expansion of the plant. The Planning Commission approved a special permit for the expansion of the plant in September 1978. On September 20, 1978, the Board amended the special permit to approve only 75,000 gallons instead of the 175,000 gallons as had been requested. In the meantime, Phase I of the General Electric Building obtained approval for a temporary sewer plant to serve this Phase of the plant. An agreement was made between the party who controlled the existing capacity of the Camelot Plant and General Electric in October 1978. In November 1978, the developer of the property placed all ,of the property under Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Act and is currently in Federal District CourT. After this happened, General Electric met with the Albemarle ?ounty Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority to work out some type of joint agreement to expand the plant. A site plan was then submitted to the Planning Commission and was approved in March 1979. This is what the request is for today. Mr. Landess said General Electric plans to occupy Phase II of the building by the end of 1979. He noted that Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rlvanna Water and Sewer Authority, has April 18, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from April 11, 1979) General Electric has made application to the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department to see if they will approve a larger treatment plant for General Electric. The application has been processed and the Perry Branch has been approved as recipient for the outflow of such a plant. He noted that the General Electric property is not adjacent to the Camelot Plant and there are substantial amounts of land owned by other people lying between the General Electric property and the Camelot Plant. General Electric does not feel it is their responsibility to build a line which will ultimately serve a large part of the area or just serve General Electric only and be of no benefit to anyone else in the area. Also, General Electric has no assurance that the necessary easement can be obtained to run such a line. Another factor is in the future when other properties in the area are developed, he felt the Albemarle County Service Authority would extend the sewer line anyway. Mr. Fisher was concerned about having two permanent sewage treatment plants in the~ same area, whether privately or publicly used. He felt it would create a precedent which would have to be allowed to every property owner in the area. Mr. Landess said General Electric will hook onto the public sewer line as soon as it is possible. Mr. Fisher asked if General Electric was still willing to pay for the expansion of the Camelot Plant. Mr. Landess said General Electric would prefer expending funds for the expansion than to build a plant, but the line between General Electric and the Camelot Plant has not been built. Mr. Ben Austin, representative of General Electric, was present and noted that extension of the line to the General Electric site would cost about $250,000 which is exclusive of expansion of the treatment plant. Mr. Ken Fox, representative for General Electric, was present and said they expect to spend about $50,000 for the package plant on their site. In order to get from the General Electric site to the Camelot site, which is about one mile, the cost would be about $250,000 and that is assuming that the easement can be obtained. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there would be any objection to a condition that connection would be made to the Camelot Plant when it is expanded. Mr. Landess said when the sewer line is available, General Electric plans to connect. Mr. Lindstrom had no objection to approval of a modular sewage treatment plant, if it is clear that connection to the public sewer will be made when it is available. ~He did not feel a precedent would be set if the Board required that the modular plant be abandoned once public sewer is available. Dr. Iachetta felt it was unfair to require General Electric to build their own plant (in order to alleviate their present problems), and then to require that they connect to the Camelot Plant at some future time. He felt the only way to handle this problem was to allow the package plant to be built, but require that same be dismantled when public sewer is available. Dr. Iachetta did not feel the Board should require General Electric to add onto the Camelot Plant when the collector line has not been constructed. Mr. Fisher said since one of the parties is in bankruptcy it does not appear there will be anyone to put money into the expansion. Therefore, Public sewer will not be available. Mr. Roudabush said under current circumstances, this proposal produces a much better prospect than waiting for public sewer to become available. Mr. Lindstrom asked how much capacity General Electric contemplates they will need. Mr. Landess said 25,000 gallons and General Electric is willing to pay their pro-rata share of the expansion of the Camelot Plant. Dr. Iachetta offered motion to defer action on the General Electric Addition Site Plan appeal until May 2, 1979 in order for the County Attorney, with the assistance of Messrs. Roudabush and Thompson, to work with representatives of General Electric on conditions agreeable to General Electric in the building and operating of their own sewage treatment plant to serve General Electric only. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to defer the request from General Electric Company to operate a modular sewage treatment plant until May 2, 1979. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 4. Proposal for a Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. Mr. Fisher said the proposal had been discussed with Board members individually and is before the entire Board today for consideration. Mr. Michael Ludgate, representing the Chamber of Commerce, was present and presented the following proposal which had been approved bY the Board of Directors of the chamber on March 22, 1979: April 18, 1979. . ~ (Afternoon· Meeting--Ad~mrned· ,A. The Plan--It is proposed that the Charlottesville and Albemarle County Chamber of Commerce and the City of Charlottesville and County of Albemarle, hereafter, referred to as Government, shall enter into an agreement to create the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. B. Rationale for the Plan--It is an accepted fact that tourism in its various forms, is a desirable component of the economic structures o~ a community. It is further assumed that because of its geographic location and the historic attributes that prevail, this area has tremendous potential for the encouragement of that industry. It is also an apparent fact that the competition for the tourist dollar is substantial and that it would be desirable to have a group that would be dedicated to compete in the market place for these available dollars. C. The SPecifics of the Plan--Since all interested parties have a common goal, that of making the Charlottesville-Albemarle area a more utilized tourist area, we will enter into an agreement that will produce the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. D. The Agreement--That the Governments and the Chamber of Commerce will participate in this activity to the following extent: 1) The Governments and the Chamber shall be co-equal partners in all of the decisions affecting the Bureau. 2) That all groups agree that the ultimate desirable objective is to maximize the utility of the Center now known as the "Bicentennial Center". It is recognized that the ideal location for the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau (TJVB), would be in the Bicentennial Center, however, it could not be available to the localities prior to 1983. It is proposed that said TJ~B be housed in the Chamber of Commerce office, unless a more reasonable location, both in terms of rent, consumer use and administrative ease, could be established. In the meantime, prior to 1983, an effort to develop a program that will be effective must be begun and therefore, we propose that the three bodies enter into this agreement to create the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau. E. The Organization--The Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau Commission and Executive Committee shall be structured as follows: 1) Commission--Each body shall appoint three members to a Commission. The Commission shall be made up as nearly as possible as follows: Charlottesville/ Albemarle Restaurant Association, Hotel/Motel Association, Business Retail, Business Service, Civic, Minority, Historical Society, Recreation and Industry. The function of the Commission shall be as follows: a) To give direction, conceptually, to the Bureau Director, b) To advise and consent on the manner in which funds shall or shall not be spent. 2) Executive Committee--Each of the participants shall appoint the following people as an Executive Committee; the County Executive, the City Manager, and the Chamber Executive. From this group, a Chairman shall be elected to oversee the operational activity of the Bureau. The Executive Committee shall have prepared each year an audit and annual report. F. The Funding--The Governments and Chamber shall fund the program in the f$11owing manner: 1. The City of Charlottesville shall provide $20,000 in the first year. 2. The County of Albemarle shall provide $10,000 in the first year. The Chamber of Commerce shall provide $10,000 in the first year. 4. Funding for subsequent years shall be negotiated at a later date, and shall be mutually agreed upon by the participants. The rationale for the ratio of the above funding is established on this basis: T~e City has budgeted for 1979-80, $125,000, from the transient lodging tax and the County, $60,000, therefore, that represents 66% of the funds to the City and 33% to the County. The Chamber recognizes that its members do promotion and advertise on their own, and these funds expended are substantial, therefore, the Chamber will match the activity level of the County. This commitment however shall not be construed by any of the parties as a commitment in perpetuity, but rather an interim agreement looking forward to the culmination of the ultimate objective, that of the creation of the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau, housed in the building now known as the Bicentennial Center." Mr. Ludgate said the program will help the unemployment status in the community and produce an increase in the transient occupancy tax base. The City has endorsed this concept and the Board is being requested to do the same. Mr. Ludgate also requested the appointment of a representative to serve on the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau Commission. He then discussed the proposal to hire a consultant (Agenda Item Number 5 on today's agenda) which would take a considerable amount of time and is not favored by the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Bureau Commission. Mr. Ludgate said some current functions performed by the A rilil8 1 7 Afternoon Meetin --Ad ourned f ' Mr. Dorrier supported the concept because he did not feel it made sense to have three entities working separately on the same program. He does not feel a consultant is needed. Mr. Lindstrom~did not feel the City and County governments are structured in such a way as to carry' out this function and supported the Chamber being involved in the organization. Ms. Aticia Lugo, Executive Director of 0IC, was present. She felt this area is affluent and tourism will continue. The raw potential available for a clean tourist industry is good in the area and stable employment can be provided for the unemployed. Mr. Paul Stacy, member of the City-County Tourism Committee, was present. During the Tourism Committee's deliberations, he had the opportunity to evaluate several different proposals and discuss with representatives of local tourist attractions the desirability of promulgating a formal tourism promotion program for the area. As a result of the deliberation~ Mr. Stacy had the following observations: 1) The biggest problem with the committee's charge was whether or not local tax money should be used to subsidize tourist promotion.. He personally felt it should not be used. 2) If a decision were made to provide funds, there was the problem of determining what return would accrue to the locality from this investment. He felt it is impossible to measure such a return. 3) Contrary to what some may think, the City and County do subsidize tourism promotion locally in the form of support f~'~t~ Bicentennial Center in conjunction with the State. He noted that when the lease on the Bicentennial Center terminates in three years, it is possible the City and County will be requi~ed to provide all the funds for continued operation since the State will be dropping this program. 4) He noted that the proposal of the Chamber for a visitors bureau does not project any expenditures for achieving specific promotional benefits. In the absence of a known cost ratio, the benefits are pure speculation. 5) The Chamber's proposal involved the appointment of an oversight committee to work with the Chamber in the management of a promotional program. While this would be desirable, Mr. Stacy recalled that Mr. Fred Ferguson, Executive Vice President of the Chamber, stated that whenever the Chamber and the oversight body disagreed on a matter, the Chamber would be allowed to have the final say. He felt this relationship would be troublesome and counterproductive. Finally, several representatives of local tourist attractions expressed some reservation about the Chamber's ability to manage this type of program~ One representative stated that his prior experience with the Chamber's promotional capability was disappointing and ineffective. 6) Mr. Stacy said when the City/County Tourist Comittee was working on this idea, none of the local tourist representatives mentioned anything about the job opportunity factors which have been mentioned today. Mr. Stacy concluded by stating that he did not feel tourism would produce as many jobs as had been stated. Mr. Fisher then reviewed the meeting he had personally called in February with Mr. Charles Smith, President of the Chamber of Commerce, and other business and community persons. Mr. Fisher said he feels that tourist promotion, other than operation of the Bicentennial Center, Should be funded through private sources and operated by a private group. The Chamber has felt through the years that tourist promotion should be almost, if not entirely, funded by public funds. The meeting in February was held in an attempt to come to some agreement. The discussion at that meeting centered around 50/50 private, public participation. This agreement is for 75/25 private, public participation. Mr. Fisher said this proposal does not come close to what he proposed at that meeting. He would support hiring a consultant to study the issue. This proposal eliminates the consultant study which means there is no way to judge the success or failure of such a bureau, in advance of making expenditures for same. Mr. Fisher felt advertisements and brochures are a waste of public funds. The proposal presented today has the City Manager and the County Executive doing the day to day work, but without any power to decide where funds will be spent. Mr. Fisher could not support the proposal and felt it was time for the Board to make a decision. Mr. Dorrier said everyone lives in the same community, whether it is the private or the public sector, and all are working toward the same goal. If there is to be active tourist promotion, he feels the governments should be the catalysts. He~ also feels the Board will see some results and re~urns on the program. Next year the Board can request a report on exactly how many jobs came about because of the program and what taxes were produced. In conclusion, Mr. Dorrier supported the program. Mr. Roudabush said there is a need to increase the dollar value of tourism in the community. If the same rate of income is kept from year to year, the living standards for a segment of people in the community will never be incr. eased. Mr. Roudabush felt the whole community would benefit from tourism promotion and the overall business in the community will'improve. Therefore, he supported the concept of the proposal presented today and did not feel a consultant is needed at this time. Dr. Iachetta supported some type of bureau but would not support the commission as outlined in this proposal with the nine categories set forth for membership. He felt there should be more representation on the commission from the general community than from the business community. Mr. Lindstrom said he w~s concerned about county taxes funding any type of a business. He then discussed the Transient Occupancy tax and noted he could not find any problem with spending some money for the promotion of tourism as long as that tax is being collected. He felt the concept of the proposal was good but he was uncertain of the details. He ~referred that a consultant be employed after the program is underway. He said some good ~oints were made about employment opportunities for minorities and undereducated people. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to endorse the concept of the proposal for a Thomas ~efferson Visitors Bureau. Dr. Iachetta seconded ~he motion. Mr. Agnor suggested a committee be appointed to meet with the City appointed~ committee to work .out an agreement. Mr. Dorrier then amended his motion to include the formation of a committee composed of two board members, two city council members and two Chamber members to work out the details of the concept for its implementation with a report being made back to the Board. Mr. Fisher could not support the motion because he felt the public sector was being requested to put in more than their share of the funds. Roll on the motion was called and same carried by the following recorded vote: April 18, 1979 (A~ternoon Meeting--Adjourned from April 1~, 1979) Agenda Item No. 5. Proposal to hire a consultant to study tourism. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to deny the request to hire a consultant to study tourism. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrisr, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Appeal: Double C Corporation Site Plan for Rio West. (Deferred Agenda Item No. 6. from March 14, 1979). At the March 14, 1979 meeting, problems caused by stormwater runoff and erosion onto the adjacent properties were discussed. ~A committee was appointed to meet with the owners of the properties in question to see whether or not some resolution could be worked Out. Mr. Roudabush said the committee, composed of Dr. Iachetta, Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, and himself, met on the site with Mr. Ronald Carter, the developer. Their concerns with the site plan were discussed with Mr. Carter. There are seven items which they feel would be more specific for the implementation of the site plan and would alleviate the problems expressed by Mrs. Crenshaw, adjacent property owner. Mr. Carter agreed to these items. Reset the railroad ties behind Building #2 such that there is six inches of tie above the pavement. Construct a drainage swale behind these ties to direct drainage away from the road. Construct a berm across the rear entrance to divert drainage to the ditch. Construct curbing on opposite side of parking area and terminate it into the drainage ditch. Clean out ditchline along road for proper drainage. Patch pavement in road where the storm sewer crosses it. Complete rest of site plan as approved. l) 7) Mr. F. Bradley Peyton, IV, attorney for Mrs. Crenshaw, was present and agreed to the abow ~ond~tions'~buD~s~ggested~that i~em #~be~ichanEadl.to~.Eive a time limit for completion. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to approve the site plan as submitted with the following conditions: 1) Show and install 15" drainage pipe along Rio Road as shown on previously approved plans; 2) Show and replace railroad ties with concrete curbing as noted by the County Engineer; 3) Show culvert pipe and rip-rap for dainage from new parking stalls as recommended by the County Engineer; 4) Note that all landscaping shall be maintained, and in a healthy condition, and replaced immediately if it should die; 5) Reset the railroad ties behind Building #2 such that there is 6 inches of tie above the pavement; 6) Construct a drainage swale behind these ties to direct drainage away from the road; 7) Construct a berm across the rear entrance to divert drainage to the ditch; 8) Construct curbing on opposite side of parking area and terminate it into the drainage ditch; 9) Clean out ditchline along road for proper drainage; 10) Patch pavement in road where the storm sewer crosses it; and ll) Site plan implementation shall be completed within 60 days from April 18, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYESi Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Agenda Item No. 7. Industrial Development Authority. Mr. Donald A. Holden, Chairman of the Industrial Development Authority, was present. He introduced Mr. Ronnie Morris (the applicant), Mrs. Donald Ward, Vice President of Walker & Dunlop, (Mr. Morris' financial advisor and agent), and Mr. Carol Mason from the Department of Housing and Urban Development in Washington, D.C. He then reviewed the following memorandu~ dated April 11, 1979: "I attach information on a project proposed by Ronald R. Morris for construction of a 71 unit group of apartments specifically designed for elderly people to be located on the north side of Hydraulic Road, approximately opposite the intersection of Georgetown Road. Mr. Morris has requested tax-exempt financing by our Authority. This can be done under our Charter as now written. It is proposed that the project be built to the requirement's of, and under the supervision and overview of, HUD (FHA) and the mortgage guaranteed by HUD. The attached memo from Donald A. Ward of Walker & Dunlop of Richmond, Mr. Morris,s financial advisor and'agent, describes the project and controls and approvals required by HUD. April 18, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from April 11, 1979) Our Authority has considered the project and, subject to Mr. Morris obtaining the many design, financial analyses, etc., approvals from HUD, we have passed an "Inducement Resolution" dated as of March 29, 1979. (Copy on file.) We point out that while the benefits will be to a somewhat limited number of people, housing specifically designed for the elderly is in very limited existence in the County. Also, that no subsidy is involved either for construction or rental. Assuming you agree with us as to the desirability of the project, and recognizing as we do the various design, feasibility, costs, rent schedule, etc., that must be approved by HUD before their approval and agreement to insure the mortgage c,an be obtained, you will agree to the attached resolution suggested for your action." The following letter dated April 2, 1979 from Mr. Donald A. Ward was also presented: "Pu. rpose for Resolution: To induce and assist in the financing of an apartment project designed specifically for elderly tenants to be built, owned, and managed by the Sponsor, Ronald R. Morris. The "tax exemption" from the Albemarle County Industrial Development Authority will permit financing at a lower interest rate which will result in lower rents to the elderly tenants, most of whom are on fixed incomes and pensions. Tax-free interest rates create a substantial savings to a project especially in today's tightening money market and inflationary spiral. Tax exemption together with HUD insurance under Section 231 of the National Housing Act will produce project rents for "moderate to middle income" elderly tenants that need no Federal government subsidies as in the case of "low income". The Project: The proposed elderly project is to be two-story frame and b~ick construction including electric heat pumps ranges, refrigerators, air conditioning, kitche~ exhaust fans, laundry facilities, disposals, dishwashers, carpeting, active and passive areas for recreation, specifically designed for elderly tenants, meeting HUD MPS, local codes and ordinances consisting of: 3 Efficiencies 5 One Bedroom 63 Two Bedroom 470 Sq. Ft. 731 Sq. Ft. 856 Sq. Ft. $185.00/Mo. $225.00/Mo. $275%00/Mo. Rents include only water, sewerage and trash collection. 3.6 acres. The subject site is Financing: HUD will insure the project mortgage subject to their reviews and approval of design, costs, rents and expenses, financial analysis of the sponsorship, legal, environmental, management, equal opportunity, and all other aspects and conformances with HUD regulations and local codes and ordinances. HUD insurance under Section 231 (elderly) together with the tax exemption of the Authority will permit permanent and construction financing. HUD will inspect construction and insure each construction advance to the lender. Upon completion, HUD will insure the permanent mortgage. Financing will either be as a tax free mortgage or tax free bonds. In either case, the Authority will be a "conduit" only with no financial liability or financial involvement in the handling of funds. HUD, by Regulatory Agreement, will set the parameters of management and financial operation of the project, including rents and owners profits and return on equity investment. Justification: Tax exemption from the Authority will benefit elderly tenants in the Albemarle County marketplace and will "promote the prosperity and general welfare of the County's inhabitants" The interest rate determines "rents", hence the project and the project tenants are the real beneficiaries of the "tax free" financing. The location, with neighborhood shopping, public transportation, and medical services, certainly meets all the necessary requirements for "elderly". We feel the subject site has its highest and best use for "elderly" as opposed to "family" units. We have proposed a relatively small project of only 71 units to meet this market need. Certainly there are 71 elderly family groups in Albemarle County that are 62 years of age or older who desire their own self-contained unit and can pay the market rents projected without government assistance." Mr. Fisher felt the Co~ty_Housing Coordinator should review the proposal to be sure it s designed for the elderly~~d if it will be used primarily for the purposes stated. also wanted to be sure that the savings on the interest rate will be passed directly to ~he tenants. If not, he saw no reason to subsidize this project through tax-exempt bonds. Mr. Carol Mason of HUD said the Regulatory Agreement defines elderly as being 62 years age or older or disabled. HUD annually reviews the audit to assure that the dividends profits are limited. Mr. Roudabush asked if anyone had considered whether this site was ~ppropriate for the proposed facility. Mr. Mason said HUD will review the site, appraise it ~nd do a study of comparable rents for families. Mr. Fisher suggested that the County's g Coordinator review this proposal and report back to the Board on May 2, 1979. The agreed. April 18, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from April il, 1979) Agenda Item No. 8. Appeal: West Leigh Lots 1, 33 and Y Final Plat. Mr. Fisher noted the following letter dated April 3, 1979 from Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth LaFleur: "This letter is to appeal to the Board of Supervisors the March 27, 1979 decision of the Planning Commission to approve the above referenced subdivision. As adjacent property owners we request that the appeal be registered as one of the Board's formal agenda items. The rationale for our appeal is detailed in the points below and with a concluding summary statement. The land in question is subject to the covenants and restrictions recorded for Lots 33 and Y (Section I-West Leigh) in Deed Book 355, Page 272 (September 29, 1959) and for Lot 1 (Section III-West Leigh) in Deed Book 388, Page 567 (March 18, 1963). These covenants and restrictions state that as policy there will be no subdividing of existing lots and any rearrangement of lot lines must gain the approval of the developer or successor and the involved lot owners. The current owners of the land are not the developer or successor. Since all lots in Section I and Section III have been sold, the eledted Committees hold the powers of the developer. These Committees representing the lot owners in Sections I and III have not had the above referenced subdivision plan submitted to them nor have they granted the required approval for the subdivision and lot line rearrangements. Our point is that the covenants of record for the land in question have been violated by the owners of the land. The request before the Planning Commission was not entered by all of the owners of the land. Through a series of lot line changes, two regular West Leigh subdivision building lots (Lot 33 in Section I and Lot 1 in Section III) plus an original small .(.531 acres) ',well lot" have been rearranged into three regular West Leigh subdivision building lots. Some of this rearranged land has been conveyed to Phil N. and Bernice A. Keaton ("Keatons") and later a portion of the land conveyed to the Keatons was deeded back to Charles Wm. Hurt ("Hurt"). It appears that the Keatons are owners of some of the land but the only cited owner and signature on the Planning Commission request was that of Hurt. Additionally, the West Leigh Committee cited in #1 above did not have the lot line rearrangements submitted to them for approval nor did they ever grant such approval. Charles Wm. Hurt is not the developer or successor of the land. As stated in his letter of March 27, 1979 to the Planning Commission, Mr. Stuart Carwile, an attorney representing Hurt, West Leigh, Inc. (W. Clover, President; E. Spies, Secretary) was the original developer. Hurt became the sole stockholder of West Leigh, Inc. in JUly 1970 and in September, 1977 West Leigh, Inc. (the developer) was liquidated with Lots 1 and 33 being sold to Hurt (Deed Book 632, Page 330-September 26, 1977). The small well lot was sold to Hurt by the County of Albemarle on July 7, 1976. It is our contention that when Lots 1 and 33 were sold by West Leigh, Inc. the Committee gained the powers of the developer pertain!~to those lots as specified in the deeded covenants and restrictions. It should also be noted that Lot 33 was originally sold to Reynolds G. and Catherine ¥. Lynch on May 10, 1966 (D. B. 417, page 377) and the point could be made that at that time West Leigh, Inc. ceased to be the developer in regards to Lot 33. West Leigh, Inc. later obtained Lot 33 from Reynolds G. and Catherine V. Lynch on February 17, 1967 (D. B. 429, Page 110). The requested subdivision referenced above results in three West Leigh subdivision lots while the original plats of record planned for only two lots. The third lot is arranged by adding land from one of the original two planned lots (Lot 33) to a portion of the well lot. The small .531 acre well lot was not intended to be a regular West Leigh subdivision lot when the original plats were recorded. The final plat of Lots 1, 33 and Y attached to Hurt's subdivision request approved by the Planning Commission March 27, 1979 is different than each of the plats attached to the Hurt - Keatons deeds of January 19, 1979 and January 31, 1979. In summary, we appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on March 27~ 1979 regarding the above referenced item on the basis of a violation of the' deeded restrictions and covenants of the land involved. It is our contention that Hurt is not the developer. We also question the nature of conveying title between Hurt and the Keatons of the lot(s) arranged in violation of these recorded deed covenants and restrictions. During its deliberations on the subdivision request, members of the Planning Commission and their attorney stated that as a body they did not have Jurisdiction over enforcing covenants and restrictions. We trust that the Planning Commission does have jurisdictional rights in matters of land and subdivision ~lanning and think' it questionable exercise of those rights w~en they app~oyed a plan fer a · 531 acre well lot to be enlarged and become a regular subdl~I'~on residential lot in West Leigh. ~ The entire matter is confusing partly due to the manner with which it was handled in the request process as well as some "rough spots" in the law. We appreciate your time and effort in following the above points and have attached 286 :.A.)ril_lS~i~Afternoon Meetin --Ad ourne?_., from A r'l 1 1 ......... . ..... ~ _ Mr. R~ber~tW~ Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, then presented the following staff report: "Location: Northeast corner of West Leigh Drive and Devonshire Road. Acreage: 10+ acres Zoning: R-I; adjacent R-1. History: A redivision of these lots was attempted in May, 1976, and deferred until a later date. A definite redivision is now before the Commission involving the same property. A letter for denial from George Kliefoth, President of the West Leigh Owners' Association, Inc. has been submitted. Proposal: A redivision of lots 1, 33, and a well lot into three parcels with different dimensions than before. Staff Comments: A discrepancy apparently exists between this redivision and the restrictions and covenants on the property through the West Leigh Owners Association. Staff has suggested a revision to the proposed division which would provide better building, sites, however, the applicant has not chosen to make that revision." Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission, on March 27, 1979, approved the plat with the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval. 2. Note area of Lot 1. Mr. Fisher was familiar with the problem since he had been receiving a number of phone calls about the matter. He felt the issue of covenants and their enforcement as they relate to the subdivision needed to be addressed by the County Attorney. Mr. Kenneth LaFleur was present and reiterated the contents of the above letter. Mr. George Kliefoth, President of West Leigh Homeowners Association, was present and noted that this plat had never been submitted to the Association. Mr. George St. John referred to Section 18-7 of the County Code which states that the County has no responsibility to enforce private easements, restrictions, covenants or agreement According to the law, if a subdivision, as submitted, meets the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances, and other existing regulations, the plat must be approved. Mr. St. John noted that the Board does not have the power to deny a subdivision on the grounds that it violates private restrictions. However, a sentence or phrase can be added to the approval of a subdivision that approval does not affect a persons right to litigate the question of applicability or violation of private restrictions. Mr Fisher asked who was the owner of the property at the time the application was made and if ownership requirements were adhered to on the application. Mr. Tucker said the owner and developer on the application are listed as Dr. Charles Hurt. Mr. Fisher said it appears that the land had been sold and subdivided before the Planning Commission reviewed it and he was concerned that such action preempted the procedures of the Planning Commission which Were to be followed. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Staff was unaware of th~ transactio~ until the Planning Commission meeting and even ~nough ~ne contract has been ~d~ the actual transaction has not taken place. Dr. Iachetta asked what bearing that had on the subdivision. Mr- St. John said none. The surveyor told Dr. Hurt that by selling a part of the property and then reselling it back, it would not be considered a subdivision. So one parcel was sold and a deed was put to record. When Dr. Hurt tried to sell another parcel, the buyer's attorney was astute enough to feel it might be a subdivision without subdivision approval. Therefore, the attorney went to the Planning Department and discovered that subdivision approval was required. Dr. Hurt was the original owner and would have been the proper person to make the application had it been done before any deeds were put to record. Next is the question of who is the developer for purposes of the restrictions. Dr. Hurt says he is the developer but the association says he is not. Mr. St. John did not feel the County ~ould ad.judicate that question. The owner of Lot 1 (Keaton) and Dr. Hurt were notified that the subdivision was illegal. Dr. Hurt then submitted this subdivision plat. Mr. St. John l~d~n~t~£e~ahhe plat had been completed since all the owners have not signed. However, Mr. ~ucker does not sign a plat without all the owners names on it. The Planning Commission ~pproved the plat with the condition that all the owners must sign same before it could be ~ecorded. Since the ordinance does not state that all the names have to be on the plat, the Elanning Commission did not have any grounds to disapprove the plat. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing Dr. Charles Hurt, was present. Speaking next was Mr. Clyde Gouldman, representing the West Leigh Homeowners Association. Ee noted that Mr. Phil Keaton had not signed the application and he objected to the Board's ?eview of this plat without that signature. Mr. St. John said Mr. Keaton bought this lot oased on this subdivision and deeded some of it back to Dr. Hurt. Mr. St. John said the 0nly thing illegal is that Mr. Keaton has not signed the plat and denial can only be on that, not on the grounds that the subdivision, per se, is illegal. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to refer this to Mr. St. John for his recommendation ~s to what requirements have to be met. Mr. St. John did not feel that was necessary oecause the plat has been cleared by the conditions of the Planning CommiSsion. Mr. Tucker aoted that he does not sign plats until all the owners have signed. Mr. Lindstrom then ~ffered motion to approve the subdivision as presented with the-two conditions of the Planning ~ommission set out above and the following: 3. Subdivision not approved until all owners ~ave signed the plat; 4. Approval in no way is intended or should be construed to deny or ~ffect the rights of anyone to challenge, w~z,~the s~i~ision~. ?~ on the basis of private law, covenants ~r restrictions that might otherwmse be p~ss~c.4~ Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same ~arried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~AYS: None. 287 A' 18 'ternoon Meetin -~Ad'ourned~fr ' Agenda Item No. 9. Data Processing Feasilibity Study· Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated April 11, 1979: "The report furnished the Board from Horner, Barksdale and Company completes Phase I of the Data Processing Feasibility Study. The study was proposed in three phases: Phase I - Review, evaluate and determine present and future data processing requirements. Phase II - Prepare specifications, purchase equipment and services (if decision from Phase I is to proceed) 3. Phase III - Installation and development of system. The consultants considered outside computer service centers, shared computer centers, and in-house computers. Their recommendation is to develop a County data processing department with a data handling system that will: 3. 4. 5. 6. Replace existing minimum programs purchased from four sources; Provid~ programming support of County needs; Integrat~ information between departments; Provide' future expansion of data handling; Maintain confidentiality and security of data; Include components that will serve the County initially for five to eight years. Projects costs are given for renting or purchasing equipment and programs. current programs cost $79,000 per year. The proposed system will cost: The Rental - $200,130 first year annual cost plus $57,700 non-recurring costs. Purchase - $180,306 first year annual costs plus $57,700 non-recurring costs. The purchase alternative includes $33,926 per year over a seven year period of amortized costs for hardware. Recalculating that as initial capital cost, the first =year annual costs are $146,380 plus $295,185 in non-recurring costs. The non-recurring costs would be borne by the General Fund. The annual costs would be borne by three funds, the General Fund, the School Fund and the Albemarle Service Authority's J'budget. To meet present data handling needs more effectively with less turnaround time to prepare for future expanding data needs, and to provide one of the most critical resources the County citizens and County government have, information, it is recommended that Phase I be approved and authorization given to proceed with Phase II." Mr: Donald G. McCants, representing Horner, Barksdale and Company, was present. He noted that Phase II is very technical because it involves getting into the detailed speciflcatilns of the hardware and seeking vendors to best meet the needs of the County. .... -.Mr. Fisher felt the School Board and the Service Authority should review the specification of the study before proceeding with Phase III. He also felt it should be known how the system will work before going to bid. He was uncertain how the system would save money for the County. However, he did agree that an in-house system was best. Mr. Agnor said the SChool administration has been part of the Phase I work but agreement from the School Board and other agencies was awaiting the Board's approval. He said in- house use of the system would make information easily available for the management of the County's resources. Mr. Agnor said the present bookkeeping equipment is past replacement and overburdened. He also noted the new state auditing system becoming effective in July 1980. The system will be geared to provide budget information and cost accounting capabilities which are needed. The system once in place will take .five years to mature. A group of department heads will oversee the operation and internally have the capability of their own program and analyzing and developing same. Mr. Fisher expressed his concern about the cost involved. Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, noted that the $79,000 (shown in the memo as the cost of the current programs) was only what is being paid directly to the four outside services the County uses. The in-house systems were not evaluated and the cost does not include the replacement of the County's present bookkeeping equipment. After a brief discussion about the curren~ system, Mr. Fisher suggested that comments be ob~ained from the School Board and the Albemarle County Service Authority with a .report being made to the Board at a later date. At 5:40 P.M., Mr. Dorrier left the meeting. Agenda Item No. 11. Resolution: Whitewood Road. (Greenbrier Drive) At the April 11, 1979 meeting, the Board authorized Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, to draft a resolution to have a portion of Greenbrier Drive taken into the Statue S~condary System. Mr. Roosevelt has prepared the resolution and same is before the Board for approval. ':Mr.. David Wood, property owner, was present and agreed w~th the' wording. April 18, 1979 '(Afternoon Meeting--Adjourned from April 11, 1979) Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the 'following resolution. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Henley. WHEREAS, Whitewobd Road and a section of Greenbrier Drive were constructed to State standards in 1972; and WHEREAS, service requirements and maintenance requirements were met in 1976; and WHEREAS, through error on the part of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation only Whitewood Road was requested for addition to the State Secondary System; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County~ that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and hereby is requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways the following section: Greenbrier Drive from its intersection with Whitewood Road to a point 328' southeast of that intersection, such point to be coincident With the property line between the property developed by David J. Wood, Jr., et al and that developed as Westfield Subdivision Section 1. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that sin6e maintenance of this section of Greenbrier Drive should have been Department responsibility since July 1, 1975, the Department is requested to accept maintenance of this section without maintenance fee or construction bond. The Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County recognizes that any funds necessary to now return this section to a properly maintained condition must come, from fundS allocated to the County Secondary System for maintenance and agrees to this expenditure. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and hereby is guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement~'~ along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office o~ the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book ~87, page 614 and Deed Book 548, pages 606-608. Not Docketed. Claims against the County, which had been examined, allowed and certified for payment by the Director of Finance and charged to the following funds for the month of March, 1979, were also presented as information: Commonwealth of Virginia--Current Credit Account General Fund School Operating Fund School Construction Capital Outlay Fund Textbook Rental Fund Joint Security Complex Fund Town of Scottsville-l% Local Sales Tax Federal Revenue Sharing Fund General Operating Capital Outlay Fund Mental Health Fund Crozet Elderly Housing Escrow Fund Debt Service Fund Total $ 7,117.23 369,119.51 1,360,530.69 12,834.75 2~6.99 ~8,808.58 210.41 72,492.00 32,404.00 1~6,~1.21 7,17~.00 8.5,938.23 $2,143,.337.60 Agenda Item No. 10. Draft--Policy for Industrial Development. Because of the lateness of the hour, this item was deferred to the night agenda of this date. Agenda Item No. 12. Agenda Item No. 13. agenda. Appointments: Deferred to the night agenda. Approval of Minutes--January 10, 1979. Deferred to the night Agenda Item No. 14. At 5:42 P.M., Mr. Agnor requested an executive session to discuss personnel. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to this effect. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Messrs. Dorrier and Henley. The. Board reconvened into open Session at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned.