Loading...
1978-01-11January 12, 1978 (Regular Meeting) ? 027 A regular meeting of the' Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 11, 1978, beginning at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the CoUnty Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arriving at 9:10 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Dr. F. Anthony Iachetta. Officers present: St. John. Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Fisher. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 A.M. by the Chairman, Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes. February 2, 1977, read by Mr. Dorrier; March 2, 1977, (Afternoon), read by Mr. Dorrier; March 2, (Night), read by Mr. Roudabush; March 16, (Night), read by Mr. Henley; March 23, raad by Mr. Fisher. Motion to approve the minutes of these meetings as presented was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 3. Highway Matters. 3A) Work Session: Six-Year Plan. Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, handed to the Board of Supervisors a copy of the proposed Six-Year Plan for improvements to the Secondary System. He said since the Board had not had time to prepare for this item, he would only~distribute copies today and hoped that a work session would be set in the near future. Mrs. Fisher suggested January 18 at 3:00 P.M. 3C) Street Sign Reguest: Deerwood Subdivision. Mr. Agnor noted that Mr. Mike C. Quesenberry, representing the residents of Deerwood Subdivision had requested street signs and agreed to pay the cost of the signs, plus handling charges. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconde~ by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the folloWing resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the follow±ng roads: Deerwood Drive (State Route 1501) and Deerwood Road (State Route 1502) at the southwest corner of its intersection; Deerwood Drive (State Route 1501) and Lupine Lane (State Route 1503) at the southwest corner of its intersection; and WHEREAS the residents of Deerwood Subdivision have 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 above mentioned street signs. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. At this time, Mr. Fisher noted that Dr. Iachetta was out of town on business this week. 3D) Repor~ on G. E. Site Plan. 3E) Industrial Access Funds - General Electric. Mr. Fisher said he had asked that the staff bring the Board up-to-date on Planning Commission actions on this site plan. Since he had requested this agenda item, G. E. has made an appeal. Mr.'Tucker said the Planning Commission had approved the site plan for a location off of Route 29 North near Camelot Subdivision. It was approved on January 3, 1978, with several conditions, however, only one condition is being appealed. That condition reads: "There should be improvement of Route 606 and Route 763 to the specific recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways'in a letter dated December 7, 1977." No recommendation was made as to who would improve the road, only that it Should be improved. Industrial Access Funds could be used for this purpose. Mr. Fisher felt that the Board should take some action to see if Industrial Access Funds would be available for upgrading of these roads. He then read into the record the following letter: O28 January 11, 1978 (Regular Meeting) "January 9, 1978 Mr. Daniel Roosevelt Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation Route 250 East Charlottesville, Virginia Re: Industrial Access Road Funds for General Electric Plant, Route 29 North Dear Mr. Roosevelt: The General Electric Company does hereby formally apply for the application of Industrial Access Road Funds to the improvement of existing State Secondary Routes 763 and 606 from Route 29 to the proposed entrance to the plant to be built,~.~on Route 606. In connection with this application, there is enclosed herewith a copy of the site plans submission showing the proposed location of the plant, together with a letter from Mr. K. M. Fox, manager of the Charlottesville Division of General Electric, showing the following: a) proposed timing of construction; b) anticipated employment at the plant; c) anticipated traffic usage of the roads; d) the type of manufacturing expected at the plant; e) and agreeing to limit access onto Route 29. ~ If additional information is needed or if we can be of further help, please let us know. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Fred S. Landess cc: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., c/o County Office Building, Charlottesville, Va. J. B. Austin, General Electric Company, One River Road, Schnectady, New York 12345 K. M. Fox, General Electric Company, Harris Street, Charlottesville, VirginiaU Mr. Roosevelt said the use of Industrial Access Funds is limited by certain conditions. The G. E. Plant meets conditions with one exception. They do have access from their property directly onto a roadway that is built to state standards, in other words, Route 29 North. Without some change in that condition, the site would not be eligible for Industrial Access Funds~. General Electric has agreed to waive their right to access to Route 29 North along most of the length of their frontage. Based on their willingness to do this, the staff of the Highway Department is forwarding this request to the State Highway Commission~.Ho~~'', ever, the Highway Department's staff does not feel that this request will be acted on until the February meeting of the Highway Commission. Mr. Fisher asked if a member of the Board could appear before the Commission at the time they consider the request. Mr. Roosevelt said that particular request has to be made directly to the Highway Commissioner. He determines whether the person requesting appearance should be allowed to address the Commission. Mr. Fisher said he did not feel the Board should set a date to hear General Electric's appeal until after knowing whether the Industrial Access Funds are approved. Mr. Roudabush agreed and said~he wished that the request could move along a little faster. There are other things the Highway Commission should be made aware of, such as local plann- ing decisions for Route 29 North. What General Electric has agreed to do fits in with the recommendations of the long-term usage of Route 29. If possible, someone from the Board should have an Qpportunity to explain some of these things to the Highway Commission. Mr. Dorrier asked if General Electric had a deadline'of some type. Mr. Roudabush said he felt their problem was that they had already taken bids on a grading contract but are not willing to award that contract until they are sure all the conditions are straightened out. At this time, Mr. Fred Landess arrived at the meeting. Mr. Fisher said that the Board had been discussing with Mr. Roosevelt the timetable for consideration of a request for Industrial Access Funds. Mr.' Roosevelt feels it will not be until February 16th, therefore, he will ask the Board to authorize him (if General Electric agrees) to go before th~ Highway Commission and encourage them to take favorable action. Mr. Fisher said until the Highway Commission makes some decision, the Board's consideration of the appeal may not be germane. Mr. Landess said G.i~E. does not feel they can start grading until they are told where they stand on the conditions. If they have to wait until after February 16th to let the grading contract, they will be behind schedule and are trying to occupy the building by July. Mr. Landess suggested that the Board remove the condition that Route 606 must be brought up to standard. Mr. Fisher said the improvement of this road has been recommended by the Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and the Highway Department. Therefore, he would suggest the Board of Supervisors set a hearing date for the appeal as soon as possible after hearing from the Highway Commission on the Industrial Access Fund request. Mr. Roudabush said, if the Board removes that condition, they will have to say that General Electric cannot use Route 606 as access, and would only be allowed to use Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker said that is an alternative that the Planning Staff does not favor. Mr. Fisher noted that a resolution had been prepared for the Board and read same into the record: WHEREAS, a request has been received from the General Electric Company for improvements to Route 763 and Route 606 as access to their development under the Industrial Access Law (Section 33.1-221 of the Code of Virginia), and the need for such improvement exists; and WHEREAS, General Electric has agreed to waive their right of access to Route 29, excePt as agreed to by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, such waiver to increase the safety to the travelling public~ and WHEREAS, General Electric has agreed to make available all riEht of way necessary for said improvements requested without cost to Albemarle County or the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; and January ii, 1978 (Regular Meeting) 029 WHEREAS, General Electric has agreed to bear the cost of all utility relocations made necessary by the requested improvement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and hereby is requested to make improvements to the access to this develop- ment under the Industrial Access Law. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Albemarle County agrees to guarantee to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation that any right of way and drainage easements within the County dedicated to public use for this access road will be accepted and recorded in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County." Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the foregoing resolution; also to authorize the Chairman of the Board or a member of the Board, if necessary, to appear before the Highway Commission in support of this request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom said he understands that General Electric is a benefit to the County, but he is reluctant to see the Board of Supervisors set such precedent. Mr. Fisher said there are other interests to be served. Other people use this road and if it can be upgraded using Industrial Access Funds rather than Secondary Road Funds, it will be a much larger advantage to the County than just having it upgraded for the use by General Electric. Vote was then taken on the motion and same carried by the following: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher said the question of setting a date for the appeal is still before the Board. Mr. Landess requested that he be allowed to call his client before the Board made a decision. 3F) Other Highway Matters. Mr. Henley noted that there is a bad culvert on Route 240 at Mechum River. Mr. Dorrier said that on Route 53 near Simeon there is a sign reading "40 mph". This is a winding, narrow road with a lot of traffic, and several citizens have asked that the speed limit be reduced to 25 mph. Mr. Dorrier noted a bridge on Route 620 which is narrow and has dangerous approaches. He asked if there are any funds available to improve this bridge. Miss Ellen Nash was present and said this bridge is on the road where she lives. She has ~een no accidents and feels that Mr. Dorrier is being overly cautious in asking for improvement. Mr. Dorrier said he did this because Mr. Roy Southall and Mr. Willard Bishop had requested same. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the traffic light to be installed at the corner of Georgetown and Barracks Road. Mr. Roosevelt said a light has been approved at that location. Some five or six months ago he had sent a crew out to start digging foundations. There were objections from the citizens who live there and installation of the traffic signal has been appealed to the State Highway Commissioner. Mr. Agnor said the City Planning Commission has made a list of recommendations for highway priorities for the next seven years in the City. He asked if the Board wanted to consider a formal resolution asking City Council to make McIntire Road their number one priority. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS this Board has recently learned that the Charlottesville City Planning Commission has recommended that the extension of Ridge-MdIntire Road to Rio Road be made the No. 1 priority in the City's proposed road construotion priorities; and WHEREAS the County's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan recommends this extension; said improvement being essential to the success of a proposed by-pass along Rio Road and west of Route 29 North to Hollymead; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby endorse the recommendation of the Charlottesville City Planning Commission. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Agnor read into the record the following letter from the Department of Highways dated December 27, 1977: "As requested in resolutions by your Board on August 10, 1977 and November 9, 1977, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective December !, 1977. O30 January 11, 1978 (Regular Meeting) ADDITIONS LENGTH CAMELOT SUBDIVISION Camelot Drive - From end of state Rte. 1510 northeasterly 0.16 mile, to Barnsdale Road. 0.16 Mi. Barnsdale Road - From: Camelot Drive southwesterly 0.23 m~le to Rte. 1511. 0.23 Mi. Merlin Court - From: Camelot Drive northwesterly to end of cul-de-sac. 0.03 Mi. SKYLINE CREST SUBDIVISION Skyline Crest Drive = From: Rte. 708 0.25 mile to end of cul-de-sac. 0.25 Mi','! Mr. Agnor said in planning for the Housing Project for the Elderly in Crozet, it was recommended that the road be built to state standards and have same accepted into the system. Jordan Development Corporation has asked that the Board of Supervisors request the Highway Department to review the design of the road and its ultimate use to see if it will be accept~ ed. Mr. Roosevelt said he met with a representative of the developer and told him he did not feel it is a valid road for addition to the Secondary System. If you take away the fact that the housing is for the elderly, it is just another apartment project and he will recommend against acceptance. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board adopted a resolution if it would go through channels. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to draft a letter to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation explaining the history of this project, its future expectations, and requesting that the Department render a decision as to whether or not the road will be accepted into the Secondary System if the road is constrUcted to State standards. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.~ 3B) Public Hearing on request to abandon a road in ther Howardsville vicinity. Mr. Fisher said the applicant has requested that this matter be deferred until February 8th because he is out of town. No one was present to speak for or against the petition, there- fore, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to defer this public hearing until February 8th. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 5A. Early Purchase of School Buses. Mr. Clarence McClure, Superinten- dent of Schools, was present. He said each year in order to get delivery of school buses at the proper time, the School Board must decide how many buses to order approximately nine months in advance. It has been a policy to retire buses with ten years of service. This year the request is for twelve buses. Also being requested are three, 36 passenger buses for handicapped programs. These buses include customized features such as wheel chair fittings, lifts for loading students, etc. Also requested are three, 42 passenger buses for athletic needs. Mr. McClure said that the School Board will receive approximately $60,000 from 94-142 funds. These funds are given to support new services because of new legislation being imposed upon !ocalities.o So far, the School Board has committed itself to expenditure of only $10,000 of this amount. Therefore, any money coming from the 94-142 funds will be used to offset the cost of the buses for the handicapped. Of the buses for athletic needs, one is being requested to replace a 1963 bus used at Albemarle High School, and the other two are for the Western Albemarle High School Athletic Department. The cost of these buses breaks down to $167,000 for the regular buses; $46,000 for buses for the handicapped; and $45,000 for the athletic buses; or a total of $258,000. Mr. Fisher asked several questions about the scheduling of buses for activities, feeling that the bands are not given equal treatment. After a rather lengthy discussion of this question, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier to approve the request by the School Board for yearly purchase of school buses noting that the funding for these buses would be placed in the 1978-79 County budget; also requesting that the School Board present a written policy on the use of buses for athletics and bands. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorde~ vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 5B. Appropriation: Vandalism at Meriwether Lewis School. Mr. McClure noted that the School Board had received $6,255.64 in insurance money for vandalism which had occurred at Meriwether Lewis School. The money wmll be used to repair damages ~ the school, · ~r~ d ~ including new stage curtains and several items of audio-visual equipment, which~damage or destroyed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution: /W BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia~ ~ that $6,255.64 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the School Operaa Ting Fund and Coded to 17F2-215C. January 12, 1978 (Regular Meeting) The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 6. Absentee Voter Precinct. Present were Mr. Dick Florence, Miss Ellen Nash and Mrs. Mary Lou Matthews. At the request of the Electoral Board, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to establish a central absentee voter election district effective February 1 1978, for a period of twelve months from that date. This absentee voter precinct to be located in the County Executive's Conference Room on the fourth floor of the County Office Building. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. ******** Mr. Florence then requested that the polling place for the Free Bridge precinct be chang. ed to the BPOE Elks Lodge off of old Route 20 North. Motion to adopt the following resolution was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors does hereby concur in a request from the Albemarle County Electoral Board that the polling place for Free Bridge Precinct be changed from the V. F. W. Building on River Road to the Elk's Lodge on Old Stony Point Road. Mr. Florence requested that the Board of Supervisors ask their delegates to the General Assembly to request a change in Virginia Code Section 24.1-233.1 so that an absentee voter election'district established under this code section would be permanent until such time as a change is made. This would alleviate the necessity of going through this same procedure each year. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 7. Library Budget. Discussion of fiscal year 1979 budget. "January 10, 1978 TO: FROM: RE: Board of Supervisors Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive Analysis of FY-79 Library Budget Request Attached are summary sheets of the FY-79 Library budget comparing appropriations and actual expenditures in FY-?7, appropriations in FY-78, requested appropriations for FY-79, and the dollar and percent chamges of FY-79 compared to FY-78. ~ppropriation Requests -TOt'al' Budget The increases are~primarily attributable to an increase in the staff of 2~ position's,two 'clerical .posi'ti'ons and one half-time librarian~ and to ~fund increases,-as ~eI1 as .tol more accurately budget, employee b~nefit cost"s. Total salaries increase $51,081 or +13.5%, of which $21,019 is for new positions, leaving a new increase for existing staff of $30,062 or +8%. Employee benefits costs increase $16,801, or +30%, with no apparent change in the benefits themselves. Changes are attributable to Social Security and Retirement Plan cost increases, and underbudgeting in FY-78. Book purchases increase $7,936 or +7.3%. Supplies increase only $150, +1%, and operating expenses increase $3,224, +5%, all reasonable changes. The total budget increases $79,192, +12.7%. Revenues Revenues show a local share increase of $72,79t~+13.7%, representing 92% of the expenditure increase. State ~.evenue estimates increase $4403, +6.2% over FY-78 estimates, but are only $40 more than actual revenues this year. Fines are increased $1990, +16.6%, and revenues from copying show no change. Federal funds are not shown in the operating budget, and are con- sidered as a supplemental budget as in previous years. 032 January 11, 1978 (Regular Meeting) Requests by Divisions Analysis of divisional budgets shows the following: Administration - Salaries increase $11,828, + 13%; benefits + $6574, +48%; operating expenses $7040, +103%~ McIntire - Salaries increase $15,832, +13%; of which $9955 is new positions (~ salary of clerk and all of the half-time librarian) and $5777 for existing staff, +4.7%; benefits increase $3,8617 +19%, th~ split between new and existing employee costs not discern!~ble. Gordon Avenue - Salaries increas~ $19,199, +19.7% of which $11,064 is new positions (1~ clerks); benefits increase +$4,734, +33%;~and operat- ing costs increase $1748, +16%. Scottsville - Salary increase $1,071, +16%, with no indication of increased staff or hours of operation. Bookmobile #1 - Total increase of +$2,491, +7.3%, same percentage in- crease as Bookmobile #2; increases in salaries and benefits on #1 are partially offset by decreases in books and operating expenses. Recommendations Request the Library Board to: !. Review the estimate of State R~venues. 2. Review the Administrative budget where the most significant increases are found. 3. Consider the use of Federal funds to ease the impact of budget increases funded from local sources in lieu of the concept of using Federal funds entirely for a supplementary budget. 4. Limit increase in local funds to 5%. 5. Make certain that unemployment insurance is funded - it is not discernible in budget information. Consider utilization of Bookmobile #1 for entire system, same as Bookmobile #2, rather than exclusively for Albemarle County." Mr. Fisher said he had attended two meetings concerning the Library's budget for next year. What was presented at that time indicated that there would be no new positions. Then, when a regional review was made of the budget, it was somewhat different from that presented at the earlier session. If the Board of Supervisors is not going to fund the requested in- crease in the Library Board's budget, they should be notified of this immediately. Mr. Fisher said he felt Mr. Agnor's recommendation that the increase in local funds be limited to 5% was reasonable. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to accept the County Executive's recommendations and to communicate same to all participating jurisdictions. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs..Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 8. Discussion of expansion of Regional Jail. Administrator, was present. Mr. Sam~?ruett, Jail Mr. Fisher said he had asked Mr. Pruett to give the Board the Jail Board's feelings con- cerning the expansion of the jail for other participating jurisdictions. Mr. Pruett said the members of the Jail Board have individually reviewed the report that was sent out from the Planning District Commission office under Mr. Richard Kania's signature in November. The Jail Board has not officially taken a position on this proposal or any proposal to expand the jail. There is a feeling on the part of the Jail Board that they want to be sure that the Citl and the County want them to take a position since they have not received an official request from either the City or the County. Mr. Fisher then requested a motion from the Board direct- ing a letter to the Jail Board requesting them to review the alternatives presented by the Planning District Commission staff for expansion of the jail to accommodate rural counties and to advise the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Charlottesville City Council as to the pros and cons of such proposal; also that City Council be asked to concur in this request. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley~ Lindstrom~and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: ~r. Iachet't~a. Not Docketed: Mrs. Martha Selden said that yesterday the Board of Zoning Appeals con- sidered two sign variance requests and approved both although the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Department had recommended against both. Jim Price Chevrolet received a variance for a free-standing sign twice the allowed size. In addition, they can have a 200 square foot wall sign and a 100 square foot roof sign. There is no visibility problem at this location. The second variance was granted to W. F. Paulette & Sons, a building materials supply store, in Scottsville on Route 6. Route 6 is a Virginia byway. This facility will have multiple buildings with a chain link f~nce across the front so it is clearly defined. They already have a variance from the 100-foot setback from scenic roads; now being only 50 feet from the right-of-way. There will be 50 feet of landscaping, so a sign does not need to be right on the road. She suggested that the Board of Supervisors appeal the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the court since there was no evidence of a hardship shown. January il, 1978 (Regular Meeting) 033 Mr. Fisher suggested that the County Attorney, the Planning Department and the Zoning Administrator review prior decisions by the Board of Zoning Appeals on such petitions to see if there has been a sequence of events culminating in these'two cases. After reviewing their work, the Board will decide if they should appeal this decision and try to re-establish the sign ordinance as law rather than having the law as the exception. Agenda Item No. SA. Executive Session. Personnel. At 12:17 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session as requested by the Chairman. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. The Board reconvened at 2:17 P.M. Agenda Item No. 9. ZTA-77-09. Robert P. Boyle. (Deferred from December 21, 1977.) Mr. Boyle was present at this meeting. Mr. Fisher said that on December 21st, the Board reviewed both this zoning text amendment,~nd a special permit request. Because of the con- troversy surrounding the intended use of the building, the objections from the neighbors and the desire of the applicant and the Board to see that the building is preserved, if possible, the Historic Zoning Committee was asked to look at the application and make comments. Mr. Dorrier said the Historic Zoning Committee met on January 6th and adopted a resolu- tion in support of ZTA-77-09 but felt that the amendment should be limited to preservation of historic structures in the A-1 Zone. They also recommended approval of SP-77-76 with the nine conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, plus a tenth condition. "Signing for the tavern shall be approved by the Planning Commission at site plan review to insure that signs are of a design appropriate to the architecture of that period." Mr. Dorrier said he also had a petition from people in favor of the restoration and submitted same to the Board. (Petition is on file and contained 35 signatures.) Mr. Bernard Chamberlain gave a short history of Boyd's Tavern, the object of SP-77-76. He noted that it is one of the few revolutionary inn's still standing. The building was built near the close of the revolution about 1780. It burned at the end of the Civil War~ but was rebuilt in 18~a~on the same foundation. It is a replica of the original tavern which was a way station on~Chopt Road. Therefore, this would not be creating a new use in the agricultural zone, it would only reactivate an old use. Mr. Fisher said he would not reopen the public hearing and asked if there were any way to provide that the structure would have to be maintained in its historic architecture. He said the definition presented seems to depend heavily on the speci~! permit process. Mr. Tucker said that was the reason for the condition that the structure should be restored as gaithfully as possible to the architectural character-6f'~the period. There is ~nothing in the presented definition that would guide the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors into that direction. Mr. Lindstrom asked why the staff recommended against adoption of this amendment. Mr. Tucker said the historic significance has been brought out by this report fro~ the Historic Zoning Committee. Neither the Planning Staff nor the Planning Commission had the benefit o~ this history. They reviewed the petition primarily in terms of a restaurant being located in the area. After some discussion about how to reword the definition, motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. RoudabUsh 'to.'amend and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in, Section 2-1-25(28) under special permit provisions in the A-1 zone; by the following language as agreed to by consensus of the Board: "A. Restaurants located on or adjacent to motel premises. Be Restaurants located within an h~storic landmark as designated in the Comprehensive Plan provided such structure has been used as a restaurant, tavern or inn; in such case the structure shall be restored as faithfully~ as possible to the architectual character of the period and shall be main- tained consistent therewith." The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta Agenda Item No. 10. SP-77-76 Robert P. Boyle. (Deferred from December 21, 1977.) Mr. Tucker reviewed the conditions drafted by the Planning Commission and motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush to approve SP-77-76 with conditions 1 through 5 and 7 through 9 as drafted by the Planning Commission with condition number 10 as recommended by the Historic Zoning Committee. Conditions of approval are set out below: "1. Structure shall be restored as faithfully as possible to the architectual character of the period and shall be maintained consistent therewith. 2. No expansion beyond the original limits of the structure. 3. No off-premises license for sale of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted. 4. This shall be a sit-down restaurant. No take-out food service or stand-up eating shall be permitted. ~. No admission after ~:~0 P.~. O34 January 12, 1978 (Regular Meeting) 6. Site plan approval. 7. Building and fire inspections approval. 8. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies. 9. Signing for the tavern shall be approved by the Planning Commission at site plan review to insure that signs are of a design appropriate to the architecture of that period." The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Fisher then thanked the members of the Historic Zoning Committee for doing their work in such a prompt manner. (Clerk's Note: It was found after this hearing that adjoining property owners had been notified that this hearing would be held at 7:30 P.M., therefore, the petition was readvertised for another public hearing.) Agenda Item No. 11. Rann Preserve: Report from Committee on Grant Application. Mr. Fisher noted that at a recent Planning District Commission meeting, an application for Federal funds was received to operate a program on this property. Dr. Iachetta who was at that meeting, and who is also a member of the Rann Preserve Committee, said he knew nothing about the application. The Planning District Commission then took action conditioned on approval of this application by both the Board of Supervisors and City Council. There is a deadline of January 16th for the filing of this application. Last week, the Rann Preserve Committee held a joint meeting and has forwarded the following memorandum: "After discussion of the appropriateness of the grant program for the RANN property, Dr. Iachetta moved that the committee recommend approval of the grant to the Council and Board. Mr. Fife seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The grant as written will not require any money or further action from the City or County, but will be operated by the Conservation Council of Virginia, who will hire the director of the program. The program will be operated in much the same manner that any group makes use of public property for study. The consensus of the joint committee was that the program was in keeping with the envisioned use of the property. Further, for information, the County will oversee the construction agreed to on the property and act as fiscal agent. Mrs. Conant mentioned the interest of a class in the Architecture School in looking at various site plan possibilities. The Committee felt this input could be received during the site plan approval stage and that it would be most helpful. Mr. Earl Sudduth will develop and submit the final grant proposal to the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. We expect to be able to purchase the property at the previously agreed on price within one month. Finally, Mr. German and Mr. Sudduth will develop a management program for the future of the property and submit it to the joint committee before submission to the Council and Board." Mrs. Elizabeth Conant was present. She said they seek the use of the property so the land can be used as a base for a program in conservation education. Mr. Agnor noted that~'¥ ~s gra~_ted~ for a one year period, and there is no guarantee that it will be extended. Mr. Fisher said he wanted it made clear that approval of this application.~as~?not~commit~the~'.~ ~ard%to~fund~'th~s P~og~a~?a~e~the F~der~dnd~ are expended. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to forward favorable comments on this application to the Planning District ~mmission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Itcm No. 12. January 4, 1978.) Cushman Well System and Performance Bond. (Deferred from Mr. St. John noted a packet of correspondence which had been furnished to the Board. He referred to a letter from the County Engineer dated October 29, 1976, in which Mr. B~iley stated the results of testing on wells number 1 and 2 of the system. Mr. Bailey had stated that they could get 33 gallons per minute and the Health Department had also certified them at 33 gallons per minute. In a memo dated December 29, 1976, the County Engineer has certified tests of well number 3, however he had stated that well number 3 was tested simul- taneously with well number 2. Well number 3 tested at 18 gallons per minute, and well number 2 at 30 gaZlons per minute. Mr. Bailey recommended that the wells be certified for 48 gallons per minute or a total of 96 dwelling units. This is less than the 102 dwelling units which the Board has allowed Mr. Cushman on this well system under this performance bond. (See minutes of December 15, 1976)- Mr. St. John said when this problem was brought to Mr. Bailey's attention, he had agreed that well number 2 was tested simultaneously with well number 3 only to prove that they were not interconnected. The real test of well number 2 is shown in Mr. Bailey's letter of October 29, 1976. Mr. Bailey has now revised his January 11, 1978 (Regular Meeting) 03'5 recommendation. Mr. St. John said the letter of credit posted for well number 3 has ex- pired; the County no longer holds this as security. He did not think the County could prevail if they tried to foreclose on the bond since Mr. Bailey has changed his recommenda- tion. However, if the Baard disagrees the County Attorney's office will move fo foreclose the bond. After a lengthy discussion of the problem it ~as agreed by the Board no action to fore- close on the bond would be taken and that Mr. Bailey should rewrite his memorandum of December 29, 1976, and submit same to the Board for their information. Agenda Item No. 3b. Mr. Fred Landess said General Electric feels that until the Highway Department acts on the request for Industrial Access Funds, there would be nothing gained by hearing G.E.'s appeal on the site plan. Mr. Fisher suggested that the appeal be heard immediately following the date the Board receives some word from the Highway Commission as to the request for industrial access funds. Agenda Item No. 12a. Agreement: Community Attention. Mr. Agnor said as he understands it, the Community Attention Hame is an arm of the Juvenile Court. It has been an alternative for the court when residential care and counsel- ing are needed. It has been funded from its conception entirely from Federal and State sources. With the passing of time those sources are disappearing. The City has sent an agreement to the County providing for local funds in this program to maintain and keep it in operation. The City has been funding this program entirely from their local funds when there is a shortage of Federal and State funds. They now expect the jurisdictions from which the children originate to be a source of revenue. Judge Ralph Zehler of the Juvenile Court was present. He said that the home is not an arm of the court, it is an independent agency and one that is available to children coming through the court. However, children go into the home from sources other than the court. Mr. Gary Duncan, Director, said the program started in 1971 as a private non-profit organization for the community. In 1973 the concept and the Board of Directors was changed. In October 1975, because of financial considerations, they approached the State Department of Corrections in order to receive STate funds and were told that in order to do this, the program would have to be handled through a governmental source. They approached the City of Charlottesville who agreed to include this program in the City budget. The first year of operation under the City budget required no local funds. However, as Federal, State and other sources dry up, they are forced to come up with more local money in order to keep the program in operation. The City does not feel they can put up all the money to operate the program since there are children from~counties in Planning District 10 in the home. Some of the children are under custody of the Social Services' Department and that creates no problem because fees for these children are paid with Title XX funds. The problem they are experiencing is the children referred for services who are not in custody of social services departments. In those cases, the City must pay the total fee, therefore they are approach- ing the various counties and asking for assistance. Mr. Dorrier asked how many Albemarle County children participated in the program during 1977. Mr. Duncan said the~e?were twelve from the County. Fifty percent of these children were non-custody cases and the City did not receive a fee from any source for keeping these children. Judge Zehler said since he has learned that the 'local jurisdictions are required to pay for the care of a child who goes directly from his court he is looking seriously into the practice of committing the child to the Welfare Department. However, he must be careful because it is improper to commit a child to the Welfare Department just to get them to pay for the services. If the child is properly committed to the ~WeIfare 'Department, Title XX will pay the costs. However, there are some children who cannot be committed to the Welfare Department. ~ Mr. Fisher said he was concerned about getting into another contractual arrangement, which could eventually absorb a significant'portion of tax revenues. Particularly a program in which the County has no say about its operation, salaries', administration, or budget. Mr. Fisher said if there will be a regional need for this type of service, the Board might consider setting up a regional home where they would have some say over these matters. After a rather lengthy discussion about this situation, Mr. Roudabush said he felt the Board did not kn~w much about the organizational or financial structure of the Community Attention Home. Mr. Lindstrom felt the Board would be going into the program sight unseen. Mr. Fisher then requested that Mr. Duncan furnish the Board information~on how the cost would be allocated between the City, the County and other jurisdictions that participate, the services funded from the state and Federal governments, the number of children that could be expected from Albemarle County, a budget for the Community Attention Home operation, includ- ing salarieS, number of personnel, etc. He said all this information would be needed before the Board could sign a contract. Mr. St~ John said he has never quite understood what the Board would be getting into if they signed this contract ~oday, so he has not approved same in substance or form. Mr. Fisher said as soon as Mr. Duncan had furnished the Board the information requested, and the County and City attornies had worked out the questions of liability contained in the contract same should be returned for the Board's approval. Agenda Item No. 13. Appr6priation. Attorney for Fleming Suit. Mr. St. John presented an itemized statement from Mr. William B. PoUf in the suit of Fleming versus Albemarle Country, et~at. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adopt t~e following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $1,788.19 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 1-A103, Consultants, in the Board of Supervisors budget. O36 January 11, 1978~ (Regular Meeting) The forego~mg motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstr°m and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and RoudabUsh. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Not Docketed. Mr. St, John asked that Mr, Paul Peatross and Mr. Francis Lawrence be continued as attorneys for Hartweli Clark and for himself respectively in the Wendell Wood suit in Federal Court. The plaintiff's have appealed this suit to the Four~ Circuit, Motion to approve Mr. St..~John's request was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrmer, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and, RoUdabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Mr. St. John. asked that the Board allow him to engage Mr. William B. Poff, if necessary, to defend himself as John Doe if he is served papers and formally brought in as a ~efendant in the case against Bedford Moore, John Haviland, Pat' Janssen and John Doe vs. Fleming. Mr. St. John said he understands that he is an unserved conspirator, which means that he is not a party to the suit, but if he becomes a party, he must have someone to represent him on short notice. Mr. Poff has already agreed to do this if it becomes necessary. Mr. St. John asked that Mr. Poff be engaged at the expense of the County. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the follow- ing recorded vote to adopt the following resolution: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. BE IT RESOLVED that William B. Poff, Esquire, of the law firm of Woods, Rogers, Muse, Walker and Thornton in Roanoke, Virginia, be and he is hereby engaged as chief counsel for George R. St. John, Esquire, in his official and individual capacity, in the case now pending in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia under the style of James N'.' ~Fleming,' et al va. Albemarle County, Virginia, and the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle 'County, et al, at a rate of compensation of $75.00 per attorney hour plus incidental costs and expenses; in the event George R. St. John becomes a party in this litigation. Agenda Item No. 14. Discussion. Fire Marshal's position. "January 6, 1978 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive SUBJECT: Fire Marshal Position Upon the resignation of Mr. Reynolds as County Fire Marshal, you were advised that revisions of that position were considered to be in order, and that recommendations for such revisions would be presented after study by this office. That study has been completed, and the following report outlines the results. The objective of the study was to examine the function of the position to improve the fire prevention activities and services to the County through increased productivity and improved efficiency of the responsibilities assigned to the position. In the year and several months which the position had been observed by this office, it was my strong impression that fire prevention and fire investigation were two distinct .functions. Specifically, arson investigation required time and talents that were dissimilar to plan review and inspection activities. The Code of Virginia provides for the appointment of a local fire marshal by the governing body when deemed by the governing body to be expedient, and the title or term "fire marshal" includes local arson investi- gator. The State Code also details the powers and duties of the fire marshal which involves power to arrest, service of warrants, issuance of summons, taking of sworn evidence, etc.-responsibilities related to investigative work. In the absence of a local fire marshal, the State Fire Marshal's office provides investigative services to localities. ~ The BOCA Basic Fire Prevention Code which the County adopted provides for the chief of the fire department or fire prevention bureau to be the code enforcing authority. In the absence of a fire department or bureau, the code requires an officer designated by the appointing authority to enforce the provisions of the code. The enformement responsibilities include inspection of structures and premises as often as necessary, coordination of inspections with other code enforcement inspections, investigation of fires of suspicious origin including securing of premises and notification of persons designated by law to pursue investigations, and maintenance of records of fires in the jurisdiction. The separation between the two functions of fire inspection~and criminal investigation was discussed with three agencies, namely the Jefferson County Firemen's Association, the State Fire Marshal's office, and the Albemarle January 11, 1978 (Regular Meeting) O37 Sheriffs Department. as follows: The results of these discussions are summarized The Firemen's Association recognized the differences in the functions and were concerned that attention to fire prevention would be continued at an important level in the County, that a County fire official be available to the volunteer chiefs when needed at the site of a fire to secure property and evidence when suspicious origin is found, that burning of leaves be regulated by an appropriate official, that building plans and floor layout be pr~vided fire companies when inspections by the County indicate potential problem areas or,hazards, that fire hydrants be inspected and maintained regularly, and that arson investigation be conducted by State Officials when deemed necessary by a County fire official. The State Fire Marshal office in Culpeper, which serves this region, and the Richmond office advised that their services were available, that immediate response to a call would be made in fires involving deaths, that other fires would receive attention as required depending upon severity and manpower available, that Sheriff Bailey has trained arson investigators on his staff who assist the State marshals upon request, and that the State ha~ecognized the difference between the two functions with the Fire Marshal's office being placed under the State Police effective July, 1978 with the code enforcement and inspection functions being assigned to the Division of Housing. Sheriff Bailey agreed that power of arrest, service of warrants, interrogation of witnesses or suspects, collection of evidence, etc. were a function of law enforcement and should be contained under the authority of law enforcement agencies. He described his cooperation and assistance with the State Fire Marshals office in years past, and expressed his willingness to continue that support. He employs two trained arson investigators. It is my recommendation that Albemarle County employ the services of the State Fire Marshal in the investigative aspect of fire prevention, services which involve trained specialists and which are available to localities without the expenditure of local funds. It is my further recommendation that the position of Fire Marshal be retitled Fire Pre- vention Officer employed in the Inspections Department with primary responsibilities for fire prevention code enforcement and as a resource for building and site plan revmew, as needed. The title change will remove the association of the position with arson investigation duties. The support needed by the volunteer fire companies will be met, and the time relinquished in investigative work will provide an opportunity for increased production of fire prevention through inspection. The Director of Inspections estimates that fire safety inspections can be increased by 200% with existing personnel." Mr. Fisher urged the Board to accept the County Executive's recommendation. Motion to do so was offered by Mr. Dottier, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried b~3~the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Not Docketed: Mr. Agnor then requeated the Board ~ ~es!gnate the Director of Inspec- tions as the officer responsible for enforcement of the BOCA Fire 'Prevention Code. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 15. Request to have local Savings and Loan Associations certified as depositories for County funds. Mr. Ray Jones was present. He said each year in January the County takes bids from local banks on large sums of money to be placed on deposit for various periods. In 1975 the bidding was limited to local banks pursuant to directions of the Board of Supervisors. Recently he has been requested to allow savings and loan institutions to also bid. Savings and loan associations are~'qualified state depositories. Most of the savings and loan associations are limited to $100,000 certificates. Mr. Jones said he would like to offer the local savings and loan associations the opportunity to compete on the certificates in January of 1978. Normally their interest offerings are slightly higher. Motion to approve Mr. Jones's request was made by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. 038 January 11, 1978 (Regular Meeting) Agenda Item No. 16a. Appointment: Economic Development Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier~seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to appoint Mr. Roudabush as a member of this commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16b. Appointment: Equalization Board. Mr. Henley nominated Mrs. Ethel Kindrick; Mr. Roudabush nominated Mr. Ryland Moore; Mr. Dorrier nominated Mr. Pierson Scott; Mr. Fisher nominated Mr. John 0. Higginson. Motion to appoint these persons were made by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16~j. Appointment: Health System Agency - Sub-Area Council. ordered that this item be carried over to another meeting. It was Agenda Item No. 16b. be carried over. Appointment: Housing Committee. It was ordered that this item Agenda Item No. 16e. Appointment: Industrial Development Authority. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to reappoint Mr. Preston Morris to a new term which will expire on January 19, 1982. The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following re- corded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16f. Appointment: Planning Commission. Motion was offered by Mr. Fisher to appoint Mrs. Norma Diehl to serve as the Samuel Miller District representative on the Planning Commission; term to expire on December 31, 1981. Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to appoint Mr. Charles Vest to serve as an at-large member of the Planning Commission for a term which will expire on December 31, 1980. Second to these motions was given by Mr. Dottier. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16g. Appointment: Planning District Commission. Mr. Fisher recommend- ed that the Board representatives be: Dr, Iachetta to serve a term which will expire on December 31, 1981; Mr. Dorrier to serve a term which will expire on December 31, 1979; and Mr. Roudabush to serve a term which will expire on December 31, 1979. Motion to make these appointments was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16h. Appointment: Mental Health and Retardation Services Board. was ordered that this appointment be carried over to another meeting. It Agenda Item No. 16i. Appointment: Transportation Study - Policy Committee. ordered that this item be carried over to another meeting. It was Agenda Item No. 16g. Appointment: Planning District Commission. Mr. Fisher noted that the Board must make an appointment of a citizen member to this commission to replace Mrs. Sally Thomas, who is leaving the country for an eight month visit in England. He recommended Mrs. Jane Biltonen of 217 Brentwood Road as a replacement for Mrs. Thomas whose term expires on June 30, 1978. Motion to appoint Mrs. Biltonen was made by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 16j. Appointment: Watershed Management Plan Committee. The following names were offered for appointment to this committee.~To'~re~resent the Forestry Industry, Wal~er F. Perkins; to represent the citizens of the Village of Earlysville, Allen B. Kindrick StaGe Health Department representative, Ronald E. Conner; to represent the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, George W. Williams; to represent the State Division of Forestry, David A. Tice; to represent the Soil Conservation Service, J. Gordon Yager; to represent the United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, J. E. Maxey; to represent the VPI - SU Extension Service, Donald R. Bowman; to represent the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Dan S. Roosevelt; and Dr. William E. 0dum, as an interested citizen. January !1, 1978 (Regular Meeting) 039 Motion to appoint the above named persons to the Watershed Management Plan Committee was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, and ea~ried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 17. requests: Lottery Permits. Presented for approval were the following 1. The University Union of the University of Virginia to hold both bingo game~ and raffles on University of Virginia property. Funds obtained through the operation of these games to be channeled into University Union General Operating Funds. 2. The Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, Incorporated. For the operation of bingo games. Funds to be used for the upkeep of station .and equipment. 3. Stony Point Volunteer Fire Company, Incorporated. Funds to be used to pay for the operation of the volunteer fire company. 4. East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Company, Incorporated. Funds to be used for operation and maintenance of the fire department, equipment, and fire station in the Keswick Community Center. 5. 14th Virginia Regiment and Fife and Drum Corps. Funds to be applied to- ward~the purchase of new uniforms for the corps. Motion to approve the foregoing permits for the calendar year 1978 was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 18. Report of the County Executive for the ~onth of December 1977 was not ready and therefore not presented. Agenda Item No. 19. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of November 1977 was presented as information in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Agenda Item No. 20. Statements of Expenses for the Director of Finance, the Common- wealth's Attorney and Sheriff's office for the month of December 1977 were presented. Upon motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dottier, the statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 21. Statement of Expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of December-~lg?? wasa presented. On mot~o~ by Mr. Henley, seconded bY Mr. Dorrier, the state- ment was approved as read. The motion carried ~by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush.' None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 22. Statement of Expenses for the operation and main.tenance of the Regional Jail for the month of December 1977 was presented along with summary statement of prisoner days, and statements of salaries of the jail physician, the paramedics and the classification officer. Motion to approve the statements as presented was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dottier, and carried by the following recorded vo~e: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 23. Claim against the Dog Fund. Claim was received from Mr. Clarence H. Wetzet for one ewe killed by dogs on October 2; one ewe killed on November 7; one ewe killed on November 10; and one ewe killed on November 18, 1977. Upon motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Wetzel was allowed $330.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 24. Consideration of advance of Operation Funds to Jordan Development Corporation for Crozet project. Mr. Agnor said the Jordan Development Corporation is acting as agent for the County for the Crozet Housing Project and they are incurring some expenses which require availa~- ability of cash funds until invoices are processed and funds are received from HUD. The corporation had intended to use an operating account of their own which was depleted in the preliminary site plan and zoning procedures, and this is not recoverable from the HUD 040 January 11, 19.78 (Regular Meeting) Grant. They are, therefore, faced with no operating funds, and this was not anticipated in drafting the agency agreement. TO-alleviate this problem, Mr. Agnor rec'~mmended that the Director of Finance be authorized to advance up to $7,000 to the corporation from County funds, similar to the procedure that is followed with other County agencies being advanced fnnds for Federally funded, reimbursable projects. This advance should be interest free since Jordan is the County's agent and should be conditioned upon repayment by Jordan to the CoBnty upon receipt by Jordan of the final HUD payment for the project. Motion to approve this request was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 25. Other Matters Not On The Agenda. Mr. Lindstrom brought up a matter with respect to plats of Windsor and Langford. He said someone had advised him today, and evidently there is a misunderstanding, that the Planning Commission had waived the 200-foot setback required~under the Run-off Control Ordinance; that is not what was done. The two developments met all the terms of the Run-off Control Ordinance but in order to do so the Planning Commission waived what they have now implemented as a policy for standard drainfield sizes. Last night, apparently they voted the opposite way and did not waive these requirements with respect to another development which is almost identical in location. Mr. Lindstrom said Dr. Iachetta had asked him if he would like to call these before the Board and he asked how the other Board members felt. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer was present. He said with respect to the Windsor development, they comply with the 200-foot setback, but while Windsor was being considered, the Planning Commission passed a policy stating that 40,000 square feet would be required outside of the 200-foot setback. The Planning Commission in discussing this took a position that the 40,000 square foot lot would be required so there would be two sites available for a septic system. Mr. Fisher suggested that Mr. Lindstrom investigate this question further since he did not fully understand the problem. Mr. Agnor said that he had received a Management Plan for Energy Crisis from the State in the event that a crisis develops during the cold weather presently being experienced. This plan requires that the locality also develop a plan to match the state plan. The staff has been working on a plan and it will be ready soon. Mr. Agnor said he had received notification.~from the Highway Safety Division, that the Region X Alcohol Safety Action Program has received $19,644 for their first year of operation Mr. Agnor noted that the County had received a refund from the Mental Health Agency for the fiscal year ending June 30, 197.7, in the amount of $~,883.@3 and had also received a refund from the Regional Library for the same period of time in the amount of $638.00. Mr. St. John said his office is in the process of drafting a Solar Energy Ordinance. The Virginia Code said that you can draft the ordinance to exempt in whole or in part the solar energy heating system and unless the Board says otherwise they will include in the draft an exemption for the total value. The Board concurred. Mr. St. John handed to the Clerk an order from the court to be filed in the agenda item concerning abandonment of a road in Howardsville. Agenda Item No. 26. Executive Session. As requested by the Chairman, motion was offer- ed at 5:35 P.M. by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn into executive session to discuss land acquisition. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. The Board reconvened into open session at 8:00 P.M. Agenda Item No. 27. Motion was offered by Mr~ Henley, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to adjourn this meeting until January 18, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dottier, ~Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta.