Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1978-10-18N
October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 18, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesvill Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthon Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (Arriving at 7:38 P.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; Deputy County Attorney, Frederick W. Payne and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 7:34 P.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 1-A. Mike Gleason: Italian visit. Mr. Gleason noted that the County and City share a twin city relationship with Poggio a Caiano and Prato, two cities outside of Florence, Italy. In 1976, a delegation from these cities visited Charlottesville and Albemarle and in 1977 a delegation from here returned the visit. In April there was a pro- posal that a delegation visit this area again, however, because of changes that ~ame about, the visit has been rescheduled for October 31 to November 3rd. A committee is planning for this activity and the Board members will be sent a detailed senario. Mr. Gleason suggested that on N~¥~.m~ 2nd there be a formal welcome by the Supervisors at 9:50 A.M. followed by a visit to the Courtroom with a formal Board meeting being conducted at 10:00 A.M. This will be f~liowed by lunch at the Bicentennial Centex, a visit ~o Monticello and the University, and a ~anquet that night at the Monticello dining room. In April the Board approved a budget of $1,500 for the visit, one-half of which womld come from the City and one-half from the County. However, there have been two major coSt revisions. Because the Charlottesville Airport is closed for repairs, bus transportation may have to be provided from Washington, D. C. to Charlottesville. This additional cost, plus inflationary factors, require the committee to ask for an additional $700.00 total to meet expenses, the majority of which are for dinner and luncheon functions. ~r. Gleason then requested that the Board consider paying SI,S00 in County funds for this visit. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta authorizing expen- diture of $350.00 in addition to the $750.00 approved in April, only if necessary. Motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No.2. ZMA-78-14. William W. Stephenson and Alton ~. Martin. Public hearing on request to rezone 32.$ acres from A-l, R-2 and B-1 to B-1 and R-3. Property on the north- side of Route 29 North just north of the intersection of Routes 631 and 29 North. County Tax Map 45, Parcel 94, Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress o~ October 4 and October 11, 1978). At this time, Mr. Lindstrom disqualified himself from discussion and vote on this matter since one of the applicants is a client of his firm. Mr. Tucker then proceeded to read the staff's report: Character of the~Area This property is vacant. A mobile home park is to the west. uses are to the south. Property to the north ~s vacant. Residential and business B-1 REQUEST Zoning in the Area In July, 1972, the applicant~dvertise~61~acres of this site be rezoned from R-2 to A-1 to permit expansion of a mobile home park (ZMA-226). Zoning of adjoining properties is R-2 and B-1. Comprehensive Plan This property falls within that area shown for commercial use on the Urban Area Land Use Plan. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a total developed commercial acreage of about 750 acres by 1995. Currently about 2400 acres are zoned for commercial u~s.~, Staff Comment While the staff has supported minor rezonings to B-1 in the area, staff has consistently opposed extensive commercial ~ezonings along the Route 29 North corridor for the followin reasons: e Staff opinion is that the Route 29 North corridor is commercially overzoned. There are currently about 1100 vacant acres of B-I property in the Urban Area. Staff opinion is that the Urban Araa as a whole is commercially over-zoned. That portion of Route 29 North between the South Fork of the Rivanna and the Corporate limits of the City has been the subject of study in terms of traffic congestion. Staff opinion is that this segment is particularly sensitive and is reluctant to support any increase in traffic-intensive zoning until some action has been taken on the 29 North transportation studies~ presently underway. Based on the above-cited reasons, staff remmmmends denial of this petition for B-1. Staff recommended den~al of. a similar request (ZMA-77-03) for the same reasons on property adjacent to the north; that request was approved, however, in May, 1977. R- 3 REQUEST OOZ October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Comprehensive Plan This area is recommended for commercial development with low density residential (2.5 dwelling units/acre) in the area. Traffic Generation Existing Proposed Zoning Zoning A-1 22 R-2 1275 R-3 905 B-1 3510 1584o Total 4807 vtpd 16745 vtpd This generation is arrived at for residential type user by applying seven trips per unit per day and for commercial and industrial type user ~e rely on the Highway Department. T~ey take a similar or average type commercial usage and apply it on an acreage basis for the most intensive type usage. Staff Comment Staff opinion is that the requested R-3 zoning does not comply with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore recommends denial of this request. Mr. Tucker noted that on September 12, 1978, by a vote of five to three, the Planning Commission recommended denial of this application. Mr. Fisher noted letter from the Highway Department dated August 24, 1978, in which it was stated that access to this property may present some difficulty. It was recommended that the density allowed on this property not be increased until access to the property has been investigated. He also noted receipt of letter from Star Realty Management, Inc. of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, in which they state opposition to this rezoning request. Mr. Ed Bain was present to represent the applicant. He said this is not an application for increased commercial zoning since there is already commercial zoning on the property. The applicant feels that this request will allow for the possibility of large type uses. By extending the commercial zoning back to the property boundary there would be good depth which would allow business complexes which would not be permitted with the present parcel size, It would give more flexibility in developing a unified plan with this parcel and adjoining parcel It would also allow for greater open space. This area is shown in the comprehensive plan for business use. In the staff's report it is ~entioned that there are 1~00 acres of unused commercial land in the urban area, but little of it is on 29 North and that other commercially zoned~land does not belong to the applicants. The applicants do not at this time have con- tracts pending that are subject to rezoning. The property to the north of this property had the same strip situation and last year the Board did grant a rezoning for depth on that pro- perty. There is water and sewer available on this tract at this time. There was an entrance permit granted by the Highway Department for this 26-acre parcel some years ago. In answer to traffic questions, it is possible that if this parcel was developed as a whole, it would crea~ less traffic than if it were stripped with fast food operations. Concerning the requesl for R-3 zoning, there is currently an adjoining 6.2 acre parcel which is zoned A-1. In 1972 when this property was ~ezoned to A-I, it was done so because the mobile home park adjoining this property was to be expanded and it was rezoned for that reason. The expansion did not come about and instead of asking for that parcel to also be rezoned to business as shown in the comprehensive plan, it was felt that a buffer could be created between the existing R-2 and the existing mobile home park. R-3 .is not spot zoning but would create a buffer between the commercial property and the mobile home park. There is already R-3 zoning on larger tract in this area. For these reasons, Mr. Bain asked the Board's approval of the rezoning request. At 7:59 P.M. the public hearing was opened. the public hearing was closed. With no one present to speak for or against, Mr. Fisher said a piece of land two properties to the north of this piece was the only one along this portion of Route 29 for some distance that had any ~epth of commercial zoning. Last year, an applicant came in and said he had a difficult piece of p~operty to develop and wanted zoning to a depth as deep as the one next door. That request was approved on a split vote. This applicant is now saying that he has the adjacent piece of p~operty, it also is dif. ficult to develop and he wants~it rezoned in the same way. He said the Planning staff has noted in their report that the County is already commercially over zoned. Therefore, he fel~ the Board should not consider creating anymore commercial land un~ it is decided how to handle what already exists. He said the piece of property that is zoned A-1 is not compatible with ~anning in the area and probably should be rezoned to R-2 or something ~onsistent with recommendations in the comprehensive plan. He pleaded with the Board not to aggravate by extending the commercial zoning along this portion of Rout~j~29 North. Mr. Roudabush felt that neither A-1 or R-3 are consistent with the r~mainder of the area. He said R-2 might be an appropriate zone for the back of this property if access to ~t were through other than the &cng narrow strip of B-1. If the B-1 zoning could be redrawn in a more rectangular shape, it might be a better situation. Dr. Iachetta said he could not support the proposal in its pres~t form because of pendi~ recommendations from the CATS study f~r Route 29 North. He then offered motion to uphold the Planning Commission's r~commendation of denial. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and and carried by the following recorded vote. ~AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAININg: Mr. Lindstrom October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3. SP-78~-~55. Walter H. Johnson. For a public garage on 0.64 acres zoned A-1. Property located on the east side of Route 631 approximately 1200 feet north of Oak Hill. County Tax Map 76, Parcel 52B. Scottsville Magisterial District. (Advertised in thc Daily Progress on October 4 and October 11, 1978.) Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: Character of the Area There is a single-family dwelling on this property and six other dwellings exist in strip development. Grace Baptist Church is across Route 631 from this property. Staff Comment The applicant proposes an automobile sales lot and office on a 0.64 acre lot occupied by an existing dwelling. No service or repair is proposed, and no signs are proposed. Three or four vehicles would comprise the sales lot and according to the applicant, would not be visible from the highway. Staff opinion is that this use is not compatible to a residential area but is appropriate to~ major commercial area as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff/~$mmends denial of this petition. However, should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to approve this petition, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. Site plan approval including commercial entrance approval by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 2. Landscape plan approval by Planning Commission; 3. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies; 4. Not more than four mnlicensed vehicles to be located on the site at any time. Additional Staff Comment Staff is reluctant to recommend any conditions which are difficult to enforce as in Condition #4. First, such a condition requires periodic checking by tAe Zoning Departmen~ which is burdensome to the taxpayer. Second, such condition, limiting the amount of merchandise available, penalizes the applicant for being a "good businessman." Section !6~34, the definition of public garage, has been problematic in the past. This use appears only in the A-! zone. Staff opinion is that "renting, selling, or storing motor vehicles" are uses inappropriate to that zone. Therefore, staff recommends repeale: of said wor~ing thus restricting such use to the "repairing, servicing, and equipping" of motor vehicles. Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission did not adopt a resolution of intent at this time but at their meeting of October 3, 1978, by u~animous rot% recommended denial of this petition. The applicant was not present, therefore, motion was .~. offered by Dr. Iachetta, second( by Mr. Dorrier, to defer this public ~earing until NOvember 15th. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None Agenda Item No. 4. SP-78-54. Mary S. Harrison. For a Home Occupation Class B on 6.56 acres zoned A-1. Property located on north side of Route 676, approximately 1.5 miles north of Route 250 West. County Tax Map 57, Parcel 73. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Advertised inithe Daily Progress on October 4 a~d October 11, 1978.) Mr. Tucker~gave the staff's report: Character of the Area This area is rural in character though several single-family dwellings exist in the area. Staff Comments The applicant is proposing to operate a floral and interior design business in her home. She needs this permit in order to have a business manager to handle accounts, bookkeeping, advertising and ~ale~ promotion. Staff opinion is that such use would not be detrimental to the area and recommends approval subject to: 1. Compliance with Section 16-44.1, Home Occupation, Class B. 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the entrance. Mr. Tucker noted that on October 3, 1978, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition with the two staff conditions. Mrs~ Harrison was present and said she will operate a floral servic~ where she goes to the customer. There wasaa question raised about generation of traffic but it is not economically feasible for her to make more than one trip per day. She needs someone to he~p with the bus- iness and since that per~on will not be a member of the family, she must have this permit. The public hearing was opened and with no one present to speak for or against this petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve SP-78-54 with the conditions recommended Ry the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. NAYS: None. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ,00 4 '- october 18¢ 1978 (~egular Night Meeting) Agenda Item No. 5. ZMA-78-16. Mary G. Wells. To locate a mobile home on 2.65 acres zoned R-~ (~r:oposed ~o be zoned A-1 Agriculture). Property located on the south side of Route 651 approximately 750 feet west of the Southern Railroad. County Tax Map~'61,~arcel 159. Rivanna Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Pro~ress on October 4 and October 11, 1978.) Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: Requested Zoning: A-1 Agriculture Acreage: 2.65 acres Existing Zoning: R-2 Residential Limited. Location: Property, described as Tap Map 61, Parcel 159, is located on the southside of Route 651 (Free State Road) about 750 feet east of the Southern Railroad. Character of the Area A dilapidated single-family dwelling exists on this property. are located between this property and Free State Road. Two single-family dwelling Comprehensive Plan Low-density residential (2.5 units/acre) and open space uses are recommended by the Com- prehensive Plan in this area. Zoning and Zon~ History in the Area R-2 zoning dominates the area. There have been two previous rezoning requests in the area from R-2 ~.o~A-1 in order to permit mobile homes. ZMP-184 (September, 1971) was approved, while ZMA-288 (June, 1972) was denied. In both applications, staff stated that such rezonings would constitute "spot zoning." Generally, "Spot ~oningU is zoning w~ch is inconsistent with zoning in the area gra~%adZf~r4~he convenience of the applicant rather than the general welfare. In this petition, the appliaant is requesting rezoning to A-1 in order to locate a mobile home. Staff recommends denial on the basis of spot zoning. Mr. Tucker noted that on October 3, 1978, by a vote of six to one, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this petition. Mrs. Wells was present and said she needs the home for a retired cousin, a member of the family. The public hearing was opene~ith no oneepresent to speak for or against, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dorrier said he knows the staff is opposed to spot zoning, but it seems in this case that to locate a mobile home on 2.65 acres would not be creating a hazard to health, safety or welfare so he can support the request. Mr. Lindstrom said he has a problem with spot zonin He feels the Board will ~always find cases that are appealing and which they would like to accommodate by changing zoning, but he did not feel that is the way to go about accommodating a mobile home but he is not ready to address the question of mobile homes at this time. D~~ Iachetta said he felt the Board is caught up in procedures. If the Board is in this position because mobile homes are allowed only in A-i, he will have to vote for spot zaning and hope that this problem can be corrected in the ne~ zoning ordinance. He said he is familia with the area and does not feel a mobile home will hu~t any thing. Because access to this area is across a railroad bridge, it is not likely that the land will develop in anyway soon. He then offered motion to approve the request as recommended by the Planning Commission. The moti n was seconded by ~r. Dorrier. Mr. Henley said he did ~0t have any ~roblem with rezo~E the property to A-1. If the m~bile home ceases to be used, it can be removed and the land rezoned, and he would support the motion. Mr. Roudabush said he would support the motion because there is a problem with the zoning ordinance. He does not like the idea of spot zoning to accommodate this sort of situation since it is inconsistent with all planning principle~ in this case he will support the motion. Mr. Fisher said he shared the same dilemma. carried by the following recorded vote: Roll was called at this point and the motion AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 6. SP-78~56. Mary G. Wells. To locate a mobile home on 2.65 acres zoned R-2 (proposed to be zoned A=i Agriculture). Property located on the south side of Route 651 approximately 750 feet west of the Southern Railroad. County Tax Map 61, Parcel 159,~Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker noted that ordinarily mobile homes are approved administratively, if there are no objections filed. In this case, the mobile home permit was advertised concurrently with the zoning application so the applicant ~ould not have to wait for approval should the rezoning be approved. The Planning Commission, on October 3, 1978, by a vote of six to one, recommended to the Board that this petition be approved with the following conditions: 1. Complianne~w'i~h~S~etion 11-14-2. 2. If mobile home has been abandoned for a three months period of time, the special permi will be voided. October 18, 1979 (Regular Night Meeting) 005 Mr. Fisher asked if anyone had suggested that the dilapidated home be removed as a conditior ~f approval. Mr. Tucker said it was discussed, but it was not added as a condition although ae felt it would be appropriate. At this time, the public hearing was open~d, With no one sresent to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve SP-78-56 wit~ ~he conditions recommended by the Planning Commission but addi~g~condition No. 3 to read: "Removal of the existing dwelling and the tract of land shall be used for one dwelling unit ~iy." Mr. Henley asked if the condition should not just say that the dwelling unit would be ~emoved before the mobile home is placed on the property since he felt that there might be something salvagable in the building. Mr. ~oudabush then amended his motion to ~state No. 3 lo say: "The use of the existing dwelling be abandoned as a residence and no certificate of ~ccupancy be issued as long as second ~welling unit is on the property." The amended motion ~as accepted by Dr. Iachetta and c~rried by the following recorded vote: ~YES: ~AYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-78-58. Dr. & Mrs. Daniel Josephthal. For a riding stable on 111+ ~cres zoned A-1. Property located on the north side of Route ~1 at the intersection of ~outes ~78 and 614. County Tax Map 42, Parcels 40D and 40F. White Hall Magisterial District. Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 4 and October 11, 1978.) Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report: Character of the Area Rolling hills in pasture and woods with the eastern boundary alon~ the Mechum River. boarding and cattle facilities currently exist. Horse Comprehensive Plan Agricultural conservation use. Staff Comment This operation is intended to be of small local scale involving lessons for around five pupils per class utilizing around ten horses, one instructor, and one helper. Shows are planned to exhibit learned skills of the class participants. Staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Planning Commission approval of site plan. 2. Health Department approval in accordance with requirements for commercial use. 3. No commercial activity except those associated with a ~ublic r~ing stable. 4. Fences maintained at all times. 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance. 6. Ail riding ring surfaces shall be covered with a material to prevent erosion (e.g., pine bark, etc). Mr. Tucker said that on October 3, 1978, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission recom- mended approval of this petition with the planning staff's conditions. He~'~also noted~t~hat he had received a letter from the Highway Department stating that the entrance to this Property ~oes not meet commercial standards but can be improved with minor changes. The public hearing was opened and first to speak was Dr. Josephthal. He said he has about 70 acres on which to graze the horses,. The riding ring surface has been planted with fescue in the center; on the perimete~ of the ring stone dust has been laid; the banks of the ring being planted with fescue and mulched. The soil erosion inspector has looked at it and approved same ~ith no One else present to speak for or against the petition, the public hearing was closed. ~otion was then offered by ~r. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve this petition with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Motion carried by the following recorde¢ ~ote: .YES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom asked if Mr. Gordon Yager from Soil Conservation Service is on the Soil Erosi~ Review Committee. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Lindstrom asked how he could be made a member of t~is committee. Mr. Agnor said it would require an amendment to the zoning ordinance. At 8:40 P.M. the Board took a recess and reconvened at 8:55 P.M. left the meeting at this time. The Deputy County Attorne Agenda Item No. 8. SP-78-64. Central Virginia Health Facility. Public hearing on a request to locate a sewer package treatment plant on 3.4 acres zoned R-2. Property located on the west side of Route 240 at Powell Creek in Crozet. County Tax Map 56A(2), Parcel 7. White Hall Magisterial District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 4 and October 11, 1978.) Tucker: (gives staff report) Character of the Area: This property is developed with a triplex dwelling. properties to the north are developed in single-family dwellings. Other O06 October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Comprehensive Plan: This property is within the amended Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area for Crozet. Service would be provided by the Crozet sewer interceptor to become operational at the time of completion of the Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant. The package treatment plant proposed in this application would serve as an interim measure providing service to the proposed Crestview Convalescent 'Center and also serving 32 existing dwellings and businesses which currently discharge raw sewage to Lickinghote Creek. Staff Comments: Staff opinion is that this request substantially complies with the Comprehensive Plan and recommends approval subj'ect to the following Conditions: 1 Site plan approval including screening ~from adjacent properties by landscape plantings, earth berming~ and/or opaque fencing. 2.'~- County Engineer review to insure that plant is not located in the flood plain or otherwise prone to flooding. Approval of appropriate Federal, State and local agencies. The Albemarle County Service Authority shall request such agencies to emphasize in their reviews the minimization of odors and noise generated by the plant. The plant shall be located below existing ground level to the maximum possible extent, provided such location shall not be contrary to Condition #2. The plant and all appurtenances shall be dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority and operated thereafter in accord with the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority's four-party agreement. The plant and all aPpurtenances shall be constructed by the applicant at his expense in accordance with plans approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Connections to the package plant shall be limited to the proposed convalescent home, existing connections to the Crozet Sewer Company, and three on-site connections to the existing triplex. Connection shall be mandatory for all Crozet Sewer Company connections unless some other approved means of sewage disposal could be provided. Approval is contingent upon acceptance of the system by the State Water Control Board and Virginia Department of Health as an interim measure until the Crozet Interceptor is operational. !0. The package plant shall be removed when the CroZet Interceptor becomes operational. The Planning Commission, by unanimous vote, recommends approval to you, with one amend~ ment to a condition that I just read, #7, where that ends at "existing triplex" they added further expansion shall be allowed without an amendment to this special permit." We have received correspondence from various people on this matter. We have a copy of a letter from the State Water Control Board which is addressed to Mr. Thompson: "7 September 1978 Mr. E. E. Thompson Executive Director Albemarle County Service Authority P. O. Box 6777 Charlottesville, Virginia 22906 Dear Mr. Thompson: After the meet'ing of 29 August 1978 between representatives from the Albemarle County Service Authority, Albemarle County, Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, and the staff concerning a new development in the Crozet permit issuance matter, it was felt that a communication of specifics from the regulatory standpoint was necessary. A Mr. Stan Wilcox has proposed to provide an interim treatment facility in Crozet of sufficient capacity to handle the current raw sewage discharge of the defunct Crozet Sewer Company and the flow generated by a convalescent home facility to be located in a renovated building in Crozet. During the meeting, the staff indicated that such a proposal would be viewed favorably provided: 1. A complete NPDES application was submitted including all local approvals. The facility would be interim in nature with the ultimate solution b~eing recognized through various planning efforts as the Crozet Interceptor. '3. The State Department of Health concurs with the interim plant concept and location. Connections to the interim facility would be limited to the proposed convalescent home and existing connections to the Crozet Sewer Company. Connection would be mandatory for all Crozet Sewer Company connections provided some other approved means of sewage disposal could not be provided by the connections. October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) The meeting was terminated when it was decided that the Authority and Mr. Wilcox needed to. develop a feasibility study for the proposal. The staff has discussed the proposal with the Bureau of Applied Technology and tentatively received con- currence on interim effluent limitations of 30 mg/1 for the BOD5 and suspended solids parameters. As you are aware, the Attorney General's office has informed the staff that court action would be necessary to designate the owner or owners of the Crozet Sewer Company for purposes of permit issuance. This action is being held in abeyance pending the recommendations of the feasibility study on Mr. Wilcox' proposal. The timely development of the study would be appreciated. Sincerely, (Signed) Larry M. Simmons, P.E. Pollution Control Engineer" We have a letter from adjacent property owners, Early and Maude Kent, and they are opposed to the treatment plant. Also have a letter from Mr. Clyde Gouldman who is repre- senting Mr. and Mrs. Lou Eaton: "October 2, 1978 Albemarle County Planning Commission 414 E. Market Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Attention: Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Mr. Ronald S. Keeler RE: SP-78-64 Ladies and Gentlemen: Our firm has been retained by Lou Eaton. He and his family live in a single- family home on the lot adjacent to the proposed package sewage treatment plant in Crozet. We understate the case to say that he is concerned. The new Centrox system proposed has no long term track record in Albemarle County on which to base an evaluation. We are told that under the proposed plan the plant will give secondary treatment to sewage and dump the effluent into Lickinghole Creek which of course will ultimately find its way t~o the Rivanna Reservoir. While proponents of the plan may argue that they are 'curing' an unfortunate situation (the 32 connections which now allegedly dump raw sewage into Lick- inghole Creek), we ask that you consider whether the cure will be worse than the problem. Under the proposal, the capacity of the plant, if fully utilized, will increase the effluent dumped into the Creek some 430% according to my calculations. Once the capacity exists, you and the Board of Supervisors may be hard pressed to deny additional hook-ups. It seems reasonable to ask why such a new concept in sewage treatment cannot be tested on some tributary that does not le~d to a public drinking supply. The proposed package is touted as an interim measure on the assumption that the interceptor line will become a reality relatively soon. We question whether such an assumption is realistic. We have been told that officials from Morton's Frozen Foods have stated publicly that they probably will not hook on to the interceptor unless economic feasibility is proven to them which, they say, is unlikely to happen. If Morton's does not participate, the interceptor's construction seems suspect, at least for the near term. From a planning standpoint, we contend that the location of this type plant in a residential neighborhood under these circumstances is unsound for the foregoing reasons and because of the obvious adverse impact the plant will have on existing residential land use. Despite his reservations, many of which are set forth above, Mr. Eaton has decided not to oppose SP-78-64, if the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors add the following conditions to conditions that are made part of any final approval: (a) The proposed package plant shall be and is hereby limited to hook-ups which serve the planned Central Virginia Health Facility (on the Cold Storage site) and which serve the present 32 users of the old Crozet sewer line for their existing uses. (b) The plant shall not be allowed to expand its capacity to serve additional users, residential or commercial, or have its initial users expand their needs unless and until the plant's effluent is connected to the proposed interceptor. We would appreciate your consideration of these requests submitted in behalf of Mr. Eaton. Sincerely yours, (Signed) W. Clyde Gouldman, II For the Firm" October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Basically those two requests have been incorporated in here, with the exception that the Commission also allowed the hook-up of the existing triplex that is on the parcel on which thc plant would be located and stated in addition to that condition I read, that any additional hook-ups would require an amendment to the special permit, so you would have an opportunity t¢ review and to ascertain whether or not it is in compliance with the State Water Control Board's standards. Fisher: Further correspondence? Tucker: No. I think that covered all of it. Fisher: Do Board members have any questions of Mr. Tucker? Lindstrom: Do we have any figures about what the net result of the alleged increase is in terms of raw sewage? I know they have come up with equi~a'~ency figures and I wondered if we had any. - Tucker: I can't answer that. Maybe Mr. Thompson can. Fisher: We will get to that. If there are no further questions of Mr. Tucker, I would like to ask the applicant to speak first. Tucker: Mr. Tom Lincoln of Mr. Gloeckner's office is present. Lincoln: Mr. Tucker has explained ... the connections we are asking for, the location of the plant. Mr. Thompson can answer any questions relating to the Albemarle County Service Authority's role in the project. Mr. Howard Peasley, the developer of the specific Centrox plant can answer any questions regarding the operation of the plant. Mr. Wilcox can answer any questions about this health facility and Mr. Smith is here whose property the plant will be going on. We will answer any questions that you have. Fisher: I think in the discussion of this we need to know the position of the two service authorities and who is going to own (the plant) and who is going to operate (the plan~ if it is approved. Mr. Thompson do you want to start for the Albemarle County Service Authority? Thompson: The system, after it is finally approved by all State and local agencies including the Rivanna Authority, will be accepted by the Albemarle County Service Authority a~ part of it's system. The Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority will operate that plant in ~ accordance with the four-party agreement. Iachetta: Do you have assurance Mr. Thompson that that plant is going to be approved by the State Water Control Board? Thompson: This is the package that they propose. It is my understanding that the permit we are asking for is just to locate on that property a plant that will receive the State Water Control Board's approval. We have a letter from the State Water Control Board that says that is an approved system that they will accept, but I don't believe that par- ticular system is a part of this application. Iachetta: We have tried before to get the State Water Control Board to approve some sorl of temporary sewage capability out there to take care of the raw sewage, and we have always been turned down. I never have understood the reason~ My question now is, are you assured that this plant or any other plant that you put there would be approved-and under what conditions, if so? Thompson: Sorry I misunderstood the question. The State Water Control Board has had a problem with the raw sewage discharge. They are required by Federal law to issue a discharge permit for this raw sewage discharge. That system in Crozet apparently is not owned by anyon~ at this point, so they are having trouble finding anyone to negotiate with to issue a dis- charge permit that would clean up the problem. Mr. Agnor and myself and Mr. St. John talked to the State Water Control Board about that problem and the significance of trying over a lon period of time to find a solution to that problem. Then the applicant brought forth his proposal. It appeared to us this filled the need we had to solve the problem and get the raw sewage discharge treated. In working with the State Water Control Board, they have indicated they would assist us in everyway they could to use that as an interim solution for treatment of that raw sewage discharge provided certain conditions are met. You have before you a copy of a letter that was addressed to me. Agnor: Mr. St. John and I have been working on this problem for over a year. The matte~ of the Albemarle Service Authority accepting the ownership of this plant from the applicant once it is ready for operation solved the NPDES permit situation because the NPDES permit would then be issued to the Albemarle County Service Authority and the Rivanna Authority woul~ be the operators simply because of the four-party agreement. We have not been able to ~ determine the own~ership of this Crozet Sewer Company or who was going to have this permit issued to them because of that ownership problem. This would resolve that problem. The letter confirms a meeting that was held on this subject. It states that the Water Control Board staff indicated that the proposal which is this system before you tonight, would be viewed favorably provided that the NPDES application was submitted; that the facility would bE interim in nature with the ultimate solution being recognized as the Crozet Interceptor; that the State Department of Health would concur with the interim planned concept and its location that connections to the interim facility would be limited to the proposed convalescent home and existing connections to the Crozet Sewer Company. On that one item, Mr. Thompson has discussed with them the matter of the plant being located on the property of~ftha~owner of the triplex dwelling and in consideration for that plant being located there, the Water Control Board office has indicated they would accept that facility to be connected to the plant. A fifth condition is that connection would be mandatory for all Crozet Sewer Company connection: provided that some other approved means of sewage disposal could not be provided by the users of that system. In essence, the NPDES permit has not been applied for, but indications are that if local approvals are received for this plant, then the application should be filed and the staff of the Water Control Board Would work with favorable approach to the approval procedure. 00'9 October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Iachetta: This letter suggests from its tone that they would not countenance any other connections. Is that a correct appraisal of their stand? They would not allow anymore connections but those which you now have, plus the facility being proposed and nothing beyond that. Thompson: With one exception, and that is they said they reserved the right, if a health hazard existed, that they direct the health hazard to be connected to the plant. Iachetta: Thompson: Iach~tta: Thompson: Iachetta: hazard? Thompson: They? The State Health Department. We could not? The State Health Department is the vehicle which they indicated would be They are reserving unto themselves the ability to do that in case of a health They didn't specifically state who would determine what is a health hazard. Fisher: The Health Department would do that. No question. Agnor: It is essentially a pollution abatement program in addition to the offer by the applicant to built the plant for the convalescent home connection. Iachetta: Do we have any figures for the standards here of 30 milligrams per liter and the BOD demand represent to the total number of gallons of effluent you would have in the plant compared to the same demand the B0D level for 32 raw sewage connections that now go into the reservoir? Thompson: I do not. I have the flow that is anticipated. Iachetta: The question has been raised, do you end up with a better effluent when you have so much more, as I understand the question I heard proposed. Lindstrom: That was my question. Thompson: I misunderstood the question. I thought you were talking about the total gallons that would be passing through the plant. Lindstrom: My question was, what is the equivalent that we will be putting out of this plant in terms of raw sewage? In a layman's understanding, that is about the best that I can put it. Iachetta: To put it another way. Are we going to end up with a net increase in the total load on the reservoir? Thompson: I did not make that comparison. Maybe Mr. Peasley did. Peas!ey: I am President of Centrox Corporation. I could not answer that question without some calculations, but it is a calculable question; direct comparison of the solids output of the plant. Roughly speaking, without giving too much technology, the 30 parts per million that was mentioned here would compare with 220 parts per million of raw sewage dischar Fisher: But, there will be a greater quantity of effluent with the new facilities. Peasley: Not of solids. I would say, without making these calulations, it would be considerably less. Lindstrom: I would like to see total comparison because we are not just talking about solids when talking about problems with the reservoir. I think it would be wise for us to know how this projected output is going to compare with what we are now experiencing in terms of Fisher: In terms of impact on the reservoir? Lindstrom: In terms of what is going into Lickinghole Creek because I don't know .... Fisher: In other words, would there be more phosphorus, more solids Lindstrom: The three criteria. Fisher: with an increased loading, treated, than there presently is with raw sewage? That's the question I presume you would have to do some calculations on. Peasley: That's right. Henley: I don't think the State Water Control Board and the State Health Department would approve it if ... Iachetta: That's the next question I had. Henley: It is subject to their approval. of the system" by those two bodies. Fisher: Who would like to speak next, for or against this application? Col. William Washington: I am a member of the Planning Commission and last week I with- drew from discussion because I have a vested interest. I have a vested interest in the sewer system because I have a one-third interest in a piece of property that potentially could be served by the system. This piece of property is my mother's residence in Crozet right below the Gulf Station. There is one house in between wb~a~ ~ t~ ~n~t~ ~n~ m~ w~ it says "approval is contingent upon acceptanc October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeging) are now served by a septic system and have been for many years. What this proposal does to those two properties is to form a complete cre~e~t~r~m~d~h~m~ ~i~t~c~m~s to the Gulf statio~ on the top side. It serves the property across the road~and the property immediately below that property which is the Eaton property and then Charlie Smith's property will be taken in and the Cold Storage up on the top, so what you a~e forming is a system that forms a complete crescent around three other properties. The Gulf station used to be on this system and~ elected to get off and is now on a septic field, The Foster boys and I both would~ike to se~ our properties ultimately developed. The Comprehensive Plan of '71 and '77 accommodates development of those properties. I understand the rationale, but in essence, what we are doing is rewarding those properties that have polluted this stream since 1900 an~ penalizing those few properties which have not. Fisher: I would like to clarify that last statement. It is my understanding that what they are saying is that they want and will require existing connections from that raw sewage discharge, but would not approve any increased intensity of use of those properties. Is that correct? There would not be any chan~e in use permitted on any of the properties except the Central Virginia Health Facility. Is that correct? The triplexes would be accepted as they are, but with no additional units or expansion, and the same would be true for all the homes now on the raw sewer line. Thompson: As I understand it, if a home burned down it could be replaced, but you could not increase the usage, you could not increase the density. Fisher: That is my understanding of what the State Water Control Board is saying. Even though the properties would be served they would not be able to increase their intensity of use, so they would be in no better position afterwards than they are now as far as being ablel to make higher use of that property. Iachetta: That embargo is only going to be valid as long as the plant is there. Fisher: That is correct. Iachetta: Once the plant is connected to the interceptor, the owners are free to go bacl and do whatever is consistent with zoning and planning. Fisher: Anyone else to speak? Lou Eaton: I am the nearest adjacent property owner. I said pretty much everything I really want to make clear to you gentlemen in the letter and that is primarily that I am concerned about the interceptor line and that is its future ... in Crozet. I do believe the interceptor line is the thing that is going to promote an orderly growth in the Crozet ~ community. The reason I feel very strongly about these stipulations or conditions as far as expansion in so far as people hooking onto it is, I believe the State Water Control Board would view this in their review, that is at a future date for funding. They might look at Crozet and say well they are allowing people to hook on this, or allowing them to take care their immediate problems, so the funding would be needed more in another locality across the state, so I think that any addition to what the State Water Control Board has set forth here would be potentially a threat to the future of the interceptor line. I see in no way that th~ present users of the old Crozet system would profit from being able to hook onvo this line an~ being rewarded. I am probably the only person out there that could put a septic system in if I so desired, but I don't incline to do that because I feel like I owe something for all the years I have been dumping raw sewage and I do think that the Cold Storage facility, that project will definitely be an improvement to the community of Crozet because I-believe the builder, Mr. Wilcox, is a very reputable builder, I don't think he will put anything out ther that will be to the detriment of the communtiy. I~certainly believe that cleaning up the raw sewage is one of the most important things we can do out there in the Crozet area. I Just want to end by saying that I believe these two conditions that I asked for, which I believe are more or less what the State Water Control Board has stipulated~ are very reasonable conditions to be attached to this system and I heartedly recommend that it be approved with those two conditions. Fisher: If there is no further input from the public, I will close the public hearing. I have some questions I would like to ask Mr. Peasley. What is the longest period of time on of these Centrox units, similar to what you propose to install here, has been in operation? How many years? Peasley: A Centrox system has been under ... right here in Charlottesville for approxi- mately four years. A full-sized unit has been in operation at the Meadow Creek Treatment Plant for approximately two years. Fisher: Are there any other installations? Peasley: No, this is a new development. As you note from ... letter of approval from the Health Department and Water Control Board was signed in January of this year, so we are ~ust marketing right now. We have about eight applications in various processes of approval, similar to this one, throughout the State. Fisher: The reason I ask that question is that I share Mr. Eaton's concern to some extent about the future of the Crozet Interceptor.. I came across some letters I wrote in the Spring of 1973 requesting that the State Water Control Board permit the County to build a package plant at Crozet to solve the problems of the raw sewage discharge at Crozet. It was denied again and again. We were told at that time that the Crozet Interceptor would be built by 1975 or 197~ at a cost of one million, plus dollars. It is now up to six or seven million dollars and it is now 1978, almost 1979. It is my clear understanding that they will not require Mortons to connect into the interceptor line, although the State Water Control Board has required that the line be designed and sized for Mortons effluent. I believe if anything is done to alleviate the raw sewage discharge, I think the State Water Control Board's priorities for Federal funding are going to go somewhere else. I suspect that the appr~va! o this package treatment plant will pretty much settle the next ten years for the Crozet area a far as the interceptor line is concerned. I may be wrong. I don't have any special infor- mation other than six years of struggling with the problem, but my bets are, if the raw sewag discharge is solved, the interceptor ~on't be built anytime soon. That leads us to the next ~uestion. The raw sewage discharge has been the issue that the State Water. Control Board has October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) reason they have pushed for the funding for the interceptor. My question about how long one of these has operated is that I suspect, that if this is approved, it will be in use for at least a decade; possibly longer. I think the realities are there. The Federal funds for sewage treatment plants are drying up. We fought one battle in the last few weeks and lost that. We have lost priorities for this community as far as Federal funding in the State. I think we will likely lose more. Which is more important. I think the project that has been proposed for Crozet is an admirable project and I am basically in support of that. I think cleaning up the raw sewage discharge is an urgent need and we need to do that, but if we do take this action to work with the various applicants, then it seems to me rather clear that the rest of Crozet may have to do without public sewage for a long time. That seems to me to be the quid pro quo that would go with this I'm guessing Iachetta: Let's allow that you are right. What have we lost by putting the plant in place except that you might not be able to expand the population density of Crozet for ten years except by where you use septic fields and low density construction. I don't see that as a serious problem compared to the community that is there now and needs to be serviced now. I would hope that doesn't happen. We know that we are five years away from the interceptor at the earliest anyway. It will be 1982 before the AWT is available. Agnor: '81. Iachetta: So that is three years and then you have to do some things after that before you got it~ so my guess is that you are five years away at the earliest and given the situatio~ you have there with no prospect of any other solution to the problem I'm afraid I am going to have to support what I see to be a workable solution that will assure us that the quality of the effluent going into the reservoir is in fact improved~ and ~f ~e~can do that with restrictions we set forth here we are assuring ourselves there won't be any additional materia added other than what would come from this one facility and the 32 connections in existence. We just have to take our chances on what happens with the interceptor. The only thing I see the interceptor not being built doing for us is that we won't develop a big high density area in Crozet. There may be a lot people from Crozet who would prefer that. Fisher: The point of my comments is that I think there are people in Crozet who are making plans based on the interceptor being built and o~ public sewage being available. I think their plans may be considerably changed. I don't know that. i am not opposed to this, but I think it is clear that there are some implications. Iachetta: I think the speculator always has to take his chances. Dorrier: I think we have to deal with this application in hand and I think this treat- ment plant system is definitely an improvement over what we have got and the purpose, the convalescent home, is a good use and these conditions will protect everyone and, therefore, I will support it. Lindstrom: I feel like someone is going to have to show me some figures. The glaring il!ogic of the State Water Control Board's position on this whole matter in the past doesn't give me any confidence that they have done this kind of analysis either. I feel if this is approved~ I agree with the comments made, I would be voting to approve it ~on the assumption, which I assume will be shown to us as correct~ that the net effect is going to be a substantia improvement over what we have now. If we are engaged in this kind of quid pro quo, then I think that the basis for doing it is the assumption that we are getting a substantially improved situation. I assume that is the case, but I have nothing in front of me to make me feel that assumption is correct except just a feeling. Henley: I don't know that we need to get involved in something like that. I think the State Water Control Board has got to approve this. They certainly have some guidelines to go by and they are not going to approve something that is worse than what we have already got. don't think they are. ~ Roudabush: I am going to take the letter from the State Water Control Board as gospel. Their statement No. 2 being that the facility will be interim in nature with the ultimate solution being recognized through various planning efforts as the Crozet Interceptor. If I vote to approve this, I am doing this on the basis of their commitment in this letter, ~and I wouldn't vote for it unless this letter were in our hands. I think they made quite a few statements in here that I am relying on and is the basis for the staff's recommendations and would be the basis for my vote on it. Lindstrom: Can somebody explain to me the next to the last paragraph of this letter? Basically the last sentence in there. Mr. Agnor knows more about it than anybody else. Agnor: The meeting was held when it was a concept only. It involved not only the location of a package plant, but also the connection to that plant through a new sewer line, none of which had been worked out in agreement between Mr. Wilcox or the Albemarle Service Authority, other than just discussion of it, so the meaning of that paragraph as I understand it was, Mr. Wilcox would develop a feasibility study and the staff discuss then the effluent limitations of the Centrox facility in terms of it meeting the stream standards of the creek it is being discharged into. In other words, when the NPDES permit is applied for, which would not be made until this permit would be approved, it not only requires public hearings~ but will not be approved if it violates or contravenes the stream standards that discharg~ ms being put into. We did not want to go through the whole process of the hearings before this Board if there wasn't some indication that the Centrox Plant would not contravene those s~ream standards, so the staff did discuss that with the Bureau of Applied Technology and tentatAve!y received their concurrence that the Centrox plant would meet the discharge requirements of the NPDES permit program. Lindstrom~ I guess what I am searching for is, if this is approved based on what we have in front of us, that the NPDES application procedure and approval of that application will be the insurance that the improvement we are looking for is a .... Agnor: Yes. As Mr. ?easley said, we have not done calculations on it. The State Water Control Board has done some preliminary ones, but their indications are that it will certainly be an improvement. I agree with Mr. ?easley. I haven't done any calculations on it either, but off the top of my head~ I am certain they won't a~rove this ~e~mit if it doesn't ~m~ov~ October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Iachetta: Do those standards have to be those standards in the 1977 Clean Water amendment s ? Agnor: I believe they would. The current regulations. Iachetta: They normally have to meet the latest set of rules? Agnor: Yes. Fisher: How does this 30 milligrams per liter correspond to the new standards that are being applied to Mortons? Didn't the new letter that was sent to Mortons require them to meet a two milligrams per liter standard? George Williams: It may be even more stringent that that. It is really a different situation. It is the load to stream that is the critical factor, not just concentration. Fisher: I understand that, but I am trying to get some relationship between the numbers and it was my recollection that the letter, the new stream standards for Mortons was two milligrams per liter, which is considerably below this standard. Iachetta: Doesn't that standard ultimately concern itself with the B0D that you dump? George Williams: The standard the Water Control Board has indicated would be applied to this facility is related to BOD and suspended solids. Iachetta: Does that work back to the permissible loading per liter? George Williams: Yes, that is the 30 milligrams per liter. Iachetta: That is how it is determined? Williams: .... Fisher: The reason we are asking these questions is that if we take any action that approves an increased loading of effluent into the reservoir, I think that all members of this Board would vote for this application if they were assured that the State W-ater Control Board is going to guarantee that the net impact on the reservoir is going to be less by putting in the sewage treatment plant and by increasing the intensity of use in the community that the combination of those two will have a net improved result to the reservoir. That has not been proved to us. here, but we have some assurances that the State Water Control Board is going to require that. That's all I'm saying. Henley: otherwise? Can you think of any reason why the State Water Control Board would approve it Lindstrom: I can't account for what they have done in the past. Fisher: I don't consider that a rational body. Lindstrom: That is what my concern is, that what they have done in the past doesn't le~c me to want to have any confidence in what they are going to do in the future. I don't know why they would approve it, but it seems to me that reasonable proposals to alleviate the situation at no cost to the State Water Control Board have been rejected in the past. Fisher: Mr. Thompson has another comment he wants to make. Thompson: 'I think that one other thing which probably hasn't been looked at and maybe should be considered whether this is ultimately approved or not, if there will be some sort o arrangement made whereby that raw sewage discharge will be handled. If you will read the !as~ paragraph of that letter that you have in hand, I think you may understand more. Fisher: I will read that: "As you aware, the Attorney General's Office has informed thc staff that court action would be necessary to designate the owner or owners of the Crozet Sewer Company for purposes of permit issuance. This action is being held in abeyance pending the recommendations-of the feasibility study of Mr. Wilcox's proposal. The timely developmen~ of the study will be appreciated", which is sort of a mild, or thinly veiled, threat. Agnor: That is not a threat. That was a request at the hearing that it be held in abeyance until it could be determined whether this project was feasible and whether local approval could be received. We asked for that abeyance; Albemarle County representatives at that meeting did. It wasn't held over our heads as being something that was imminent. We ha~ already been advised in writing that it was imminent before this thing came along. Fisher: So the threat had already happened. Agnor: The Water Control Board, as the controlling agency of the NPDES permit program ii Virginia, has passed a deadline to resolve this issue and the only way to get it resolved is to go to court with it. We have been trying to avoid that court battle with everything that we had at our resources and had been able to delay them for a year on that basis. We met in August. They were very close to filing their suit and we asked them to hold it in abeyance until this process was finished in the event that this may be the solution. Iachetta: Will the Albemarle Service Authority run the risk of being sued for not meeti] stream standards if we put this plant on line? Agnor: No. Unless, of course, the plant malfunctioned for some period of time and ther~ was no corrective action taken, it will meet the stream standards. Fisher: Can you guarantee that they are not going to change the stream standards on you like they did on Mortons? "Agnor: Having just set those stream standards in 1977, I don't anticipate they will be chan~ed very ~uickl~. 0i,3 October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Iachetta: Especially with Feds having cut off the money. Agnor: The stream standards are going the other way. As the result of a lack of funding there is consideration of stream standards being lowered to allow discharges to be made that do contravene those standards. Fisher: With the previous statements that I made, I am willing to support this with some minor modifications. One of them is that, I think that the latter part of condition #7 that the Planning Commission added should be deleted and it should comply with what we understand to be the state Water Control Board's intent that there be no expansion of existing uses. The second one is that condition #10 should be a little firmer, that the package plant shall be removed and the site regraded within six months of the time that the Crozet interceptor becomes operational, at the expense of the owner, I guess, and that is the Albemarle Service Authority. Somebody has got to be held responsible for that or it won't happen. Those are the two major things I had in mind. What other concerns do the Board members have? Lindstrom: Everything I have heard sounds like this is the best thing that has come along in years. I stiI1 have a nagging concern about approving something that is a pig in a poke. Maybe there are other agencies in the State that are going to take care of the problem, but they haven't taken care of the problem in the past. I guess I would be satisfied if we could come up with a condition that provides that the approval was conditioned upon the operation of the plant producing a net reduction in the overall pollution problem going into that stream at that point. Now, the wording of that is a little more complicated than what I just said. But, that's what I feel right now. Fisher: I can support that amendment. Iachetta: I really don't think it's necessary. It says here in #3, approval of~local, state and federal agencies. If they have to operate under the 1977 Clean Water legislation, there are going to be certain minimal standards they have to meet. My understanding of those laws is that the State Water Control Board has the responsibility for seeing that they are properly administered in the State of Virginia. I am not going to presume that they are not going to do their job, and I think that is what you are doing. There is a difference between not approving the plant or putting one there, and approving the plant, in my opinion. If they approve a plant that meets the Federal and state regulations for water, then I don't know of anything this Board can do that would be any better than that, or that would be even legal in fact. Fisher: I think what Mr. Lindstrom is asking for is assurance from State agencies that our reservoir will be better when this is finished than it is now. I share that concern. We have no figures to prove it. We are going on faith that that is what their finding will be. I don't see anything wrong with saying that that is the intent of the approval of this plant. Lindstrom: I think that is what everybody here is assuming. harm to anybody to put that language in. I don't think it does any Fisher: If we are faced next year with three applications for sewage treatment plants in the watershed, we are going to be looking at those on the basis of what impact they are going to have on it. Iachetta: We're not going to be looking at those. that responsibility. The State Water Control Board has Fisher: But you have special permits for them. Henley: I think we are asking for more than we need to ask for. The next thing you know we will be doing the same thing with air pollution and we will have a volume on every special permit. Lindstrom: My problem is that it seems like everytime we get a project that is obviously going to have some impact on the environment, we always say let's leave it to the State and what we find out is that the State doesn't do anything. They didn't do anything with Farber. We have no control when we leave it up to some other body as to what happens in this County except the presumption that that State agency is going to see its way clear of all the ~ political hassles that they get involved in, to do what's right for the public. Now, maybe I should be more willing to rely on other people. When I was elected, the people who elected me, looked to me to see that the reservoir didn't get any worse. The addition of a simple condition on this proposal seems to me to be little enough to ask of me to see that we do end up with something that is going to be better. If I had more experience with the State Water Control Board, or what they have done in the past made more sense to me, I wouldn't have as much problem, but I do. They haven't made sense to me. I am being asked to approve this. This is my last chance to say yes or no on this, and I think I ought to be able to say yes, but, my yes is presuming this is going to be an improvement, that's all. Henley: Who's going to determine? Lindstrom: I think that before the thing is put into operation, that the County would have to be provided with figures that establish that there would be a net benefit. Fisher: We could defer action on this pending the preparation of that data or we could. condition this approval and go ahead and act on it. Lindstrom: the same thing. ... is quicker for the applicant and wastes less time. I think it accomplish~ Dottier: Why couldn't the County Service Authority provide us with that information as to whether or not it is going to be a net benefit, or not? October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Lindstrom: If somebody just provides me with the figures that establish this, and that are tied into this approval, that's all I want. I am simply saying that if we put this condition in here, then we act on the thing tonight. We don't delay anybody and we have protected outselves. Dorrier: I think it would probably be better to have the County Service Authority tell us it is going to be a net benefit, rather than the applicant. Lindstrom: Approval is conditioned on receipt by the Albemarle County Service Authority that operation of this plant will result in a net reduction in pollution being contributed to Lickingho!e Creek. The last part of that language bothers me. I would like to have one of you guys who knows what's going on flush it out, but you know what I am talking about. Henley: This is not going to clear up all the raw sewage that is going in there within the area of Crozet. Where are you going to determine this? This plant is not going to catch all the raw sewage that is going in there. Fisher: But, what comes out of the pipe is going to be better or worse than what is coming out now? Iachetta: The point Tim is raising Joe is that he wants assurance that the combination of the 32 connections plus the health facility, that package, is in terms of biological loading on that stream, going to be better than the 32 connections that ... now there. In other words, just that part, as I understand what you are saying. Henley: But, there are other connections besides the 32. Iachetta: He's not arguing about those. Ail he is saying is the combination of this ne~ facility plus the 32 that you are going to take care of shall in fact be an improvement over the 32 that are putting out raw sewage. Fisher: I wouldn't vote for approval unless I thought that is what was going to happen. Roudabush: I think we have assurances from Mr. Agnor and the engineers who developed this that that will be the case, so I am not afraid to put it in the conditions. Lindstrom: But, if it weren't going to be the case, I certainly couldn't prove it. just that simple. It' Dorrier: Well, let's put it in there as a condition. Lindstrom: I'm working on it. I have about three more words to go. This is about the best I can do under pressure. "Approval is conditioned upon the operation of this plant resulting in a net reduction in suspended solids and phosphates now being contributed by poin sources which shall be subsumed by the proposed plant." Fisher: What' does that mean? Lindstrom: Taken over. Dorrier: What does that mean again, that there will be less solids than are coming out now or there is going to be less phosphorus? Lindstrom: Both. Agnor: This plant is not designed to remove phosphates. That takes a very sophisticate~ tertiary type plant. It will not take the phosphates out of the waste. Lindstrom: There shall be a substantial improvement in phosphate contribution. Fisher: Are you telling us there is going to be an increase in phosphates as a result the Central Virginia Health Facility being added to the system? Agnor: An increase in phosphates? I believe that is possible. Lindstrom: I don't think it's possible, I think it's probable. Fisher: You just lost me. Agnor: I know. Maybe Mr. Williams will want to comment on that. It depends entirely upon their wastes, discharges. Fisher: Every medical facility I have been in has placsd a great deal of concern on cleanliness and health, scrubdown, sterilization, and all sorts of things. It seems to me likely there would be a considerable amount of phosphates. Lindstrom: If we can't write this condition including phosphates, I would suggest that we defer the matter until we get specific figures on what the result of this approval will be Fisher: I don't see how we can take the position of doin'g the things we have been doing to improve the reservoir, and then approve an application which would increase the phosphorus loading to that reservoir. Agnor: Stream standards are expressed in terms of suspended solids and BOD as illustrat~ in this letter. That will be the only items that are addressed in the NPDES permit procedure Is that correct Mr. Williams? Phosphates are not. ~ Fisher: The State Water Control Board is not going to pay any attention to phosphates. Agnor: Not under the NPDES permit. It is not required unless the standards have that i: them and they are not in that part of the watershed. They will be in the stream below Morton~ discharge, but not in the community of Crozet. ~0ctober t8, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) Fisher: Is there anyway to estimate that? Thompson: As he indicated, if we are talking about phosPhates, it will depend entirely upon the operation ... as to what that contribution might be. Fisher: Mr. Wilcox? Wilcox: This isn't a health facility. It won't be licensed by the Health Department. It will be licensed by Welfare and Institutions and will be a geriatric kind of center, but without nursing care an~ without health certification. You won't have the nursing home type of situation. Fisher: But, you will use soap. wilcox: Yes. Page Foster: Excuse me, if you don't know who owns the present sewer system, how does Mr. Wilcox hook up to it if no one knows who owns it? Henley: He doesn't hook up to it. Fisher: That's beside the question. Foster: The reason I brought it up was because of the amount of sewage that was going through~ and if it hasn't been checked, you are bound to have checked the owner of it. Fisher: That's old business now. We are dealing with something entirely different. I don't see how we can take action on something that will knowingly worsen the discharge problem that we have paid to have studies made of and we are implementing laws and watershed managemen' plans to reduce phosphorus pollution and then be told here that what we would be approving would be something that more than likely would be increasing that loading in the reservoir and the probability is that it would be five to ten years. Henley: Do you think the amount of phosphorus that would be added because of this facility would be worse than what is already going in there? Lindstrom: This is what I would like to know. This is why we need to get the figures. I assume Mr. Wilcox has some basic numbers of people and the types of treatment. I would assume you engineers have data in terms of what water use this type of facility would have. It might give us some figures, something on the phosphate question. Maybe I can illustrate it to the people who can't understand how we could turn down the treatment plant in lieu of having raw sewage going in there by saying that the City of Chicago, which has tertiary treatment, which is the most complicated and advanced type of treatment that I know of, treati~ eight million people, puts the equivalent, after treatment, of raw sewage of 800,000 people into the Mississippi River. So, treatment doesn't make it all go away. If you increase the number of gallons of water, then you may end up with a net problem over and above .... Fisher: I don't want to take action either way on this application with the present lack of information that we have. I think some of us have fears that what would happen would be worse than what we have now. Some of us are not convinced that there is any problem, but neither of us knows. How could we get some estimates of what the total phosphorus loading would be from the addition of this new facility? Agnor: I think the engineer that prepared the work for Mr. Wilcox could make the estimat~ of the quantity of the discharge that would be generated by the facility and those estimates then could be calculated in terms of the total volume of the discharge from the plant. The Albemarle Service Authority would have to estimate what the quality of the discharge is coming out of there now. The fact that it is raw sewage, we know that, but it is domestic principall~ although there are some commercial connections to it. There can be some estimates or assumpti, made on, that type of discharge as to what it currently is. The whole matter of waste in Crozet is not removal of phospates, but removal of raw sewage. Fisher: But, at the expense of adding phosphates to the total output. That's what we are worried about. Is that correct? Agnor: Yes, I can't deny that. Fisher: Mr. Thompson, do you have any idea how to go about getting figures other than to accept those from the applicant's engineer? Thompson: I can take a survey of those existing users to try to determine what they might be contributing. Fisher: Do you have any information from other health facilities that might be similar to this? Okay, Mr. Wilcox. Whatever this is. Peasley: I have some calculations if you would care to hear them. Thompson: I think we could probably find some like facilities, but there again I'm not sure the phosphates are going to be monitored. Peasley: You asked me a question when I was up here before as to how the comparison would be with existing discharge of raw sewage as compared to the discharge with the Centrox use. I said it would require some calculations. I did some rough calculations and these are based on standard criteria. For example, 32 connections. I assumed this referred to 32 homes. Is that right? Fisher: Not exactly, but that is close enough right now. Peasley: Normally in calculating this type of discharge you figure four and one-half people per home. Also, that each person on this earth generates 2/10ths pound of solids per day. On that basis, I can calculate the amount of solids that will be discharged in raw sewage. In this case. it wou]d b~ P~ ~ ~0 n~n~ n~ ~v f~nm ~ ~ ~a~~ ~a~ Or6 October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) on 30 parts per million, that is the equivalent of five pounds per day. This is in terms of solids. The percentage of phosphorus, there are other things besides phosphorus that enter into it, but normally in sizing this type of equipment you are talking about the amount of solids. The ratio is 30/5. Lindstrom: day in solids. This would be a reduction of the present 30 pounds per day to five pounds pea Peasley: No, not a reduction. You asked me for a comparison of~raw sewage as compared with the discharge of the proposed treatment plant. That's what I have given you. The discharge from the treatment plant would be Fisher: If the plant is built, wouldn't that be a reduction? You estimate roughly 30 pounds per day now and if the plant is built it will be roughly five pounds per day? Peasley: That's correct, but the discharge from the plant will include the 30 pounds, plus the convalescent home. Lindstrom: Put all those together and it will still be five pounds? ?easley: That's right. The total of the proposed would be five. Fisher: Are you a professional engineer? Peasley: I am. Yes. Fisher: Maybe you would like to finish your calculations and send us a letter that puts this all down for our records. Would you do that, please? Peasley: I will. 'Lindstrom: It seems like the most critical problem with the reservoir is the problem that we locally have no way of analyzing. Is that what I hear? Except for this particular project? Fisher: The consultants that were hired have indicated what the greatest problems are with the reservoir and told us that we have to reduce the phosphorus level by 80 some percent or whatever. Any addition is going the wrong way. Lindstrom: What I am saying is that we have no way of apparently analyzing the potential phosphate discharge that woUld result from this application. Fisher: I presume we would get estimates maybe based on domestic usage of a population of that size facility. What is the proposed patient population of the home? Wilcox: 97. Lindstrom: I would hope that the engineers the county have would work with Mr. Wilcox and his figures and come up with some ballpark estimates of what this is going to do in terms of phosphate contribution and suspended solids contribution. How long do you think it would take you to come up with those figures? Thompson: A week. Lindstrom: Can we put this back on our agenda for next week? Fisher: Next week we have no regularly scheduled meeting. I had been considering having a meeting next Wednesday for special matters. Do you want to make this another matter' Do We want to defer this matter until 7:30 on the 25th for best estimates of suspended solids both before and after, total phosphorus loading before and after, anything else? Do you want an update for the timetable for the interceptor line from the State Water Control Board? That's something I think is important. Is there anything else we need to do in that week? Can we have a motion to defer action on this application until October 25th? Lindstrom: SO MOVE. Iachetta: SECOND. AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. At 10:10 P.M., the Board took a recess and reconvened at 10:23 P.M., with the County Attorney, George R. St. John, present. Agenda Item No. 9. Report on Key West Roads. Mr. Agnor said an inspection of the roads in Section 4, 4A, and 5 of the Key West Subdivision, conducted by an employee of the County Engineer's office and the Resident Engineer's office on October 12, indicate that some improvements have been made in recent weeks, but there remains some patching and right-of-way cleaning prior to their being completed for requesting acceptance into the Sta%e System. The County has held for several years security deposits totalling $6750 for the construc. tion of the roads in these sections, in the form of a cashier's check for $950 and two certificates of deposit for $3900 and $1900. None are earning interest. There is no ex- piration date on the Security Agreement. The remaining work is estimated to cost $1350. A maintenance fee to cover the cost of maintenance from date of acceptance to July 1, 1979 will cost $50 per month. A performance bond enuring to the Highway Department to guarantee the construction of the road for one year will require $5000. Assuming acceptance by December 1, the total funds required to complete October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) the acceptance of these roads are estimated to be: 017 Completion of construction Maintenance December I - July 1 Performance bond Total $1,350 350 5,000 $6,700 On OctOber 16, ~he Finance Department was advised, in error, by the County Attorney's office that the Board of Supervisors, in their meeting of October 11, had instructed the County Attorney's office to see to the liquidation of the securities in the matter. The Finance Department proceeded to do so, and con~erted the two certificates of deposit into cashier's checks. Upon learning of their error, I discussed the matter with Ray Jones and requested him not to process these checks, but to hold them in the vault until the situation c~uld be reported to the Board. I also discussed the matter with Fred Payne. Mr. Payne advises that changing the Securities into cashier's checks does not necessaril~ constitute a "calling of the bond" However, it is my experience that such action is under- stood to be the next step taken after notification to the parties involved that "calling the bond" is contemplated. The County Engineer has be~n advised by the contractor (Allan Dillard), who has been engaged by the developer for several months to aomplete the construction, that he will complete the work within the next two weeks to the satisfaction of the County and State. recommendation is to allow that opportunity for completion to occur, and to notify the developer, Mr. Schwab, that the County is expecting his contract with Mr. Dillard to be consummated by November 15. My Mr. Roudabush said he was concerned about the procedure for the handling of bonds. He feels that this should be the responsibility of the County Executive instead of the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Agnor said he had talked to the Director of Finance about this and they will set up a new procedure. He feels-the calling of a bond is a serious matter. Mr. St. John said he thought at the last Board meeting, the Board had directed him to call the bond and he had so proceeded. It was the concensus of the Board to handle this matter according to the County Executive's recommendation. Agenda Item No. 10. Set public hearing date to amend Sections 9-4 through 9-6 of the Albemarle County Code so as to adopt the 1978 BOCA Fire Prevention Code by reference. Motion to set the public hearing for November 8, 1978, was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Rohdabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher; Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: 'None. Agenda Item No. 1!. Approval of Minutes. May 10, May 17 (night), July 5 (afternoon) and July 5 (night), 1978. The minutes of May 10th had not been read and were requested to be put on the agenda for October 25th. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the other minutes as presentedJ Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. ll-A. Approval of Renovation Plans for Library. his memo of October 13 to the Board: Mr. Agnor presented TO: Albemarle Board of Supervisors Charlottesville City Council FROM: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive Cole Hendrix, City Manager DATE: October 13, 1978 RE: Approval of Renovation Plans Post Office and McIntire Library Building Attached is a summary on the Library project prepared by Mr. Albro and concurred in by Mr. Stroh. It is recommended that the four principles be approved as written with the following additions: (5) The bidding and construction of Phase I will be administered by the City and County, as agreed upon by the Joint Library Building Committee. In the administra- tion of construction, should the 2% contingencies provided in the project budget be inadequate, any additional contingency needs shall be taken from the Phase I budget. (6) The miscellaneous contingency of $15,000 for the McIntire Building level two and exterior, shown on the revised project cost estimate dated September 8, 1978 in Phase II, shall be moved to Phase I. The number 5 addition is recommended because it is our opinion that a 2% construc- tion contingency is inadequate for remodeling. When questioned on the matter, the architects have responded that it is adequate due to the manner in which their cost estimates have been prepared. Accepting their recommendation, it should be under- stood that residue funds, if any, reserved for Phase II will not be tapped to fund inadequacies in Phase I. The number 6 addition is recommended to assure that at least the painting and minor repairs to level two and the exterior of the McIntire building will be accomplished in Phase I, and not postponed to a later time as shown in the revised project estimates. · 0 October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) "October 6, 1978 Mr. Robert W...Stroh Jeffersan-Madison Regional Library 114 4th Street, S.E. Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re: Approval of Renovation Plans for the Post Office and McIntire Library I am sketching out some principles which I believe reflect the sense of the City Council and Board of Supervisors at their meeting with you last evening regard- ing the library's renovation plans: (1) The Council and~Board approve of the plans for Phase I of the renovations. (2) The Council and Board are prepared to appropriate their $800,000.00 contri- butions for the total renovation work. (3) It is understood that the available public funds ~1,600,000.00) and private funds ($215,000.00) are only sufficient to complete the projected work encompassed by Phase I ($1,624,271.00). It is estimated that Phase II would cost $509,564.00 and work would commence in three to five years. To cover this projected shortfall, the Library Board will make the following efforts: (a) attempt to raise additional private funds; (b) reduce the cost of Phase II, such as limiting the renovation of the third floor of the Post Office to painting and fixing up, for a savings of about $100,000.00; (c) work with the City and County to obtain the most favorable lease terms from the GSA for the federal court's occupancy of the Post Office. (4) It is understood that the City ~ouncil and Board of Supervisors are not com- mitted to appropriating any funds for Phase I or Phase II in addition to the $1,600,~00.00 noted above, and that the current Council and Board are opposed to additional public funding of these renovations. I will be happy to confer with you Monday morning if you would like to go over these matters before polling the Trustees. In making these suggestioms I am speak- ing for myself and not my fellow Councillors or members of the Board of Supervisors. Very truly yours, (Signed) Thomas E. Albro" Mr. Agnor said Mr. Albro had called yesterday and said that the wrong letter had in- advertently been sent; the change being in number four. The last part of the sentence "and that the current Council and Board are opposed to additional ~ublic funding for these renovations" should have not appaared in the letter. Mr.' Agnor said the 5th and 6th principles recommended by Mr. Hendrix and himself were to correct problems which they saw in the other principles. Mr. Fisher said he agreed with what Mr. Agnor and Mr.. Hendrix had added, He particular- ly liked the phrase in paragraph 4 since that is his feeling. He recommended adoption of the principles with only one change; that being to strike the word ',only" at the beginning of paragraph 3 in Mr. Albro's letter. Dr. Iachetta said he could not support' the whole proposition. He is Opposed to support- ing a project that indirectly suggests an expenditure of $500,000 in funds five years from now. This project is already $350,000 over budget and he will not support it. ~. Fisher said when he went to the meeting of the Joint Committee to review the plans for construction, he was appalled to find that they are already $350,000 over budget at this stage. Unless the project is within budget before the final design work is finished, he feels the over-run will be at least $500,000. Mr. Fisher did not feel City Council will appropriate additional funds and the Library Board should not be led to believe the County will appropriate addi- tional funds if City Council will not. After some additional discussion, concensus was reached by the Board, and motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt five principles as set out below: e The Council and Board approve of the plans for Phase I of the removations. The Council and Board are prepared to appropriate their $800,000 contri- butions for the renovation work. It is understood that the City Council and Board of Supervisors are not committed to appropriating any funds for Phase I or Phase II in addition to the $1,600,000 noted above, and that the current Council and B~ard are opposed to additional public funding of these renovations. The biddi~ and construction of Phase I will ~e administered by the City and County, as agreed upon by the Joint Library B~ilding Committee. In the administration of construction, should the 2% Contingencies provided in the project budget be inadequate, any additimnal contingency needs shall be taken from the Phase I budget. The miscellaneous contingency of $15,000 for the McIntire Building level two and exterior, shown on the revised project cost estimate dated September 8, 1978 in Phase II, shall be moved to Phase I. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Rmudabush. N~ne. Agenda Item No. 12. Lottery Permit. Trigon Engineering Society. Mr. Agnor noted that application had been received for a lottery permit for the above mentioned organization. Proceeds will be used to help finance one of their service projects which are aimed at improvement of the University School of Engineering and Applied Science. Mr. Fisher said he was a member of the Engineering School and since the proceeds will be used for this ~urpose, he would abstain. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Roudabush both abstained because they are alumni October 18, 1978 (Regular Night Meeting) October 25_~__l~978~~ourned from October 18~,_______~1978) members of this society. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to 'issue this lottery permit based on the Board's adopted rules for issuance of same. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Messrs~ Fisher, Iachetta and Roudabush. Not Docketed: Mr. Roudabush said that on'October 4th he had brought up~a question abput a radio tower which has been applied for in the city. He now has a copy of/~ite plan. The tower will be located 180 feet from the City/County boundary which is also the property line of the sewage treatment plant and adjacent properties. 130 persons in the area have signed a petition in opposition to erection of this tower. The City Code has a regulation under Yard Regulations-General, which says that radio, telephone, television or electric trans- mission towers shall have a yard on all sides equal to the height of the tower installed, except that it does not apply to amateur radio operations. A request for a variance is before the City Board of Zoning Appeals because yard regulations cannot be met on the side adjacent to the County property line. Mr. Roudabush said that in the County a special permit is required for erection of any tower, however if the City will not enforce their ordinance in this case, the people in this area of the County have no protection. He felt it would be appropriate to adopt a resolution to b~.~presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals at a hearing tomorrow and then offered motion t© adopt the following: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does believe there is a potential danger to County residents from waiver of yard requirements with respect to the Charlottesville City Board of Zoning Appeals Case No. 793, Charlottesville Broadcasting System; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board is in opposition to the granting of any variance for the erection of a radio tower adjacent to County bound- aries which would not meet the setback requirements of City ordinances in situations where the County does not have the authority to review a site plan under special permit procedures and impose special conditions. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said while the Airport is closed for repaying of the runway, the parking lot will be renovated. Provisions will be made so that in the future access will be available to the public to the terminal building without having to pay. This will be at no eost to the Airport Board or the locality. Mr. Lindstrom noted letter from Jim Skove resigning as a member of the Rural Transporta- tion Advisory Group. Agenda Item No. 13. Executive Session Personnel. that this matter be deferred until another meeting. It was the concensus of the Board Agenda Item No. 14. At 11:10 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by M~. Dorrier, to adjourn this meeting until October 25~h at 7:30 P.M. i~mthe CourthOuse. Motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ~¥S:: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. C~ rman ~ October 25, 1978 (Night Adjourned from October 18, 1978) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on October 25, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M., in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottes- ville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from October 18, 1978. 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: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence. Agenda Item No. 2. Introduction: 4-H Agent. Ms. Elizabeth Payne from the County Extension Office was present to introduce Mr. Jeffrey L. Kirwan as the new 4'H Agent for Albemarle County. He graduated from Bridgewater College with a Bachelors degree in Biology and holds a Masters degree in Forestry from the University of Minnesota. Mr. Kirwan was selected by a committee of County persons for this position. He is to replace Mr. Daniel