Loading...
1977-08-03AJuly 20, 1977 (Regular-Night Meeting) ?88 Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adjourn the meeting to August 3, 1977, at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building. Mr. Dorrier seconded the motion and same carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS:~ Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. CHAI~N~ An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 3, 1977, beginning at 1:00 P.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from July 20, 1977. Present: Mrs. 0pal D. David (arriving at 1:13 P.M.) and Messrs. Lindsay G. Dottier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iaehetta and William S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers Present: Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; George R. St. Jo~n, County Attorney; and Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Pl-anning. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 1:05 P.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher, who announced that he had received a letter from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, saying that-well number three of the Meriwether Hills system had been connected. Mr. Fisher also said that at a meeting in Scottsville recently, Mayor Thacker had a~ked if the County's Soil Erosion Ordinance could be put into effect within the town limits. The County Attorney has said it is possible for the County to enforce its ordinance within the town limits if the town adopts its own program; adopts j6intly with the County an erosion and sediment control program; or authorizes the County to adopt such a program for the town. Mr. Fisher said during Mr. Agnor's absence, the option agreement for purchase of the Post Office was received. He, therefore, signed on behalf of the County and now a~ks for ratification of his action by the Board. Motion to authorize the Chairman to sign on behalf of the County was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the fo%lowing recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. David. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of application of the Potomac Edison Comp. any for an increase in rates; Virginia State Corporation Commission ease number 19810. A public hearing on this request will be held on October 4, 1977, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioner's Courthouse, B!anton Building, Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Fisher noted that he had received a resolution from City Council with regard to the financing of the new library facility. They noted that it is their hope to finance this project without a referendum. Mr. Dorrier said he had asked Dr. Vivian Gordon, County representative to the Monticello Area Community Action Agency Board to be present today to report on a change in one of MACAA's programs. Dr[ Gordon Noted that a proposal from the Monticello Area Community Action Agency for a senior ei±iZen's progmam was rejected by the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. JABA intends to award the contract to a new group called Jefferson Area Senior Citizens. MACAA is appealing that decision. Dr. Gordon said a copy of the appeal would be presented to the Board. She mentioned the following points. The new Jefferson Area Senior Citizens group plans to serve more meals than outlined in MACAA's proposal. MACAA did not know and was not informed that Title III funds could be diverted to this program. Now that this is a known fact, they can increase the total number of meals served by $14,300. MACAA's program has been the only ~rogram in the state that used USDA commodities entirely. Their projections for the next year were based on past experience and the MACAA Board feels that the projections of the new group are overly optimistic. Dr. Gordon said there were many factors involved in the competitive bidding· For one thing, the group against whom there were bidding (for all practical purposes) represents JABA. That is one of the things that MACAA wants to clarify. This group has no advisory board and it also has no staff. It is a three member unincorporated group. MACAA therefore would like to know if August 3, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) Mr. Fisher thanked Dr. Gordon for her report and noted that the JABA Board is authorized to make such contracts. Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session. Comprehensive Plan. (Mrs. David arrived at 1:13 P.M. Present along with Mr. Tucker was Mr. David Carr, Chairman of the Albemarle County Planning Commission. Mr. Fisher aaid he had asked that the Planning Commissimn"s recommenda- tions be brought to the Board at this time so the Board can see how these recommendations differ from the printed~'Comprehensive Plan which was received in May. '. Mr. Tucker noted his memorandum dated July 21, 1977, and proceeded to discuss items as set out in that memorandum. Proposed bypass or urban expressway as shown in the proposed plan. While the staff is of the opinion that an alignment for a proposed limited access ~ highway should~be established as soo~ as possible, the location of that alignment needs further study. Tha~Board of Supervisors has already re- quested the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation to review this proposed alignment through the Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Restudy, which is underway. Their recommendations for transportation needs for the urban area, plus surrounding~rura! areas, are expected within a year. It is the staff's recommendation that the proposed alignment for a by-pass await the findings of the Transportation Restudy. At the time the Restudy is submitted for County approval, the staff recommends that the CoUnty also amend the Comprehensive Plan at that time to reflect the find- ings of the Transportation Restudy. The consultants, KDA, had noted that the location of the by-pass evolved out of its function. The function of the by-pass is not to avoid Charlottesville and move people around to 29 South. The object is to simply avoid a five to six mile stretchrof strip develppment. The people pursuing this corridor will be best handled if they are taken from existing 29 North and brought to the 250 By-pass at approximately the same place they would have hit the 250 By-pass if they had stayed on 29 North (southbound). The alignment opportunities to accomplish the previously stated objective are severely limited. Only one corridor, the one selected, could be found between Rio'Road and the 250 By-pass. Going North from Rio Road there ~are two alternatives, however, the least destructive ~was proposed and is shown in the proposed Comprehensive Plan. If this right-of-way is usurped by some other function to the extent that it cannot be later claimed for this transportation route, the opportunity that now exists to solve this Particular problem will be lost. Mr. Tue~e~r said the Planning Commission agreed with the consultant's recommendation and therefore took no action to delete this from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fisher said he had a memo dated June 9, 1977, from Dr. James Moore of the Mutual Boundary Committee in which the committee recommends that MiChie Drive be a major collector street from Hydraul~ic Road to/Rio Road and not a limited access highway or major arterial highway. He asked how that recommendation compares with KDA's recommendation. Mr, Tucker said this memo had arrived after the Planning Commission took action and it conflicts with the consultants recommendations. Dr. Iachetta asked if any correspondence had been received from the City Planning Commission about the part of Michie Drive that is .within the City. Mr. Tucker said no. Mrs. Schatz, a member .of the City Planning Commission~was present and said they have drawn up a list of recommendations which will be submitted to City Council, and she did not want to discuss those recommendations until after City Council had met. However, the City Planning Commission does want to discuss a limited access road at that point, since they feel the traffic impact will be put at the wrong point, Mrs. David said no one is consider- ing this alignment as the one and only alternative. The Board really needs to know the recommendations of the Transportation Restudy. She felt it was desirable to leave this road on the map in order to make it appear that the Board wants some kind of alternative trans- portation in that area. Mr. Cart said the Planning Commission did not particularly favor this route? but they felt that to eliminate the road from the Plan at this point would be an error. Hopefully, the Mutual. Boundary Committee will be able to resolve this question. Mr. Fisher said it is a worthwhile goal to develop an alternative transportation corri- dor. However, to put this roadway on the map and then have to review each zoning petition to see if it falls in this general area would be a problem during the interim before the Transportation Restudy is completedl Mr. Tucker said the Branchlands property has been approved as a planned community. Making this a limited access highway, when the road runn- ing through Branchlands is basically a collector street for the commun~ity, would have drawbacks. Dr. Iachetta felt the Board should be sure this is where fhe roadway will go before showing it on the map. He would like to fee~. that this proposed route will be -realized at some time in the future before showin~ the map. Mr. Roudabush asked if any other alternative routes had been discussed. Mr. Tucker ~aid yes, but most of the alterna- tives had to do with rerouting traffic. Mr. Fisher said there appear to be two separate issues; one is where the road will actually go and the second is what type of road it will be. He asked to hear comments from the consultants. Mr. Bruce Drenning said one of the major 'issues raised by the County was the problem of Route 29 North as it ~xists today. The consultants paid particular attention to this problem and strongly recommend that the facility be a limited access highway. To,provide another four-lane road with unlimited access would not solve the problem over the long-term, but would just duplicate what has already happened on Route 29. It would also create new additional commercial pressures. When the consultants say "limited access highway" they do not intend that traffic would be precluded from entering at the intersection of public streets atgrade level with this new road. There could 'be an intersection with Rio Road and two other points and also on the portion of property within Branchlands. Mr. Drenning said there will have to be discussion as to what happens to traffic where the new route enters the 250 By-Pass. Hopefull~ that question can be resolved in discussions with the City and the Highway Department. August 3, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) Dr. Iachetta said there had been discussions earlier with the City about a possible route from Rio Road at the Voc-Tech School parallel to the railroad and coming down to Melbourne Road. Mr. Tucker said this is the extension of McIntire Road,[.~. It has been a proposed route for a number of years in the City's highway plan. The proposal is to take McIntire Ro'Ad- straight through the intersection, at the 250 By-Pass and extend it up to Rio Road at the Tech Center. Mr. Fisher said the City has a problem with that proposal because of the park, and the Board recognizes their political problem. However, somewhere a transportation corridor must be developed or improved so the people from 29 north can get downtown and vice-versa. Mr. Roudabush said this alignment would relieve a lot of traffic pressures at the Rugby intersection. Dr. Iachetta asked if the consultants had looked at the possibility of connecting a road from Rio at the Tech Center and going around north of Hollymead. Mr. Drenning said yes. Dr. Iachetta asked if the main reason for putting this on the map at this time is to focus attention on the need. Mr. Tucker said yes. This is the main reason the Planning Commission felt it should stay on the map. They wanted everyone to be aware that some type of alternative route will have to be found, and this is what they recommend for the present. Mr. Fisher said there will never really be a corridor until it i~ defended. If it is put on the map then the Board has to be ready to start fighting those battles. Proposed Meadowbrook connector between US 29 North and proposed McIntire Extended. Mr. Tucker said the proposed Meadowbrook connector has been shown on the proposed Comprehensive Plan as a follow-up to the 1967 Charlottesville/Albemarle Transportation Study recommendations. The staff recently learned that the City has taken this proposed connector off their~ transportation plan. Since 90% of the proposed connector is located within the City and the City has deleted the connector completely from their plans, the staff recommends the removal of the proposed Meadowbrook connector from the proposed Comprehensive Plan update. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission concurred in this recommendation. Concern for the need for an energy conservation goal. Mr. Tucker said the staff concurs that the County should incorporate an energy conserva- tion goal into the Comprehensive Plan update and strive to implement that goal. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends the following wording: Energy Conservation Goal Establish criteria for the conservation of energy through land use and building design in order to minimize the demand for energy consumption and maximize the effectiveness of energy consumed. Energy Objectives Encourage land use arrangements and densities that facilitate energy efficient public transit systems and reduce the need for and utilization of the private automobile. Encourage the design, orientation and construction of build- ings and building complexes in order to effectively utilize all existing and potential energy sources. To review and analyze the existing engineering and design requirements for development within the County and their re- lationship to consumption of raw materials and use of energy in an effort to encourage a more efficient and energy conscious solution to development problems. Mr. Cart said there had been considerable attention given this matter by the public. However, the manner in which to address this was more difficult than the Planning Commission had anticipated. Recognition of Claudius Crozet Park. Mr. Tucker said the Crozet Park is a long-standing local community asset which should be recognized in the Plan. The Planning Commission concurred. Buffering between commercial, industrial and residential areas should take into account that of noises and noxious odors in addition to aesthetic considerations. The staff felt that this suggestion is more appropriate as the requirement of zoning than an item to be spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. Noises and noxious odor restrictions currently exist in the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1969, and it is not likely that such restrictions will become lax in the future; inclusion in the plan would be redundant. These considerations are well within the police power and do not need the support of the Plan. What should be considered in future zoning ordinance revisions is the pmotection of commercial and industrial uses from residential development. Currently special setback re- quirements fall entirely on commercial and industrial uses placing an inequitable burden on these properties. August 3, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission had felt that what KDA recommended in their objective was adequate, however there was concern from the citizenry concerning the wording. Therefore, the Planning Commission does recommend that the third objective of the commercial .goal, whleh deals with buffering, read as follows: Develop standards as necessary to stimulate the location of attractive commercial development which minimizes the necessity for buffering, but does provide for buffering as may~be necessary to protect residential areas from noise, odors and other objectionable effects. Suggestion for more detailed plans for Crozet and Hollymead communities. The staff ms opposed to this suggestion for a number of reasons; a) The land use plan section of the Comprehensive Plan is designed as a general graphic recommendation of potential future land use. To present, staff has relied on such from the existing plan to provide a frame-work of consistent decision making; however, staff is opposed to detai!~ b) Any- more detail ~would require a parcel, by parcel analysis and map. Such action would place the County in an awkward position mn terms of future work with the Zoning Ordinance and accompanying map; c) The staff is not opposed to a reworking of the proposed generalized maps, if the County deems such action necessary. The consultants said that the Plan proposed is an overall countywide comprehensive planning tool and should not be envisioned as adequate for a neighborhood or area planned document. The logical expansion in d~tail for the area around Charlottesville and the Crozet, Hollymead communities should occur as a much more intensive planning exercise with participation on a local area basis and not necessarily a county-wide basis. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission recommends that the Crozet ~nd Ho!lymead communi- ties be reviewed with citizen input from those communities, and that the plans remain in a generalized format. Mr. Tucker noted that the Comprehensive Plan divides the urban area into seven neighborhoods, and the Planning Commission did recommend that the staff do detailed planning by forming committees in each of these neighborhoods and getting citizen input. This process has already begun. Mr. Fisher said he had just been handed a Qeti~ion. The people in North Garden are apparently upset at having the Crossroads area/~a~lage and would like to have the name of the village changed to North Garden. Mr. Tucker said he saw no problems with that change. Mr. Fisher asked if the work in progress on the detailed planning for the urban area is anticipated to become an amendment to the Plan. Mr. Tucker said yes. The staff will go through this process with citizens in the neighborhoods and this work will be brought to the Planning Commission and the Board. Mr. Fisher said this sounds like a continuing amendment process and he is concerned about how much of this the Board will be able to deal with. He wondered if there were anyway to set a timetable and bring all of the amendments as a single amendment; maybe late in 1978. Mr. Carr agreed. He said the. Planning Commission feels that the Comprehensive Plan has to be, and should be, a guide only. Therefore, very little detail will be found in the Plan. They also agree that the people who live in Crozet, Hollymead and the seven urban centers, should review in more detail some of the growth aspects and what is to be accomplished from land use in those communities and where some of the growth will happen. However, to amend the Comprehensive Plan in great detail presents considerable problems for the Planning Commission and certainly real problems to the professional planners. Mr. Fisher said he is concerned about how much detail can be included in the Plan itself. The Board will have to deal with that question when they see what the neighborhood associations come up with. Mr. Dorrier said he feels the Scottsville area should be designated as a community rather than a village. They already have water and sewer available and have plans for flood protection, and theme will be future growth and expansion in that area. He also feels that Scottsville is different from Esmont and North Garden and some of the other areas noted in the plan as villages. Mr. Tucker agreed that Scottsville will see more growth than these other places. However, the consultants did not see that there is any opportunity for substantial growth in Scottsville. Suggestion of substituting the language of the existing plan on pages 76 through 77 concerning historic landmarks for the language presented in the proposed Comprehensive Plan on page 22. The staff feels that the objectives of the proposed Plan adequately cover the language of the existing plan without the potentially dangerous specific recommendations of the existing plan. The staff encourages a plan which can be reasonably implemented and maintains flexibility of execution and not a plan that locks the County into specifics without further study. Since the adoption of the existing plan, several public and private agencies have become in- volved in historic preservation, and the County should encourage such activity. The existing plan calls for an "historic landmarks preservation commission" and an "architectural review board"; neither of which have been pursued. At present, staff is concerned about the increasing frag- mentation of the planning effort in the County through the creation of various committees and commissions with little coordination. Although an "historic district" had been discussed and proposed for the zonmng ordinance, no ordinance provision currently exists. The consultants concurred with the staff's comments. Mr. Fisher said he had heard from citizens who do not feel enough action has been taken by the County to protect existing landmarks through its planning and zoning procedures. Mr. Tucker said he does not think the wording in the Plan will make the County respond by chang- ing its ordinances. There was an historic district proposed in the proposed zoning ordinance August 3, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) but that zoning ordinance was not adopted. Mr. Fisher said a number of the proposals that were in the proposed zoning ordinance of !97S have now been incorporated into the present zoning ordinance. This article might be one which should be considered as a separate issue from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Cart said the Planning Commission had invited all owners of historic landmarks to participate in an historic zone. There were few, if any, volun- teers and this discouraged the Commission. It is very difficult to arrive at a fair ordinance unless those who own the property find some interest among themselves as to what the County might do to preserve these historic sites. The Commission does disagree that they are a value and should be preserved. However, what is a fair and reasonable way to do this is the question. Do the highway improvements proposed in the revised Comprehensive Plan complement the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's six-year plan for secondary road improvements, or are they at odds w~th the six-year plan, and if they are at odds, where do conflicts occur. Mr. Tucker gave the following comparison of the two secondary highway improvements programs: The revised Comprehensive Plan notes that ~Hydraulic Road should be expanded to provide for both present and future traffic volumes. The Highway Department's six-year plan notes that Hydraulic Road will be improved to 0.4 of a mile west of Route 631. The revised Comprehensive Plan notes that Route 643 and Route 649 should be improved in order that they may better serve the Hollymead community. The Highway Department's six-year plan calls for limited improvement of Route 643 and no improvement for Route 649. In addition, the revised Comprehensive Plan recommends that a north/south link be built connecting Route 643 and Route 649 east of Route 29 North. The Highway Department has no plans for such a link. The revised Comprehensive Plan notes that Route 729 should be improved from Nix to Route 250 East. LikewiSe, the re- vised Comprehensive Plan recommends improvement of Route 20 and Route 649 from Stony Point to Route 741, and for Route 743 to be improved from the intersection of Route 606 and Route 649 to Earlysville. Also recommended for improvement are Route 637 and Route 677 from Ivy to the 1-64 interchange. None of these routes are slated for improvement in the High- way Department's six-year plan. However, the Highway Department's smx-year plan does call for improving Route 687 from the end of hard-surface (south of I-B4) towards Batesvi!le. The Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's six-year plan calls for several other improvements to be made on secondary roads including the upgrading of road surfaces and replacement of substandard bridges. The staff feels the apparent discord between the revised Comprehensive Plan's recommendations and the Highway Depart- ment's six-year plan is that dissimilarities will ofter occur between long-range circulation-oriented improvement plans and specific remedial-oriented short-range plans. The revised Comprehensive Plan~s recommendations address long-range improve- ments whzch wmll be necessary when the villages, communities and urban area deveIop as outlined by the~Plan. The six-year plan submitted ~Y the Highway Department and ratified by ~he Board of Sup~rvzsors is~oriented toward relieving immediate problem spots, as weI1 as in the came of Route 743, meeting long-range o~jec'tives. Mr. Fisher said it seems the Dajor difference is that the Highway Department is trying to deal with a catch-up smtuatmon and the planners are looking ahead. Mr~~ Dan Roosevel% Resident Highway Engineer, said with the passing of House Bill 1041, the Board of Supervisors will now have the final say, within certain limits, as to where the mDney goes for secondary improvements. Consider the Buck Mountain Creek watershed as a potential future water supply impoundment. The planning staff consulted with the Engineering Department con'cerJing Buck Mountain Creek as a potential water impound- ment. The County Engineer states that Buck Mountain Creek is indeed a viable, future source of water for the County. The staff, therefore, recommends that a proposed impoundment be shown on the updated Compre- hensive Plan, and that the County strive to ~egin protection of that watershed from incompatible uses which would have a deleterious effect on the impoundment in the future. Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission voted to recognize ~nd designate the Buck Mountain Creek watershed as a potential water supply impoundment. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter this date wholeheartedly supporting this idea but stating "also contemplate adequate compensation to effected land owners" He asked if it was contemplated that the County would start buying land. Mr. Tucker said no. Mr. Cart said the Planning Commission did not address that point. He assumed that the Board would August 9, 197'7 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) need to address that question if the land is to be reserved and sooner or later the County will have to purchase easements. Mr. Fisher said if the County decides that this watershed will be important to the future of the County, beyond the twenty-year planning period covered by this Comprehensive Plan, the Board will have to address how it is to be done and how the land will be acquired in the long-range. Mr. Tucker said the staff and the Planning Commission were concerned only with protecting the watershed in order that it would not develop into a high density or highly commercialized or industrial area that would totally eradicate any future use of that particular impoundment. At the same time, the staff recognizes that this would entail hav- ing a study made to define the limits of the impoundment. Mr. Roudabush asked if the staff felt that by recognizing Buck Mountain Creek as a water supply source, it would give it the same status as the existing reservoirs as far as future controls are concerned. Mr. Tucker said the Board should address that question. Buck Mountain Creek was on the existing plan and in effect the staff is just re-establishing this impoundment. Mr. Fisher said the time alloted for discussinn of the Comprehensive Plan had lapsed and the Board still had a lot of work to do. He asked when the Board would like to set another work session. It was agreed that this discussion would continue on August 17 at 3:00 P.M. in the Board Room. Motion to this effect was made by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. At 2:55 P.M. the Board recessed and reconvened at 3:04 P.M. Agenda Item No. 3. Work Session. Housing Project. Mr. Fisher said this is a work sessmon on the business details and the responsibility of'the Board in this matter. Since the rezoning has been addressed favorably by this Board, this information was sent to HUD and there have been a number of communications with ~. He asked for a status report on the funding applications. Mr. Peter Daly, Housing Coordinator, was present. He said since the rezoning request was approved on July 6, there have been a number of communications with HUD. HUD requested additional information which was sent and has been distributed to the Board under date of July 8, 1977, along with a copy of the fina~l application. Most of the changes requested by HUD were small procedural changes. So far, the application is acceptable to them. HUD has requested a statement on the future of the project and some assurance that it will be used for low-income persons. Those assurances were given to them in a letter dated July 13, 1977. To date, there has been no response from them by letter. However, Mr. Daly said he was told by Stuart Seller, field representative for HUD, that the County can be reasonably sure the application will be approved and will go forward if HUD gets assurances for financing for the rest of the project from the other agencies involved. HUD is now waiting for FHA to send them an application for Section 8 subsidies for the twenty-seven units involved in1:the project. By telephone this date, Mr. Baker of FHA assured Mr. Daly that he Would file an application with HUD for the twenty-seven units. Mr. Daly said on July 18 several members of the County staff, a member of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and Mr. Goodling of FHA met. The County was assured that FHA wo~ld finance the project at the site approved by the Board. By telephone this date, Mr. Goodling said because of the controversy surr:ounding the' project's: he'~s-go±hg to require an environmental impact statement on the proposed site. Where there is a controversy, Mr. Goodling can require such a statement on any project of any size. Mr. Daly said he has not Seen any legislation or regulation so he does not know what is involved. Mr. Fisher asked who will prepare the mtatement. Mr. Daly said it will be prepared by FHA. They estimate six months as preparation time. The cost will be paid primarily by the Federal government, but the applicant for the loan (in this case, the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the Jordan Corporation), will have to pay the cost of submitting information that is required of them. If they are required to retain an engineer or geologist, or some other professional to do a study on the site, they will have to pay that fee and it could be substantial. Mr. Goodling had informed Mr. Daly that if the pro- jeer were moved to the alternate site proposed on Route 250, he would not require this s~atement. Mr. Henley asked what assurance the Board would have that that site would not be controversial. Mr. Daly said there is no assurance it will not be controversial, but the requirement for an environmental impact statement is at the discretion of Mr. Goodling. Mr. Agnor said HUD requires an environmental assessment which is different from an en- vironmental impact statement. Mr. Daly said ordinarily such a statement would not be required on any project of less than 50 housing units, however, he was informed by tele- phone that when Section 8 subsidies are involved, a statement can be required on any number of housing units. Mr. Agnor said in this project, the staff is attempting to dovetail two federal agencies and their programs together. It is difficult and there will be steps to overcome going through this process, but he did not see this as a discouragement~ although it may be time-consuming. Mrs. David asked if it is found that very high technical fees are required, if the application can be withdrawn. Mr. Daly said he assumed that Jordan Corporation could cancel their application for a loan at that time. As far as the County is concerned, it would seem unwise to take HUD funds, expend those funds for development of the site, and then discover that the County could not sponsor the housing project. The HUD funds are not August 3, 1977 (Afternoon-AdjOurned from July 20~ 1977) absolutely contingent on FHA, but they are contingent on alternative financing. FHA rates are just one percent below the market level, but the loans are for 50 years, and that is what makes them so attractiVe to a non-profit corporation. Mr. St. John said something else was said by telephone this morning that was supposed to be passed on to the Board. Mr. Goodling said, in his opinion, if this project goes through an environmental impact study, it will not be approved for just 27 units on the selected site; but, he asked that this statement not be considered as going back on his commitment. He will let the project go through the environmental impact process, but he does feel it would be a disservice to let this go through~the environmental.impact process when he believes beforehand that it is not going to pass. Mr. Daly said there are two issues which should be separated. 1) The environmental issue which relates solely to the controversy right now. Mr. Goodling can require in such eases an environmental impact statement; and 2) Mr. Goodling's own feeling about the economic viability of the project. Mr. Goodling feels the second site, which will allow 60 units to be developed immediately, would be economically more viable because there could be full-time management and with more units, a better use of the money. Mr. Goodling prefers to make loans for larger projects because he feels they have a greater chance of success. He knows he can make a loan on the alternative site immediately because of the availability of sewer connections. Dr. Iachetta said it sounds like Mr. Goodling is~ trying to use the environmental impact statement to kill the project rather than saying it is not economically viable. Mr. Henley felt it would be be~ter for him to just go ahead and deny the project now rather than spending money on a study. Mr. Daly said Mr. Goodling had expressed this fear about the economic viability of the project some months ago during a meeting with him and some of his staff members. After some discussion however, he was overridden.by his staff. They disagreed with him and he had agreed to go ahead with a loan application on the site proposed for 27 units. Again this morning on/~ephone, he raised the question of economic viability and his own personal feeling about the project. He has stated several times that he would like to make a loan for a project of this type in the Crozet area. Mr. Fisher said that several years ago he visited a low-income housing site in a neighboring county with Mr. Goodling. It was plain that Mr. Goodling favors high density projects. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned then about the social implications of that kind of a development. Mr. Da!y said there is no question that Mr. Goodling favors larger projects but at this time there is no applicant for a loan for 60 units. Jordan Development Corporation first began by talking about a project of 20 to 30 units on the assumption that they would like to evaluate such a project before going into something larger. Mr. Fisher said the applicant for this loan is Jordan Development Corporation. will have to decide whether to withdraw their-application for funding. He asked for comments on the environmental impact issue from Jordan's representative. They Mr. David Kudravetz said he had just found out about Mr. Goodling's position this afternoon. There has been no meeting of the Jordan Corporation Board, so no decision has been made. Jordan had hoped to use FHA funding, but if that is impossible, they wi~ have to look elsewhere. They do not feel this should forestall the County from proceeding with the application to HUD. Apparently all HUD needs t? approve the grant application, is the Section 8 subsidy from FHA. Once the grant is approved, if Jordan is not able to get any funds, something will have to be worked out with HUD as to what the County will do with the money. He urged the Board to proceed working out the administrative details for processing the grant once the HUD funds are received by the County. Mr. Fisher said there are several items of major importance for the Board t° consider. He understands that once the HUD'funding is received, the County must take title to this property. The requirement that the County become involved to that extent raises two distinct questions. 1) What are the County's responsibilities in accepting the title, accepting the funds which will acquire the land, and how long do those responsibilities last. 2) The price of the property. Mr. Fisher said he understands that the contract price for the property is different from the County's appraisal of the property~ He does not see any justification for a value other than what would be set through a court proceeding. Another question that is raised is the fact that the County will pa§s the land on to some'entity to own and manage the property. To what form of entity is the County willing to turn over the ownership and operation of this property? Mr. Henley said this was new to him. He did not know the County was getting into the housing business, but thought this was just a pass through. Mr. Fisher said that is true, but it is not clear what other responsibilities the County might have. Mr. St. John said he could find no Federal regulations or Federal statutes defining the County's responsibilities. Therefore, the County must fall back on the opinions of the Federal attorneys who are involved in this situation. They will impose ~esponsibilities on the Board, contractually. This is a matter of HUD policy rather than one of an exist- ing law. Until such times as these regulations are put on Paper and signed by HUD and the County, they are subject to change from day to day, depending on the attorney the County may be dealing with and at what level he is operating. Mr. Fisher asked if'receipt of the funds will be tied to a contract. Mr. St. John said this would be entered into before the County received the funds. HUD will insist that the County take title to the property, and hold the property until the purposes of the HUD grant are completed. Once completed, HUD will audit the grant, and if the County passes, it will be released once and for all from all responsibilities to HUD or anybody else for seeing that the purposes of the grant are fulfilled. Mr. St. John said he did not see anything wrong with this concept if it is received in writing beforehand. A time problem might be created because the HUD money will have to be expended before money can be borrowed from FHA. It is unlawful for the County to mortgage any property it has in August 3, 1977 (AfternoOn-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) its name and FHA will not loan any money for this project without having security in the form of a deed of trust on the land. Mr. St. John Said in order to resolve some of these questions he would recommend that a letter be written to HUD stating that the County does not want to have any continuing responsibility for the senior center or the housing pro- jeet after construction is completed and the purposes of a grant are performed and to ask for written confirmation from HUD that they will extend the grant on those terms. Mr. Fisher said that was the intent of the Board when~these discussions first begin. He would suggest a letter be sent stating the Board's position. If HUD finds something wrong with this, to then ask them to tell the County what %heir minimum retention of re- sponsibilities would be so the Board can react to that. Mr. Fisher asked if any Board member objected. No reply was received. Ms. Jane Saunier said the Jordan Development Corporation would like to know if Mr. St. John's office will do the title search on this land. Mr. St. John said they would be glad to'd© it. Mr. Fisher said once the Board has a definition of "continuing responsibility", they will be in a better position to assess the next part of the program. The Board also has to decide what kind of corporation or entity they are will- ing~to entrust with the operation. This proposal came to the Board through Jordan Development Corporation and the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Mr. Henley felt the Board should had decided all of these questions before the loan application was approved. Mr. Fisher asked who appoints the members of the Board of ~irectors of the Jordan Corporation. Ms. Saunier said it is essentially a self-appointing board. The by-laws call for two appointees from the membership of the board of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation, (Taylor Beard and Wilma Bradbeer), two representatives from the board of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, (Jean Bigger and John Higginson), and one member of the board of the Ephphatha Village Corporation, (Rev. Warren Blackwell), and five m~mbers at large representing the citizens of Charlottesville and Albemarle County who have shown prior interest in housing or some expertise in housing, (Mitchell VanYahres, James Burton, Tom Hill, David Kudravetz and Sara Payne). Mr. Fisher asked if the corporation meets annually to appoint new members at large. Ms. Saunier said yes. Two openings were left available, as of March, if th~ Board of Supervisors would like to appoint two representatives as a means of accountability to the Jordan Development Corporation. Mr. Fisher asked how the total number of members are set. Ms. Saunier said it is in the by-laws. A by-law change could expand the board. Mr. Fisher asked the assets of the Corporation. Ms. Saunier said they received $1,000 initially, as seed money, from the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. They received further loans from the Charlottesville Housing Foundation for activities required for the rezoning application. Mr. Fisher asked if the Corporation had a statement of assets. Ms. Saunier said yes; all of this information ms available. Mr. Fisher asked that these items be sent for the County's records (same were received in a memo from Jane Saunier dated August 4, 1977, enclosing the membership list of the Jordan Development Corporation, a copy of the by-laws, a copy of the articles of incorporation, and a financial statement). Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Daly if he were a member of the board of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Mr. Daly said yes. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Saunier if she was a member. Ms. Saunier said no. Mr. Fisher asked Ms. Saunier if she were a member of the Jordan Development Corporation. Ms. Saunier said no; she has been a staff assistant to the ~orporation. Mr. Fisher said there had been some questions from citizens about Mr. Daly serving as a member of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and whether while serving as the County's Housing Coordinator, this is a conflict of interest. He asked Mr. Daly if he derived any income from the Housing Foundati~n~ Mr. Daly said no. Mr. Fisher said it seems that legally there is no conflict of i~terest as defined by the General Assembly. He asked if there were any Confusion between the goals of the Charlottesville Housing Foundation and the County as far as housing are concerhed. Mr. Daly said no. Mr. Fisher said in order to clear up any questions which may remain, he would ask Mr. Daly for a definition of his role in the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Mr. Daly said he is a member of the Board of Directors and has been for a number of years since he was appointed by Saint Thomas Church to be a representative on the Board. The Foundation meets quarterly to review the status of existing projects and to make plans for the future. The Charlottesville Housing Foundation is a private group that was organized to promote better housing in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area and to provide stimulus through private funds for better housing for low-income people. Mr. Daly said he has one vote among eight members of the Board and he is not an officer. Mr. Henley asked if the Jordan Corporation has any on-going projects. Ms. Saunier said no. Mr. Henley asked if they have had any experience in operating a development of this type. Ms. Saunier said no experience in rental housing. In the past, the Corporation has acquired land and seen to the construction of low and moderate income housing which was ultimately sold to individuals. Mr. Henley asked if the Jordan Corporation proposes to operate the senior center. Ms. Saunier said that Jordan would be available for the maintenance of the senior center, but JABA proposes to operate the activities within that center. Mr. Henley asked who would bear the cost of expenses for operating the center. Ms. Saunier said JABA would bear these expenses. Mr. Henley said concern was expressed about the economic viability of this project and he asked if the Jordan Corporation had someone with this type of knowledge to go over the preliminary figures. Ms. Saunier said precise figures must be presented for loan agencies. Jordan has an estimate of annual operating and management expenses, an estimate of the cost of the loan, plus the cost of the reserves that are required, plus the cost of computing a vacancy rate. Mr. Henley asked if the person who prepared these figures had knowledge and experience in this field. Ms. Saunier said yes, all of these figures have been reviewed by the Corporation and approved by the Corporation and the Charlottesville Housing Foundation. Mr. Henley said he would like to see the Board appoint someone to the Jordan Corporation Bo.ard. Dr. Iachetta said he would favor the County's Housing Coordinator becoming a member of that Board with one additional appointee from the Board; not necessarily a Board member. Mrs. David said one additional fact for the record might be a statement of Mr. Daly's duties as Housing Coordinator. Mr. Agnor said he has a primary responsibility for examining the housing needs of Albemarle County, August 3, 1977 (Afternoon-Adjourned from July 20, 1977) and making a proposal within a year of his appointment date on ways to address those needs. He also has authority for administration of any housing programs, in particular the Section 8 supplemental rent program that has been contracted to the County through the Virginia Housing Development authority. Mr. Fisher asked for a summary report on the rent supplemental program at next week,s meeting. Mr. Fisher said going back to one of his original concerns, he asked if any of the other Board members had feelings about the difference in the contract price for purchase of the property and the County's assessment of property for tax purposes. He said he has very strong feelings, but no proposal as to how to rectify this problem. Mr. Roudabush said he feels the purchase price should be based on the fair market value. Mrs. David noted a memorandum received from Mr. Daly dated May 6, in which he said that' Charlottesville Housing Foundation did not feel that $85,000 is too high because of the availability of utilities. When the County appraised the property for $69,600 there were various neighboring properties used for comparisons but none of these had' sewer available. Mr. Henley said the difference in prices did not bother him since there was a willing buyer and a willing seller. Dr. Iachetta agreed with Mr. Henley. Mr. Roudabush felt the price should bear some relationship to the appraisal of the property, not specifically for tax purposes, but to how an expert appraiser values the property. Mr. Fisher said the County does not buy property without having it appraised and basing their offers on these appraisals. Mr. Kudravetz said he did not feel the County's appraisal reflects the fact that sewer and water are aviilable to this property. The Housing Foundation took this into consideration when they offered $85,000 for the property. Dr. Iachetta said the property had been rezoned from A-1 to RS-1/RPN since this appraisal was made. Mr. Henley said he was not uneasy about the value of the property. Mrs. David asked if Jordan Corporation would consider having an appraisal made. Mr. Henley said if there is already an option on the property at a certain value, this would just be wasting time. Mr. Dorrier agreed and said it would also be an added expense. Mr. Fisher said he did not think this was a problem the Board of Supervisors could ignore. Ms. Saunier said she did not think Jordan Corporation would object, but hoped that the cost of the appraisal could be credited against the cost of the grant. Mr. Fisher said as a public body, the Board is responsible for equitable treatment of citizens as far as their land values are concerned. Ms. Saunier said the Corporation did try to find out the value of the land at the time the contract was signed, but at that time this parcel had not been separated from the total Davis tract for tax purposes, and they were unable to determine an appraisal. Mr. Fisher said if the appraisal comes back with a price different from that on the contract, the County will still have a problem. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush that an outside appraisal be made as soon as possible by an appraiser engaged by Jordan Corporation, and with the assurance that funds for this will be taken from the administrative costs of the grant if this is permissible. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. Dr. Iachetta. At 5:05 P. M. at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal and personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mrs. David and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. David and Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 7:30 P.M. and immediately adjourned. ..... ~C~girman