Loading...
1979-09-05AAugust 16, 1979 (Adjourned from August 15, 1979) AYES: NAYS: AYES: ~NA'YS: Mr. Lindstrom noted he had never voted for any R-3 zoning on Georgetown Road. Dr. Iachetta then offered~mo~ion to accept the Planning CommissiOn's recommendation to deny both ZMA-79-28 and SP-79~1. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. ~ Mr. Fisher agreed that there is a need for nursery scho~ls but he did not favor extending R-3 in this area because he felt the current densities are a~equate. Dr. Iachetta agreed. Mr. Dorrier said the property is run down and this will be a~ improvement. Mr. Fisher said the. current ordinances only allow a nursery school in an R-2 or R-3 zone which means that a nursery school could never be in a single family neighborhoo4. Mr. Dorrier said nursery schools are not a high profit operation and they are being pushed into the commercial zone where most people cannot afford land for such an operation. Mr. Fisher said he would support the motion because he was opposed to extending R-3 on Georgetown Road but he was concerned about how the problem of providing such a service ~an be handled. The consensus of the Board was that there is a problem with the current ordinances and such needs to be studied further. Roll was then called on the foragoing moti¢~n and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstr¢ NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 10. Resolution of intent to amend the ~ provide for frontage improvements on public roads. (Adverti: August 2 and August 9, 1979.) ubdivision Ordinance to ed in the Daily Progress on Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission has deferred action on this request and he requested the Board to do. the same. Motion was offered by D~. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this item to September 19, 1979. Roll wSs called on the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachett, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Other Matters Not on the Agenda. T Agenda Item No. 12. At-12:12 A.M., motion was offered b Mr. Roudabush to adjourn to September 5, 1979, at 2:00 P.M. i Office Building, The motion carried by the following recorde Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom a None. here were no items presented. y Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by n the Board Room of the County d vote: nd Roudabush. September 5, 1979 (Afternoon Meeting) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albe~ for 2:00 P.M. on September 5, 1979, in the Board Room of the ville, Virginia, was called to order at 2:13 P.M. This meeti 1979. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fis (Arriving at 2:30 P.M.), F. Anthony Iachetta (Arriving at 2:1 (Arriving at 2:13 P.M.), and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: Tucker, Jr. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. narle County, Virginia, scheduled Dounty Office Building, Charlotte~ ~g was adjourned from August 16, her, J. T. Henley, Jr. P.M.), C. Timothy Lindstrom d County Planner, Robert W. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called ~to_order at 2 Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session - Comprehensive Plan. ~uld be late arriving and suggested the Board skip the first arrived. '~Agenda Item No. 2B. Ivy Village Plan. Mr. Tucker summa] Village plan. The population for this village has been reduc~ the 1971 plan to 1200 in this plan. The Village basically e~ "01d village." There is some limited expansion recommended t village." The commercial center is located on Route 250 West is proposed south of 250 directly behind the commercial area. at the old train station. A footpath is proposed along Route proposed over the railroad overpass to give access to the par of Route 676 to improve sight distance where it enters onto R~ 13 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Ir. Fisher noted that Mr. Henley agenda item until Mr. Henley 'ized the aspects of the Ivy ~d from the 16,000 proposed in ~o~passes an area the size of the the east and south of the "old A park area for active re~ A quasi-public area is proposed 738 and a pedestrian path is ~. Also proposed is a realignment ~ute 250. Mr. Tucker said the · lanning Commission made only one change and that was to shift the western boundary of the village to the east of the Murray School site. There were no comments on this plan at either the Planning Commission's or the Board's public hearings. September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) ~ ...... (Adjourned from August 16, 1979) Mr. Fisher asked if the shift in boundaries near Murray School will take in the existing industrial use in that area. Mr. Tucker said n~. Mr. Roudabush asked why Meriwether Hills was left out of the village plan. He said villages are to have a community of interest, and he feels the subdivisions on the periphery will have the same community of interest. Mr. Tucker said the consultants saw these subdivisions as more of a suburban type development and they do not envision that type of development occurring within the village itself. Mr. Lindst om agreed that this type of development could not occur until public utilities are available. He asked the size of the lots in Meriwether Hills. Mr-. Tucker said in Meriwether Hills the lots are one acre, in Meriwether North the lots are one acre, and in Lewis Hills the lots are two acres.~ Mr. Roudabush felt that Ivy Creek would be a better boundary for the village on the north. (Dr. Iachetta arrived at 2:19 P.M.) Mr. Lindstrom asked if any of the Ivy Village lies within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Mr. Tucker said all of the village is within the watershed. Mr. Fisher said this map shows pieces of the village extending out into almost undevelope areas, but the areas which are already developed in one-acre densities are excluded. He did not see the logic for this recommendation. Mr. Fisher then asked if the southern boundary follows a stream. Mr. Tucker said yes, it is a tributary to Ivy Creek. Mr. Fisher asked if has made any recommendations on the proposed realignment of Route 676. the Highway Department Mr. Tucker said none have been received at this time. Mr. Lindstrom reiterated a remark made at an earlier meeting that the village plans for Ivy and Earlysville make sense, but other village plans do not. Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff redraw the boundary for the Ivy Village by drawing a new northern boundary in the vicinity of the tributary leading to Ivy Creek and taking in Meriwether Hills subdivision and some other lands in that area. Dr. !achetta said there are presently two schools on the fringes of this village. He asked that the staff try to find one new site for an elementary school to serve this entire area. If one site can be found, then the peculiarly shaped boundary on the west of the village can be eliminated because it would not be necessary to have the present Murray School site within the village boundaries. He suggested that it might be possible to build one new school to serve the area and close both of the existing schools. (Mr. Henley arrived at 2:30 P.M.) Mr. Fisher asked that the staff study the concerns, expressed today and bring back further recommendations on the Ivy Village plan. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the staff would respond to a developer who said the County has designed this community for growth and at the same time, the Runoff Control Ordinance severely restricts what can take place in this village. Mr. Roudabush said the individual characterist~.cs of a piece of land are studied under regulations in the Runoff Control Ord±nance. It is those characteristics that-put the limitation on development and not the ordinance itself. Mr. Lindstrom said he feels the densities proposed for the Urban Area are misleading. If the County is assuming that the Runoff Control Ordinance will curtail development in the Urban Area, then the County is playing "both sides of the street." He said the Planning Commission has recognized the ~mp~t ~f land uses on the South Rivanna River Reservoir f~h~©~an Area, and he feels the same logic should apply to Ivy, Earlysville and Crozet. Dr. Iachetta said the problem has been made clearer by the failure of a runoff control de-ice at Rivanwood Subdivision during the flooding on June 2nd. When that device failed, the runoff created a clay bar in Ivy Creek. Although this occurrence might be considered minor, Dr. Iachetta said he does not know how to deal with the problem and feels the County needs to "toughen up" on defining qr~tical sites. Mr. Lindstrom said if the question can be limited to Dr. Iachetta's example, ~h~ can deal with that because it is a proximity problem. When talking about control of erosion, proximity of sites to the Reservoir makes a difference. Mr. Lindstrom said he can see a difference between Ivy and the Urban Area which has land adjacent to the Reservoir. Agenda Item No. 2A. Crozet Community plan. Mr. Tucker said Crozet is proposed for a population of 12,000. Under the 1971 plan, it was proposed for between 16,000 and 18,000. The boundaries essentially follow natural or physical features. This plan calls for the expansion of~.the existing commercial area in the downtown part of Crozet. There is one additional c~mmercial activity proposed for the northeast and northwest quadrants of Routes 250/240. The industrial area is shown as being expanded at the existing Acme's and Morton's. There are several medium density residential areas proposed. There is a governmental sub~ station proposed in the downtown area. Crozet Elementary, Brownsville Elementary and Henley Middle Schools are recognized. Western Albemarle High School is just outside of the CommunitN boundary. Claudius Crozet Park is recognized. There are parks shown as part of the ~pen space along the creek adjacent to one medium density residential area, primarily to serve that area, and a park on Lickinghole Creek near The Meadows. Carried over from the 1971 Plan is an impoundment on Lickinghole Creek to aid in retention of siltation to the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. A loop road from Route 691 to Route 240 to Tabor Street, and then a major extensio of that loop ~road tieing into Route 250 West near the existing commercial area, is proposed. A realignment of Route 240 near The Meadows is also proposed. Dr. Iachetta asked if these new streets and realignment of old streets will only occur as development' takes place so that no public monies will be invested in advance of that developme t. Mr. Tucker said that is what he understands the Board's Policy to be at this time. Mr. Tucker said there is another realignment which would be nice to have, but would be dmffmcult, ~nd that is to realign Route 240 where it comes into Route 810. It is proposed that this road come in behind the Fruit Growers Coop as well as Route 788 before entering Route 810. This would give some distance between the railroad overpass and this point and give better sight distance. Mr. Fisher said from looking at t~he map, it is obvious that the community is split by the railroad and there is only one connection between the two halves. He asked if any other connection with Route 240 was discussed. Mr. Tucker said another connection was. discussed with the consultants but it was not recommended. September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from August 16, 19%9) Mr. Tucker then noted that the Planning Commission had relative to the Crozet Community plan. (See ~inutes of Augu Mrs. Joanne Moyer was present. She noted that park lan valleys on her property. She said the embankments are very this to be good park land. Also the foliage along the'banks Iachetta said he feel~ it is intended that this land be reta Henley asked Mrs. Moyer if she owns the land. Mrs. Moyer sa Moyer does not want to develop the land, this park will neve was worried about eminent domain. Mr. Henley said the Board such a purpose since he has been on the Board and he did not Mr. Lindstrom asked about the expanded area proposed fo said in the 1977 Plan, the consultants had determined the am be needed over the next 20-year period in Crozet based on po then allocated 130 acres to Crozet. This version of the pla purposes. The reason for this is that when the Plan was stu identified which lent themselves more to industrial uses tha industrial lands are used for residential purposes, then ind made several recommendations st 1, 1979.) Ss are proposed in the stream teep and she does not consider helps to keep down erosion. Dr. ined in its natural state. Mr. id yes. Mr. Henley said if Mrs. be built. Mrs. Moyer said she has never used these powers for think it would in the future. industrial purposes. Mr. Tucker ~unt of industrial land that would ~ulation and employment. They shows 265 acres for industrial ~ied in detail, some lands were other lands. Also, if potential ~stry will have to locate e!sewher The consultants are not necessarily saying that this amount ~f land will be needed in the next 20 years. Mr. Henley suggested that the amount of~acreage for industrial uses be scaled down. (Note: Because of the heavy rains which had been occurring a!~ this day, the Board stopped at this time to receive a report on flooding conditigns in the County. Mr. Fisher said the Board would soon have to decide if it would continue with the public hearing on the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan scheduled for 7:30 P.M. tonight.) Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department had made any south connector through Crozet. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fi~ DePartment comments be solicited as to whether Route 240 and heading south toward Route 250 will serve the Crozet area as He also suggested that the staff reduce the industrial area bring back a revised map for further review by the Board. Agenda Item No. 2C. North Garden Village Plan. Mr. Tu developing a plan for North Garden. The two commercial area: were used as anchor points. The village committee recommend~ ~general store and the quadrant at the intersection of Route as commercial. Red Hill School is recognized and some low d~ road. It is recommended that improvements to Routes 712 and place. Based on comments received at its public hearing, thc that the southern border be extended below the Zion Church a existing commercial at the southeastern quadrant of the Rout Mr. Lindstrom said he could see no reason to designate not suitable, there is no existing development and no eviden~ utilities to serve the area. Just because there is a school area, he could see no reason to designate this area as a vil] Mr. Fisher said he had thought the village designation ~ Crossroads. Crossroads has two major roads, an existing sto~ station which doubles as a community center. He said that sc only include Crossroads, but land about one-half of the way land in the area suitable for one-acre density development. lined for low density residential are suited for such develo the Comprehensive Plan is ~o be reviewed every five years, h this area. as a village at this time. Mr. Fisher suggested t~ comments on the proposed north/ ~her suggested that Highway the underpass on the section it becomes more densely populated ~n the north side o~ Route 240 and ~ker said there was a problem in ~, one at each end of the village, ~d that the area around the 92 and Route 29 South be recogniz nsity residential across the 692 occur as d~velopment takes ~ Planning Commission recommended ~proximately 2000 feet recognizing 29/Route 692 intersection. village where the topography is e that there will ever be public and a couple of stor~s in the age. 'ould be for an area just around 'e, a post office, and a fire ~mehow this plan has grown to not o Red Hill. He asked if there is Mr. Tucker said the lands out- ment. Dr. Iachetta said since ~ sees no pressing need to identif .at the staff consider a much scaled down version centered around Crossroads. the center of the village is used, that would take has already occurred in the area. Agenda Item No. 2D. Scottsv~lle Village Plan. a community in the 1971 Plan but has been scaled down to vil] is potential for development in Scottsville because of exist~ noted that he and Mr. Dorrier ha~ appeared before the Scotts~ County's plan and solicit their comments. This plan corresp¢ (which also shows growth areas outside of the corporate limi~ the 1971 plan has been shifted to the intersection of Routes center is located. A park is recommended at the Mink Creek He said if ~he criteria of one-half mile from in some o~ the small lot development which Mr. Tucker said Scottsville was shown as .age status in this plan. There ng public utilities. Mr. Tucker ~ille Town Council to show the ~nds closely to the Town plan s). The commercial area shown in 20 and $ where the shopping .mpoundment. Mr. Tucker said the industrial designation was a tough cne to settle and the citizens committee split on their vote and only recommended that the recognized. Mr. Dorrier said the committee consisted of foum the historical aspects ~f the area and two were interested~i~ the town recommended for future industrial growth is in the the water line runs along Route 726. However, this area has not have good access. The Uniroyal site is within the flood Mr. Fisher asked the population capacity. Mr. Tucker ss a~itional dwelling units assuming that the medium density a~ per acre. Medium density requires that the land be furnishe~ utilities. Mr. Fisher asked if the 1971 Plan showed an indus Tucker said there was one recommended on Route 6, but the Bos site before the plan was adopted. No replacement for that s~ Mr. Fisher suggested that the staff use the criteria listed ~ selecting industrial sites and try to find one site or severs area. Mr. Dorrier said the Town Council had recently adopted s authority to study the Mink Creek impoundment for use as a ps talked to Mayor Thacker about this and expressed the County's ndustrial use at Uniroyal be people; two were interested in ~ines~gro~th. The area of rea adjacent to Uniroyal because oroblems with topography and does ~lain. ~d there is a potential for 185 eas develop at six dwelling units with both water and sewer trial site in Scottsville. Mr. rd of Supervisors deleted that te was recommended by the Board. n the Comprehensive Plan for 1 smaller sites in the Scottsvill resolution giving the County rk. Mr. Fisher said he had willingness to study this September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) [Adjourned from August 16, 1979) Agenda Item No. 2E. Stony Point Village plan. Mr. Tucker said this plan is similar to the one for Stony Point in the 1971 Plan. A commercial area existing at the intersection of Routes 20 and 600 is recognized and further commercial is provided at the southwest quadrant of that intersection; This plan recognizes the new fire station. There were no public comments received at~ either the hearing held by the P~lanning Commission, or at the Board's public hearing. Mr. Roudabush said he did not feel this area will experience a lot of growth and he feels the plan presented meets the criteria for designating villages. Agenda Item No. 2F. Nix Village Plan. Mr. Tucker said this area was not proposed for --~ villag~'~tatus in the 1971 plan. He feels the consultants made this proposal based on buildi~ permits which had been issued for properties in this area, although most of those permits are for Milton Hills which does not shown on this map. Mr. Tucker said unless some impetus for development ~s provided through zoning, he does not feel much will happen in this area. Mr. Roudabush said he would rather see Milton designated as a village. It has access to a main highway (Route 250 East) and is close to a school (Stone Robinson). Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would rather delete this area from the village plans. Mr. Dorrier said he would vote yes. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board would like to look at a village plan for Milton. Mr. Roudabush said he was not keen on creating a new village, but it would give a nucleus for ~ growth on the east side of the County. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher suggested that the Board decide at this time if it would contir e with the public hearing scheduled for tonight. Mr. Agnor said there are now seven roads closed in the western part of the County. (Route 827 between Route 810 and Route 601; Route 614, Sugar Hollow Road; Route 619 at Batesville: Routes 672 and 674 off of Route 810; Route 690 at Newtown; and Route 637 going to the Ivy Landfill.) Mr. Fisher said the public hearing tonight is on the Urban Area of the Comprehensive Plan and he would suggest that the Board hold the public hearing as scheduled, but notify the public that the hearing will be held oper and commen~s~ both oral and written, will be taken at later work sessions. The Board concurre and requested that the Clerk notify the news media immediately that the Board would continue with the public hearing. Not Docketed: At this time, Mr. Tucker presented the following information requested on the-H~011ymead Community Plan by the Board at their work session on August 15: -- "The~,fotlowing suggestions have been incorporated into the revised Hollymead Community Plan: (Map follows) 1. The revised northern boundary was drawn along Route 649. 2. The middle school proposed for the Route 29 site was moved to the Hollymead Elementary School site; a site adequate for both buildings (41 acres). ~ 3. High density residential areas were moved closer to Route 29 in general. 4. A slope analysis of the industrial area (see Table 1 which follows) indicates a~.f sites are relatively suitable for industrial development, with those sftes closest to the Airport being most suitable. 5. The N0rthside Industrial park and PID have been added to the Community plan. 6. The CATS Study "eastern bypass" recommendation has been included on the map. 7. The governmental subcenter slated for the site on Route 29 at the intersection with Route 643 has been moved to the central location at the entrance to Hollymead PUD. 8. The high density residential in the southeastern corner of the Community has been moved to a site along Route 29. 9~Changes in the text concerning parks and their location near .schools or in central locations have been noted. 10. Keys on all maps will include allowable densities under residential categories. September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from August 15~, ~979) Community of Hollyrnead ~ Scale  1"-2000' Key ~ Low Density Res. ~ Med. Density Res. I~ High Density Res. ~ Commercial ~ Public Institutions ~ industriai Site Numb e r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TABLE I SITE ANALYSIS FOR PORTION OF THE HOLLYMEAD COMMUNITY Proposed Industrial Acreage Land Use Priority (Approx) Industrial Existing Residential Industrial Existing Commercial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial 1 (lacking sewer) 1 (lacking sewer) 3 (lacking sewer) 3 (lacking sewer) 3 (lacking sewer) 3 (lacking sewer) Percent Under 10% Slope 25 acres 98% 25 acres 100% 150 acres 33% 50 acres 75% 30 acres 80% 65 acres 90% 014 September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) [Adjourned from August 16, 1979) SHOWING INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS IN TABLE I TABLE 2 IMPACTS ON LAND DEVELOPMENT Hollymead Land Use Category Eliminated Pop. 1 DU Acres New Proposed Pop. DU Acres 45O 150 6O 0 0 0 0 0 0 27OO 9O0 6O Residential-Low(2.5)2 1125 375 150 -Medium(7.5[2 450 150 20 -Mob±le(i~)~ 450 150 15 -~h(15)~ 45o 15o lO Industrial 150 190 4O Commercial 10 Total 2475 825 355 3150 1050 Difference Pop. DU Acres -675 -225 -90 -450 -150 -2O -450 -150 -15 2250 750 50 4O 1population assumes 3.0 persons per unit in all cases 2Average number of units per acre 3O 350 675 225 September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from August 16, 1979) 015 Mr. Lindstrom asked how the residential areas shown on this community plan will be sh~n on the revised zoning map. Mr. Tucker said the high density areas cannot be_~designated exactly because there are no property lines on this plan. The high density areas will be shown for a one-acre density on the zoning map, knowing that when development is to take place a rezoning will have to be requested. Ail this plan does is to recognize areas for resi- dential use. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the areas outlined for industrial uses will be shown on the zoning map. Mr. Tucker said most of those areas will be shown as agricultural and a rezoning to industrial would have to be requested when the land is proposed for development. Mr. Lindstrom said he had no problem with designating more land in the Hollymead Community Plan for industrial purposes than is recommended in the Comprehensive Plan this plan as long as these lands are not shown that way on the zoning map. ~c: ~Pisham s~i~ anty about 30% of the areas marked for industrial purposes meet slope criteria. He felt that if these lands are shown for industrial purposes and the terrain is not suitable, when a rezoning request is received, the Board will be "boxed in." Dr. Iachetts asked if just one of the sites shown on the map is better suited for industrial purposes. Mr. Tucker said the staff would have to do further study. There is a stream that runs through these properties, but he felt there are some good areas. Mr. Lindstrom said if the criteria outlined in the Board's Industrial Development Policy is used to designate areas that can be used, ~he Board will be in "good shape" when requests for rezoning are received. Mr.~Roudabush suggested that the areas on the map be reduced to about 40% of that shown~,~a Only the better sites be designated. Mr. Fisher asked if all of the industrial lands shown on the north side of Route 649 meet the industrial criteria. Mr. Tucker said yes. Agenda Item No. 3. At 4:34 P.M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. Mr. Agnor said he had one item to discuss with the Board before going into executiv~ session and the motion was withdrawn. Mr. Agnor said Mr. James Skove had brought to his attention that the resolution adopted by the Board in June authorizing application for an experimental mass transportation ride- sharing grant, contained wording which indicated that JAUNT and the County would work togethe~ on this project. The County has been informed that no agency which wants to be a provider of services ink,he program can be excluded, but there is a need to exclude JAUNT from being a part of the designing organization of the program. Mr. Agnor then requested that the Board adopt the following resolution to solve this problem: BE IT RESOLVED by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that the County Exeutive is authorized, for and on behalf of Albemarle County, to execute and file an application to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Commonwealth of Virginia, for a grant of transportation special revenues, Chapter 850, budget item 621.C. of the 1978 Acts of the General Assembly, as amended, for an experimental mass transportation/ride-sT~_,~.~ sharing project; and to accept from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation grants in such amount as may be awarded; and to authorize the County Executive to furnish to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation such documents and other information as may be required for processing the grant request. ~ The Board of Supervisors certifies that the funds shall be used in ~ accordance with the requirements of the Appropriation Act; that the record of receipts and expenditure of funds granted Albemarle County as authorized in the Acts of the General Assembly (Chapter 850, appropriation item 621.C - State Aid for Experimental Mass Transportation and Ride-Sharing) may be subject to audit by the Department of Highways and Transportation and by the State Auditor of Public Accounts; and that funds granted to Albemarle County for defraying the expenses of the mass transportation or ride-sharing project of Albemarle County shall be used only for such purposes as authorized in the Acts of the General Assembly. Motion to adopt the foregoing resolution was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted a memorandum received this date from the Director of Finance relative to the Board's rules used when issuing permits for bingo games and raffles. The memo stated in part: "The Board of Supervisors adopted a policy on November 20, 1975, under Section 18.2-335 of the Code of Virginia, as follows: 1 - Maximum frequency of operation of games: and unrestricted for raffles. one time per week for bingo games 2 - Maximum hours of operation: unrestricted for raffles. 6:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. for bingo games, 3 - Days of operation: Sunday. Any one day, Monday through Saturday; no operations on Section 18.2-335 of the Code was repealed effective July 1, 1979, and this policy does not conform to Chapter 8, Title 18.2, Article 1.1, which allows: September 5, 1979 (Afternoon) (Adjourned from August 16, 1979) 1 - Frequency of operation of games: two days per week. 2 - Hours of operation: none are specified. 3 - Days of operation: does not delete Sunday operations. Does the Board of Supervisors intend to continue the policy set out above? If so, I would recommend that official action be taken to readopt the policy since the Code Section referred to in the old policy has been repealed." The Board members felt that the above policy had worked well in Albemarle. Motion was ~o~fered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to readopt the policy set out above. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Me. ss~s. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Lottery Permit application from the Greenwood Ruritan Club for a raffle on September 10, 1979, was received. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, this permit was issued in accordance with the Board's adopted rules for issuance of such permits. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted that the Registrar has published a listing of the extra hours her office will be open so citizens can register for the general election in November. Mr. Agnor said work began on the 1981 reassessment of real estate on August 29th. Wingate Appraisers, the firm hired to help the County's staff with the reassessment, will begin their work in the County on October 1, 1979 and should have it completed by October 1, 1980. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a memo from the Virginia Association of Counties about a -c.onferenc~e to be held in Roanoke on September 24. It is called a Workshop on Economic Ana!ysi for..Local Officials; the purpose being to make elected officials more aware of the application of economics to the financial matters of their jurisdictions. This workshop is being sponsor~ by the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities. At 4:45 P.M., the Chairman requested an executive session for the purpose of discussing lega~ and personnel matters. Such a motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None.