Loading...
1978-11-08November.-8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) 03¢ A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle'County, Virginia, was held on November 8, 1978, at 9:00 A.M., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottes~ ville, Virginia. Present' Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthon Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: County Attorney. Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr, County Executive and Mr. George R. St. John, Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 9:09 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes: May 3, 1978 (Afternoon), May 10, 1978, May 17, 1978 (Afternoon), June 7, 1978, June 14, 1978, June 21, 1978 (Afternoon), June 21, 1978 (Night), and August 2, 1978 (Afternoon). .The minutes of May 3 (Afternoon), May 17 and June 7, 1978 had been read. Mr~~ Lindstrom noted the following corrections to the minutes of May 10, 1978: Page 238, agenda item #3b, change the word on the first line from "Commonwealth's Attorney" to "Attorney at Law." Page 241, third paragraph from the end of the page, delete the last two lines and insert the following: "that each lot have sufficient area to contain a second drainfield". Mr. Lindstrom then noted the following correction to the minutes of August 2, 1978 (Afternoon): Page 358, last paragraph of agenda item #3, delete the second sentence and insert the following wording: "He felt that certain pollutants do not settle out, but, rather dissolve and he could not understand why two different standards were proposed." Dr. Iachetta noted the following correction to June 21, 1978 (Afternoon) minutes: Page 315, eighth paragraph from the end of the page, next to the last sentence, add "not" between "is" and "allowed". Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of May 3, 1978 (Afternoon) May 17, 1978 (Afternoon) and June 7, 1978, as presented; and May 10 and August 2, 1978 (Afternoon) and June 21, 1978 (Afternoon) with the above corrections. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS' None. Th~ minutes of June 14 and June 21, 1978 (Night) were deferred. Agenda Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: taken into the State Secondary System. Request to have roads in Rio Heights Subdivision Mr. Agnor noted request dated October 18, 1978 from Mr. G. Thomas Forloines for three roads in Rio Heights Subdivision to be taken into the State Secondary System. Mr. Dorrier then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Rio Heights Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+10 of Penn Park Lane, a point common to the eastern edge of pavement of Rio Road, State Route 631, and the centerline of Penn Park Lane; thence with~Penn Park Lane in a southeasterly direction 447.39 feet to station 4+57.39, the end of dedication of Penn Park Lane. Beginning at station 0+11 of Woodmont Drive, a point common to the southern edge of pavement of Penn Park Lane, station 3+02.19, and the centerline of Woodmont Drive; thence with Woodmont Drive in a southwesterly direction 834.38 feet to station 8+45.39, the end of Woodmont Drive. rot e: Beginning at station 0+15 of Vegas Court, a point common to the eastern edge of pavement of Woodmont Court, station 3+74.52, and the centerline of Vegas Court; thence with Vegas Court in a southeasterly direction 526.70 feet to station 5+41.70, the end of Vegas Court. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right of wa~ and drainage easements alongthese requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed BOok 62~page 599 and Deed Book 630, page 454. Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3b. Request to have roads in Blue Ridge View Subdivision taken into the State Secondary System. 040 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of ~upervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, z~:~.r~-that the Virginia Departmsnt 6f Highways and Transportation-be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Blue Ridge View Subdivision: Beginning at station 0-13.28 of the unnamed 50' road, a point common to the eastern edge of pavement of State Route 665 and the unnamed street; thence with the unnamed street in a southeasterly direction 623.10 feet to station 6+09.82, the end of the unnamed street. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50-foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plat 'in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 657, page 196. vote: AYES: NAYS: Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3d. Abandonment of road off of Route 602 in Howardsville. Mr. George McCallum, attorney for Mr. Gerald Wilson, property owner in the subject area, requested that this matter be deferred for two months. Mr. Roudabush then offered mo~f~n to defer. J-~his item to January 10, 1979. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. 'NA~: ~one. Agenda Item No. 3e. Resolution to request matching funds from State Revenue Sharing funds for the Ivy Landfill Road. The Ivy Landfill Road project is being funded with Revenue Sharing funds and the Virginia Code Section 33.1-75.1 allows the County to request the State Highway Commission to match up to 15% of the County's total allocation of Revenue Sharing Funds in 1978-79. Mr. Agnor discussed this with Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, and as a result the following resolution is being presented for adoption. WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is participating with the City of Charlottesville in the construction of Route 637 to the Ivy Landfill; and WHEREAS, Section 33.1-75.1 of the Code of Virginia provides that the State Highway and Transportation Commission shall make an equivalent matching allocation to any county for designation by the governing body for such projects of up to fifteen per centum of funds received by it during the current fiscal year from Revenue Sharing Funds; and WHEREAS, the County o'f Albemarle has received a total of $509,873 in Revenue Sharing Funds for Fiscal Year 1978-79, fifteen per centum of which is $76,481.25; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has allocated from Revenue Sharing funds for the current fiscal year the sum of $33~,000 for the subject project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the State Highway and Transportation Commission be and is hereby respectfully requested to allocate matching funds in the amount of $76,481.25 for Project 0637-002-169, C501. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the foregoing resolution. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Dr. AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta asked the status of the project. Mr. Roosevelt said the highway department realized revenue sharing funds were being used, but was not aware of the stringent requirements involved. After discovering this, he informed the contractor of the federal requirements and are now awaiting changes in the bid price due to this. Mr. Roosevelt said the major difference between a state funded and a federally funded project is the Davis-Bacon Act. He suggested a similar resolution be adopted as soon as the County knows the amount of revenue sharing funds that are to be received next year in order to request matching funds up to 15% of the total of funds for the next fiscal year. Agenda Item No. 3c. Public Hearing: Request to abandon Route 782 beginning at Stadium Road and running to Fonta±ne Avenue (Route 29 South). (AdVertised in the Daily Progress on October 7 and 14, 1978.) (Letter dated August 22, 1978 from Dr. Avery Catlin requesting abandonment is set out in the minutes of September 13, 1978, in Minute Book 16, pages 412 ~nd 413,) Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, said Route 782 is an extension of the State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor said the road is unnamed which is no problem since the Subdivision was built before the Subdivision Ordinance was in effect. Mr. Roudabush then offered motion to adopt the following resolution: suggestion he had was that the abandonment begin past Mimosa Drive so it will have access to the.~state road for maintenance. He noted the University is the only landowner involved. Dr. Iachetta asked if he had a conflict by being on the University Faculty. John said no. Mr. St. Mr. Fisher asked if any comments had been received from the City. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Fisher felt comments should be requested from the City since Stadium Road is a city street. Mr. Roosevelt said the Highway Department supports the recommendation of the staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an increase in traffic is anticipated on Mimosa Drive as a result of this abandonment. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. The traffic count on this section in 1976 was 67 vehicles per day and in 1977, 34 vehicles per day. He felt most of the vehicles would use Mimosa, Appletree and Piedmont if this section is closed. The public hearing was then opened. Mr. Roy Tanner, resident of 138 Mimosa Drive, was present in support of the abandonment because the area is heavily populated with children and vehicles pass through at a very high speed. With no one else present to speak, the public hearing was closed. After some discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to defer this matter to DecemUer 13 and request in writing from the University, specific details on where the road would be blocked, where the turnaround would be and whether the abandonment was for maintenance or~ maintenance of right of way, also to receive comments from City Council and the City Planning Commission on this request. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3f. Subdivision. Request to vacate dedication of a public street in Ednam Village Mr. Agnor said Ms. Neher, Clerk of the Board, received a letter dated October 23, 1978 from Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, with an executed original instrument for the vacation of public streets in Ednam Village. The letter stated that Mr. Fred Colmer, attorney for the homeowners in Ednam Village, requested the Board take action on this. However, no written request has been received from Mr. Co!mer. Mr. Fisher did not feel the matter was ready for Board action. He requested a written request be received from Mr. Colmer with a plat of Ednam Village Subdivision, facts surroundin the Kessler and Wright Building, any type of swap-off between Kessler and Wright and the homeowners in Ednam Village and where does the road connect and how will this vacation affect surrounding properties. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to defer this to December 13 in orde~ to receive the above information. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3g. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roosevelt presented several cost estimates for the extension of the sidewalk on Route 743 (Hydraulic Road) as recommended by the Planning Staff at the October 11, 1978 meeting. The approximate amount for construction was $72,000, excluding the purchase of the right of way. Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Lindstrom noted that there were no objections from the public about what was proposed at the public hearing held on October 26, 1978. Mr. Roudabush was in support of the final plans that went to the public hearing. He felt the only question was whether or not to put the sidewalks in front of the two cemeteries and did not feel that needed to be decided at this time. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to endorse Project #0743-002-153, C-501 for Route 743 as presented at the public hearing held on October 26, 1978. (Board's approval of this project is set out in the minutes of October 27, 1976 and July 20, 1977.) Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS.: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Roosevelt said the estimated cost for this project is $3 million. Since he had only estimated the project to be $1,600,000, some rearrangement of financing in the six-year plan is needed to accommodate this additional cost. He then requested a work session with the Board to discuss this matter in detail. The work session was set for November 29, 1978, at 3:00 ~.M. 'in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Agenda Item No. 3dl. Route 22: K~sw~'~k~Cismont. Dr. Iachetta said the Highway Safety Commission was requested by residents in the ~s~'i~k~Cismont area to support an effort to reduce the speed limit on Route 22. The particula~ area of concern is from Route 250 at Keswick to the intersection of Route 231 at Cismont. Accident records of the area have been examined and it was found that this section has a considerably high accident rate. Dr. Iachetta felt there was substantial reason to lower the speed limit to see if the situation could be improved. He noted the Sheriff has stated he could enforce the law better if the speed limit is reduced. 042 November 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) tru.cks travel the ro.ad at 55 mph and the road is not suited for such speed. The road is poorly banked and is not designed to carry the'traffic it does. He requested that the speed limit be reduced to 40 or 45 mph. Mr. Rooseveit was present and said a survey will be made of the stretch if the Board requests same. From prior studies of the road, it has been determined that the majority of the traffic is traveling at 55 mph. Mr. Henley did not feel the Board should get involved because setting of speed limits is the responsibility of the Highway Department. Mr. Fisher supported the request but noted the same problems exist throughout the County. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to request the Highway Department to post 45 mph speed limit signs along the section on a trial basis. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES:..j~Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: Mr. Henley. ' Agenda Item No. 3g. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Agnor said request has been received from the ¥irginia Department of Highways and Transportation to purchase a small parcel of land, valued at $25.00, at the entrance to Mint Springs Park road onto State Route 684. Mr. Agnor requested authorization to execute the purchase option for~ this land, at no cost to the State. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to authorize the County Executive to execute the following option, at no cost to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation: Being as shown on Sheet 5 of the plans for Route 684, State Highway Project 0684-002-159, C-501, and lying on the west (left) side of and adjacent to the lands of Richard F. Pietsch and Virginia K. Pietsch from the lands of Richard F. Pietsch and Virginia K. ?ietsch, also being a point in the lands of the landowner opposite approximate Survey CenterlIne Station 154+60 to the lands of G. B. Wayland and Norma A. Wayland opposite approximate Station 155+10 and containing 0.022 acre, more or less, land; and being a part of the same land acquired by the landowner from G. Bourne Wayland by Deed dated April 1, 1952 and recorded in Deed Book 300, Page 27, in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit of said County. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr..Agnor said the County Engineering Office has processed an application for five street ~!ights in Wildwood Subdivision. A condition of approval of this subdivision was for street lights on both streets in the subdivision. The developer of the subdivision is willing to incur the cost for the installation. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the request for five street lights in Wildwood Subdivision. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Dorrier said a resident on Route 719 has complained about deep ditches along the road~.~. He also.received complaints about the the dust and gravel on Route 622 and 727 and asked that the roads be oiled. Mr. Roosevelt said the only thing being placed on gravel roads is calcium chloride. Mr. Henley said the banks need to be lowered as you come in from Route 614 onto Route 766. Mr. Roosevelt said if additional right of way can be obtained, the condition can be improved. Agenda Item No. 4. Appeal: Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport Site Plan. Mr. Tucker said the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport is in dire need of parking space based on their updated Master Plan. They are proposing a short term parking facility adjacent to the terminal, parking for rental cars, and employee parking. They propose to separate these with a curb in order to have interaction between the two parking areas. By doing that, access is needed onto Route 606. The Planning Commission on October 24, 1978, denied access onto Route 606. Therefore, the purpose of the appeal is to have access onto Route 606. Mr. Tucker said the Highway Department recommended no new entrances be established on Route 606. Mr. Mike Boggs., Airport Manager, spoke next. He said the idea is to separate passenger traffic from the general aviation traffic and if it is not done, there will be a lot of congestion problems around the terminal building. He asked why the Highway Department recommended against the access. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said the Department is not opposed to access on Rou~e 606 but is opposed to the access at this point because there is not adequate sight distance. If the aocess~could be moved down the road about 500 feet from the point presently shown, it would be acceptable. The Board concurred in the recommendation of the Planning Commission and no action was taken. Noyember 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) of public water in the area and prior to the County's central well procedures. The Health Department recently~advised them to dig an additional well due to the one well having too much iron and the ~request today is for them to be allowed to connect a new well to their existing system. Mr. Agnor noted this is within the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr.· J.' Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, was present and recommended the Board limit approval~to this one well. Then, if the well fails, the property is close enough to connect to the Service Authority's system. Mr. ~Edward Crenshaw was present and reviewed the history of the well system. When the wells were tested by the State Health Department, they were told one well had too much iron and had to be cut off. Therefore, the request is for one well to replace that. He noted the requested well will only serve existing connections. Mr. E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, was present. He said there are seventy-three spaces in the trailer park and there is a state law requiring central Well systems having fifty or more connections to be governed by the State Corporation Commission. Mr. Fisher felt the question was if another public service corporation ~ould operate in the jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Thompson said permission would have to be obtained from the Service Authority Board of Directors. Mr, Fisher said the applicant 'needed to.research the status of the state law regarding the'public service corporation. He felt the one additional well should be approved due to the existing health problems of the well while the applicant researched the status of the state law. Mr. St. John recommended that any approval of the application should state that it does not carry the approval of incorporating as a public utility service pursuant to Virginia Code Sectio~ 56-265.3 nor approval of any further connections to the system. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the addition of one well to the existing central well system due to the current health problemS; and the recommendation of the County Attorney, Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS~ Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and R0udabush. None. Agenda Item" No.~' 6'a. · DiscuSsion: ~Ordinance for Barking or Howling Dogs. CaptainM. H. Gerow was present and expressed his concern abOUt the problem of barking dogs in the County and lack of regulation to take care of~the problem. He felt an ordinance was needed to take care of the problem so a citizen would not have to go the expense of taking a person to court. He presented to the Board a copy of an ordinance from the City of Charlottesville whereby a citizen only had to swear out a warrant. Mr. St. John said he could not find anything in the state code which authorizes this type of action for the County. The City has a charter with powers of this type and he did not feel the County had such. Mr. St.rJohn said an opinion of the Attorney General could be obtained to determi~ne the power of the County. ~ A~ter some discussion, the consensus of the Board was that there were not enough Problems countY-wide to enact such an ordinance nor to get an attorney general's opinion. Agenda Item No. 11. Site Plan Review: -County Office (Lane) Building. Mr. Byron Sample, architect with Stainbeck and Scribner, presented to the Board'the site plan of the property which will be presented to the City. He said one problem is the loss of fifty feet on McIntire Road when that road is widened and the setback of one hundred f~ ~required by City Code. Another problem is providing access for the handicapped because all ~e~tranCes-to this building are either up or down a flight from ground level. A new ground £1oor entrance is proposed to be located adjacent to the front portico with a canopy of ~lexiglas or some similar material. One-half of the front yard is proposed to be converted into a new parking area and will be arranged so when the street is widened a revision will not be necessary. This parking area will be for the public. This will basically be at the same elevation as the ground floor of the existing building. Adjacent ~o Preston Avenue will be a drive-in service road to the Finance Department.. The trees that are worth keeping have been kept. Between the present parking lot and the low fence that houses the football field, parking for about about t01 employees is proposed. As the football field becomes available, a parking facility could be built. Mr. Sample said the main reason for this presentation is to obtain the Board's approval of the new entrance, its related structure and the new public parking situation around the access into the building. Mr. Lindstrom felt a parking lot on the right hand side of the building with a canopy for the entrance in front of the building would have a significant physical impact. Mr. Fishe~ agreed and did not like the proposal. "Mr. Sample said the street will remain the same elevation as it is now. However, when the street is widened a retaining wall up to nine feet high will be needed to hold the yard up whether it is grass or parking. Mr. Sample said the direction of the Committee was to make the building easily accessible for citizens and that is what he has tried to do. 'Mr. Dorrier was opposed to the parking lot in front of the building. Mr. Sample said the new entrance should have its own significant importance and not be a hidden situation~ punched into the wall without due consideration. Mr. Fisher suggested looking at the north end of the b~ilding as the primary entrance. 'After some discussion, Mr. Sample said a decision has to~ade on getting in the building before work on the inside can start. The Board could not reach a decision on the site plan and suggested Mr. Sample review the site plan and resubmit something based on the discussion and concerns expressed today. November 8 1 8 Re ular--All Da Meetin Agenda Item No~. 12. Public Hearing: Amend and reenact Chapter 9, Article II, Fire Prevention Code,-Albemarle County Code to adopt by reference the 1978 edition of the Building Officials and Code Administrators Basic Fire Prevention Code. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on October 25 and November 1, 1978,) Mr. Agnor said the ordinance is to adopt by reference the 1978 edition of the BOCA Code. The present~ County Code refers to the 1975 code. The ordinance is no more restrictive and is an improvement over the approach for inspection procedures. The only other change is to change fire marshal to fire official. The public hearing was opened. There was no one present to speak for or against the amendment and the public hearing was closed. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance: BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 9, Article II, Sections 9-4 through 9-6 of the Albemarle County Code, be a.mended and reenacted to read as follows: Sec. 9-4. Adopted. The Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA) Basic Fire Prevention Code, 1978 edition, is hereby adopted by reference pursuant to section 27-5.1 of the Code of Virginia, as amended. Sec. 9-5. Copies on file. Copies of~-the Fire Prevention Code adopted herein, may be obtained during re'gular office hours in the office of the fire official of the county. Sec. 9-6. Amendment. Article 28 of the BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code of 1978, is hereby amended to exempt from the provisions thereof, the sale and use in the county of those articles delineated in Code of Virginia, section 59.1-417, as amended. Mr. Roudabush seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT:- Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 6. Stuart Carwile: Central Well. This item was deferred from October 11, 1978 in order to allow Mr. Carwile to file evidence sufficient to support his request to waive required pump down tests. Mr. Stuart Carwile was present and said Mr. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, had information which consists of a memorandum from Mr. Ray Jones, dated October 19, 1978, stating that the well has a significant production record. He noted Mr. Williams is satisfied and supports waiving the pump down tests. Mr. Agnor noted that the well has a limitation of one hundred gallons per minute because of the pump. . Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to waive the pump down tests of the Warrick Well. located on property at the intersection of State Routes 810 and 811 (County Tax Map 040, Parcel 12E) and approved same to serve eleven connections on the above described property Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mesrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Dorrier. Agenda Item No. 7. Center.. Amend Charter of Central Shenandoah Criminal Justice Training Mr. Agnor said the current Charter provides that each member Jurisdiction share a proportional part of all operating expenses of the Training Center. Under this formula, some Jurisdictions pay for training subsistence which because of their proximity to the Training Center is not available to their officers. Mr. Agnor said it has been recommended by the Board of Directors for the center that Section 4(B) of the charter be amended by the addition of the following section: "3. Effective July 1, 1979 budget category 12c TRAVEL item 1.2 Training Subsistence will be apportioned according to the above formula among the participating governing bodies eligible for training subsistence (department location over 50 miles from the Training Center)." Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the above amendment. seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: Mr. Lindstrom AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Amendment to the County Grievance Procedure. Mr. Agnor said state procedures on grievance were changed during the last session of November 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) O45 OBJECTIVE: It is the objective of the Board of Supervisors to provide fair, equitable and satisfactory working arrangements for its employees. Every effort will be made to resolve employee grievances informally with the least amount of worry and delay. However, in some cases it becames necessary to proceed through a formal appeal and panel review to handle thoroughly-a given grievance. Accordingly, the following procedures and regulations are established. DEFINITION OF GRIEVANCE: A grievance shall be a complaint or dispute relative to an employee's employment involving (but not necess&~ly limi.ted to): disciplinary actions, involving dismissals, demotions and suspensions concerns regarding the application, meaning or interpretation of personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations. 3. acts of reprisal for using the grievance procedure complaints of discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed or sex. Some complaints are not grievable under this p~ocedure. They involve: the contents of ordinances, statutes, or established personnel policies, procedures, rules and regulations work activity accepted by the employee as a condition of employment or work activity which may bea. reasonably expected to be a part of L~ the job content establishment and revision of wages or salaries, position classification or general benefits failure to promote except where the~mpioyee can show established promotional policies or procedures were not followed or applied fairly the methods, means and personnel by which such work activities are to be carried on discharge, demotion, or lay off because of lack of work, reduction in work force, or job abolition. MANAGEMENT RIGHTS: Nothing in this procedure is intended to circumscribe or modify the existing management right of the County ~o do the following: direct the work of its employees as well as establish and revise wages, salaries, position classification and general employee benefits hire, promote, transfer, assign and retain employees within the agency 3. maintain the effi¢!ency of governmental operations relieve employees from duties of the agency in emergencies determine the methods, means, and personnel by which operations are to be carried on. DETERMINATION OF GRIEVABILITY: If some question should exist concerning the grievability of a specific problem and if the question cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both the employee and his/her supervisor at the departmental level, the employee may request that the issue of grievabi!ity be decided by the County Executive, ~ho shall respond within ten working days. Decisions of the County Executive as to grievability may be appealed to the Circuit Court of this county for a hearing de novo on the issue of grievability. Proceedings of th~ review of the decision of the County Executive shall be instituted by filing a notice of appeal with the County Executive within ten working days after the date of the decision and giving a copy ~hereof to all other parties. Within ten days thereafter, the County Executive shall transmit to the Circuit Court of this county a copy of the decision of the County Executive, a copy of the notice of appeal and t~e exhibits. The failure of the County Executive to transmit the record within the time allowed shall not prejudice the rights oft~e grievant. The Court, on motion of~he grievant, may issue a writ of certiorari requiring ~he County Executive to transmit the record on or before a certain date as provided in SeCtionv2~l-ll4.5:lE, Code of Virginia. The court may affirm the decision of the County Executive or may reverse or modify the decision. The issue of grievability may occur at any step of the procedure prior to the panel hearing, but once raised, the issue must be resolved before further processing of the grievance. In any event, the issue of gri~vab~lity must be resolved prior to the~panel hea~i~g or it shall be deemed to have been waived. The classification of a complaint as non-grievable Shall not be construed to restrict any 'employee's right to seek or management's right to provide customary administrative review of complaints outside of the scope of the grievance procedure. POLICY: Ail stages of the grievance beyond the first step shall be in writing on forms supplied by the County. Beyond the first step bo~h the grievant and the respondent may aall upon appropriiate witnesses and be represented by legal counsel November 8~ 1978 (R~ular--All Day Once an employee reduces his grievance to writing he must specify on the appropriate form the specific relief he expects to obtain through use of this procedure. Failure by the grievant to comply with all substantial procedural requirements of the grievance procedure without just cause will terminate the right to further appeal. Failure of the respondent to comply with all subs2antial procedural requirements of the grievance procedure without just cause will, at the option of the grievant, advance the grievant to the next step in the grievance resolution process. Failure of the respondent, without just cause, to comply with all substantial procedural requirements of the final step of the grievance procedure shall result in a decision in ~avor of the grievant. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE: Any employee wishing to file a grievance shall have the right to follow all the steps of this procedure as listed below~J~.~ith complete freedom from reprisal, STEP I (Supervisor Level) a. Within sixty days after the occurrence or condition giving rise to the grievance, the employee affected may identify the grievance verbally to the employee's immediate supervisor. Within three working days of such presentation, the supervisor shall give his/her response to the employee with respect to the grievance, or shall advise the employee that additional time for such decision is needed, in which case a decision?~t be given the employee within three working days thereafter. b. If~a satisfactory resolution is not reached by this process, the employee shall reduce the greivance in writing, identifying the nature of the grievance and the expected remedy on Grievance Form A. Such written grievance should be presented to the immediate supervisor within three working days of the supervisor's verbal reply. The supervisor must then reply in writing within three working days. STEP II (Management Level) If a satisfactory resolutioni2s not reached at the first step, the employee may so indicate on the grievance form and submit the grievance to his/her d~epartment head within ten working days. A meeting to review the grievance shall]zbe held between the employee and the department head within three working days. The time between the second step submission and the second step meeting may be extended by mutual agreement. At the second step meeting, the employee may have legal counsel or a fellow employee of his/her choice present. The department head may likewise have legal counsel or a witness present. A second step written reply to the grievance shall be provided to the employee within three working days after the second s~ep meeting.~ STEP III (Upper Management Level) If a satisfactory resolution is not reached at the second step, the empl~Fee may submit the grievance to the County Executive. Submission to the third step may occur within ten working days of the second step. The County Executive will meet with the employee within three working days or indicate an extension is necessaFy. Such extension shall not exceed three additional working d~ys except by mutual agreement. The employee may_have legal counsel or a fellow employee of his/her choice present at the thi~ step meeting. The County~ Executive may have legal counsel or a witness of his choice likewise in attendance. The County Executive shall render a written reply to the grievance within three working days following the third step meeting. STEP IV (Panel Hearing) If the reply from the third step meeting is not acceptable tothhe grievant, he/she may submit Dhe grievance to a fourth step panel hearing. Themm~quest for a fourth step panel hearing shall be indicated by the emPloyee on Form B and submitted $0~h~ County Executive. A request for panel hearing must be submitted within ten working d~ys of the third2step reply. The County Executive will arrange for the panel selection and schedule the pa~l<~hba~inEg. A ~Dnel shall be chosen which shall be composed of three members and shall be chosen in the following manner: one member appointed by the grievant, one member appointed by the County Executive and a third member selected by the f~s2 2~o. To insure an objective panel, the grievant and supervisors responding th©the first ~hree steps of the grievance may not serve on the panel. Panels chosen in complianee with these requirements shall be deemed to be impartial. In the event that agreement cannot be reached as to the final panel member, the chief judge of the Circuit Court of this county shall select such third panel member. The full panel shall than select its chairman, set the time for the hearing and notify the employee. The hearing shall be held no later than ten working days after the date of the request unless the selection involves'th~e~.~se of the Circuit Court. In such case, the hearing shall be held as soon as practicable, but no more than ten working days after the final panel member has]3been selected. The grievant may have present at this meeting representatives of his/her choice. Copies of Form A shall be sent by the County Executive to the panel members. The majority decision of the panel shall be final and binding in all its determinations. The panel has the responsibility to interpret the application of appropriate agency policies and procedures in the case. It does not have the prorogative to formulate .047 November 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) The conduct of the hearing shall be as follows: a. The panel shall determine the propriety of attendance at the hearing of persons not having a direct interest in the hearing. b. The panel may at the beginning of the hearing ask for statements clarifying the issues involved. c. Exhibits, when offered by the grievant or the County, may be received in evidence by the panel, and when so received, shall be~mak~ed and made a part of the record. d. The grievant and supervisor, or their representatives, shall then present their claims and proofs and witnesses ~ho shall submit to questions or other examination. The panel~may, at its discretion, vary this procedure but shall afford full and equal opportunity to all parties and witnesses for presentation of any material or relevant proofs. e. The parties may offeraevidence and shall produce such additional evidence as the panel may deem necessary to an understanding and determination of the dispute. The panel shall be the judge of~elevancy and materiality of the evidenoe offered. Ail evidence shall be taken in the presence ofg~he-~panel and of the parties. f. The panel chairman shall specifically inquire of all parties whether they have any fn~$her proofs to offer or witnesses to be heard. Upon receiving negative reDlies, the chairman shall declare the hearing closed. g. The heari~EsT~$y~;:be~reDPened by the panel on its own motion or upon application of a party for good cause shown at any time before the awar8 is made. The decision shall be filed in writing by the panel chairman with the County Executive no later than fifteen working days after the completion of the hearing. The decision shall be made on forms furnished by the Cou~$y. Copi~s~oE~heddecision shall be transmitted to the County Executive, the employee, a~ the employee,s supervisor. The parties to the grievance, by mutual agreement, or the panel chairman may extend any or all of the time periods established in this procedure. The grievant may bear any cost involved in employ&ng representation or in preparing or presenting his/her case. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the above wording as recommended by the County Executive. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Lottery Permit. Mr. Agnor presented a lottery permit application for the NROTC Honor Guard of the University of Virginia for calendar year 1978. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom to approve the lottery permit for calendar year 1978 in accordan with the Board's adopted rules. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. 'Agenda Item No. 10a. Appointments: Airport Commission. Mr. Fisher said recommendation has been received from Mr. James H. Scott, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Airport Commission, to appoint Mr. Paul Saunier, Jr., to replace Mr. Charles P. Ancona; said term expiring on December 1, 1981. (Mr. Ancona's term expires on December 1, 1978 and he is not eligible for reappointment.) Even though the City has not concurred in the recommendation he would like to support same. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to appoint Mr. Paul Saunier, Jr., to the Joint Airport Commission for a term to expire on D~cember 1, 1981 with concurrence by the City on this appointment. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier-, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to reappoint Mr. C. Eugene Arnette to the Joint Airport Commission for a term to expire on December 1, 1981. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10b. Appointment: Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to reappoint Mr. L. A. Lacy to the Fire Prevention Code Board of Appeals; said term to expire on November 21, 1983. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: November 8, 1978 (Regular--AllDDay Meeting) Agenda Item No. 10c. Appointment: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to reappoint Mrs. Bernice Mitchell to the Jefferson Area Board on Aging; said term to expire on October 20, 1980. Mr. Henley seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10d. Appointment: Welfare Board. appointment and same was deferred to November 15, 1978. There were no nominations for this Agenda Item No. 10e. Appointment: Area Manpower Planning Council. Mr. Fisher said the appointments of Mr. Ronald Gordon and Mrs. Martha Hammett to the Area Manpower Council were confused because of instructions received from the Virginia Employment Commission and need to be clarified as to the County's delegate and alternate. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to appoint Mr. Ronald C. Gordon as the County's delegate and Mrs. Martha Hammett as the alternate. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10f. Appointment: Emergency Medical Services Council. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to reappoint Mr. Gerald Fisher to the Emergency Medical Services Council; said term to expire on November 8, 1979. Mr. Roudabush seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10g. Appointment: Planning District Commission. for this appointment and this item was deferred to November 15, 1978. There were no nomindat Agenda Item No. 10h. Appointment: Rural Transportation Advisory Group. Mr. Fisher noted letter received from Mr. James Skove, the County's representative on the Rural Transport~ Advisory Group. Mr. Skove states that the County should have a representative from either a minority, aged or low-income group and should look to the communities of Keswick, Esmont or North Garden for such appointee. Mr. Lindstrom said Mr. Skove also feels the appointee should be reimbursed for mileage. No nominations were offered and this item was deferred to November 15, 1978. Agenda Item No. 13. The County Audit for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1978 was received. Letter dated October 17, 1978 from the State Office of the Auditor of Public Accounts was received stating that the audit had been accepted. Agenda Item No. 14. Statements of Expenses: Director of Finance, Sheriff and Commonweal~ Attorney for October, 1978, were presented by Mr. Agnor. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the expenses as presented.. The 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. 15. Statement of expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of October, 1978, was received. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to approve the statement as presented. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: -Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 15a. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of October, 1978, along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and statement of salaries of the paramedics and the classification officer were received. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: ..Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 16. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of September, 1978, was received as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52-. )ns tion O49 November 8, 1978 (Regular--All Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 16a. Report of the County Executive for the month of October, 1978, was received as information. Agenda Item No. 17. Other Matters Not Listed on the agenda. Mr. Fisher noted letter from the Eastern Region United States Post Office Service advising that the Ivy Post Office is being investigated to either expand or relocate within the next twelve months. Mr. Roudabush said request has been received from the homeowners of Airport Acres Subdivision for permission to erect street signs in Airport Acres. Included is a request to rename Route 1515 as Airport Acres Road and Route 1516 as Airport Acres Place. The homeowners have agreed to pay any costs incurred for the three street signs. Motion was then offered by Mr'. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Suervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that request to officially rename streets in Airport Acres Subdivision be and is hereby approved as follows: State Route 1515, also known as Woodburn Road and Lake Road shall hereafter be named Airport Acres Road; State Route 1516, an unnamed cul-de-sac, shall hereafter be named Airport Acres Place; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this resolution shall be submitted to the Clerk of the Albemarle County Circuit Court for marginal notation of said name changes as follows: Deed Book 350, page 193 Deed Book 352, page 75 Deed Book 357, page 146 Deed Book 358, page 541 Deed Book 364, page 505 Deed Book 365, page 165 Deed Book 379, page 421 Deed Book 381, page 457 Deed Book 398, page 5 Deed Book 619, page 618 Deed Book 619, page 623. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES': NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom and Roudabush. None. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads- Airport Acres Road (State Route 1515) at its southern intersection with U.S. Route 29; Airport Acres Road (State Route 1515) at its northern intersection with U.S. Route 29; Airport Acres Place (State Route 1516) at its intersection with State Route 1515; and WHEREAS the Airport Acres Road Committee has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby 'requested to install and maintain the ab;ove mentioned street signs. Dr. Iachetta seconded the foregoing motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta had received a number of complaints about obtaining building permits and not being told about other necessary permits, He questioned if an automatic procedure could be enforced whereby when the building permit is issued, all other permits could be obtained at that time. Mr. Agnor said that is not possible because many of the people are not sure who will be doing the electrical and plumbing work. Mr. Fisher requested authorization to write letters of appreciation to Mr. Charles Ancona (Joint Airport Commission) and Mrs. Jane Biltonen (Planning District Commission and Welfare Board) for services rendered while serving on these committees. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom to authorize the Chairman to write letters to this effect. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried bY the followin~ r~ao~ ~T~ ,050 November 8_ 1: 8___ReFul~r--All DaF Mee_t~ Mr. ~gnor noted the Board adopted a resolution of intent on October il, 1978 to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and map and for a Joint public hearing with the Planning Commission to be held on November 9 or 16, 1978. It is not possible to have the hearing on either date and he recommended November 30, 1978 be set as the public hearing date. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to set the public hearing on the proposed revisions to the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and map for November 30, 1978 at 7:30 P.M. at the Greer Middle School. Dr. Iachetta seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachet'ta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor said Director of Parks and Recreation for the City and for the County are r%ady to proceed with'the development of the Rann Preserve property but there remains the question of the city's tract of land which has never been resolved. After some discussion, Dr. Iachetta offered motion to write a letter to City Council requesting their ideas on how to best accomplish joint operation of the property. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, lachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 3:02 P.M., motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn to 5:30 P.M. at the Holiday Inn South. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion an~ same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 5:30 P.M. at the Holiday Inn South with the following School Board members present: Mrs. Jessie C. Haden and Messrs. Ronald H. Bauerle, Charles W. Maupin, Jr., Charles A. Norford, Dean A. Strong, James W. Walker and Peter T. Way. The meeting was called back to order at 7:00 P,M. by Mr. Fisher. He expressed his appreciation to the School'Board members and teachers for the reception given to the visiting delegation from Italy. He asked Mr. Clarence McClure, Superintendent of Schools, about the possibility of starting an exchange program in the school system between the two communities (Prato and Poggio a Caiano). Mr. McClure said such a system is in progress but possibly specific exchanges could be arranged for future years. Discussion then followed on improvements to Burley and Red Hill Schools. School Board Chairman Jessie Haden said feasibility studies were being conducted regarding Red Hill School. Mr. McClure said Red Hill is inadequate and Burley needs surface repairs. He noted that McIntire school has been considered for possible conversion to a food storage, central cafeteria operation, for the school system but would entail expenses not presently in the budget. Mr. Fisher discussed the taxation system and said the Board hopes the tax rate will not be increased for the coming year. This would allow an additional $725,000 for schools but would not allow for any major salary increases. Mr. Fisher said budget work sessions will be conducted during February and March with the public hearing being held on April 4 and final adoption of the budget on April 11. This would allow the schools to meet contract deadlines on April 15th. Dr. Iachetta discussed the Independently Guided Education Program. He said a number of parents have contacted him voicing complaints about the system. School Board members said a regular evaluation of the program is conducted throughout the system to make sure it is to standards. The other members of the Board of Supervisors said they have not received a large number of complaints. Mr. MClure explained how the program worked. He could not understand how a child could fall behind and the instructor not be aware of this. Mr. Fisher said this discussion was most helpful and thanked the School Board for their efforts in making Albemarle's school system one of the best. He then declared the meeting adjourned at 8:25 P.M. (~6~HA i RMAN-