Loading...
1976-08-11August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) A regular ~eeting of the Boamd of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia was held on August 11, 1976 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., F. A. Iachetta and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: Mrs. Opal D. David. Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. St. John. Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order by the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. Item No. 2. Approval of minutes January 28, afternoon, February 10, February 1!, February 12, April 14, April 16, April 20, April 21, ~£~99n, April 21, night, and May 19, afternoon. The motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the above stated minutes with corrections as follows: January 28, page 487 "~ange" should be "~ang"; page 483 "factor" should be "sector", page 483 fifth paragraph under item number 1 should say, Mr. Sage, Associate Dean of the School of Engineering; April 14, page 10 should be "know'!~no~' "knows"; April 16 should say "County ~ontributions are subject to"; May 19 should say "sufficiently" and page 7 of May 19th add the word "political". The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 3a. Highway Matters: Secondary System Budget for Fiscal Year 76-77. Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engi.neer, was present and presented to the BQard the following breakdown of cos~ contained in the ~,071,730 secnndary budget for. Albemarle County for fiscal year ending June 30, 1977. Listed for ordinary maintenance is $784,838. Of this amount $83,699 ms returned to the District Office for Administration. Ordinary maintenance, such as shoulder work, patching, snow removal or the day to day work needed to maintain the system at its current level, is budgeted at $7Rt,139. Maintenance replacement is budgeted at $334,620~ and includes such things as resurfacing of roadways. The remaining $952,272 is used for improvements. Minor improvements are called incidental construction items which can be budgeted and completed within the current fiscal year. This year $?7,500 has been included for reconstruction of three bridges. Major improvements or project construction items which require elaborate plans and may need to be budgeted over several years,a~ included this year at $874,7¥2. Major projects included in this budget are: Route 633 from Route 29 to Route ?12. This project will be stage constructed and will take several years. The Department has completed the first stage and is now working on acquisition of rights-of-way. Budgeted to cover the costs already incurred and expected during the next year is $64,549. Route 601 near Mechums River (for bridges and approaches). For this project $197,458 is budgeted, and this includes ?5% of the bridge cost from Federal Funds. Route ?43 (Hydraulic Road)~udgeted at $237,465. This is for engineering and to help build enough cash for construction of this project, which is in the preliminary field inspection stage. Within the next six to nine months, the Department hopes to start acquisition of rights-of-way. The total project is estimated at $1,555,980. There should be enough money accumulated by late 1977 to advertise this project, but because the Department anticipates some problems with acquisition of right-of-way, it probably will not be advertise~ for bids until 1978. Mr. Fisher asked if there will be any housing lost through relocation of this road. Mr. Roosevelt said the road will generally follow the existing center line, thereby making buildings in some locations very close to the roadway. Mr. Fisher said he would ask that the Highway Department not condemn any housing for this project if at all possible. Mr. Roosevelt said that is always their intent. Route 684 (Mint Springs Road). This project is bUdgeted at $142,800 and will be financed partially from recreational access funds and partially with secondary highway funds. The Board recently adopted a resolution indicating that theyido not feel a public hearing is required on this project. Two citizens have requested a hearing, and Mr. Roosevelt said he is negotiating with them, asking that they withdraw this request. If they do not, the Highway Department will have to post a notice of willingness~ to hold a public hearing, and this will delay the project for approximately six months. Mr. Henley asked if a hearing is required, if it can be held during a regular Board meeting day. Mr. Roosevelt said no, it must be a separate meeting. Route 723. This project is budgeted at $80,000. It will be completed with state forces and is presently under construction mn the Scottsville area. It is being stage constructed and will be completed as the rights-of-way become available. The project is estimated to be completed in two or three years. Route 601 from the Greene County line~ to Route 810, budgeted at $102,500. This is a new project to be completed with state forces, and also includes replacement of a bridge over Muddy Run. Route 708 from Route 795 to Route 627. This is budgeted at $50,000 and will be stage constructed. Rights-of-way for this project are needed. Mrs. Ruth Robertson was present and said she is delighted to hear that this project is being budgeted. She indicated her willingness to help the Highway Department obtain the necessary rights-of-way. Dr. Iachetta said a new improvement, Route 643 was given a project number four years ago. Because of problems with acquisition of right-of-way, nothing has been done on the project. He asked if it is still anticipated. Mr. Roosevelt said once a project ~mber is assigned, the money s~ays in that project until the Resident Engineer determines that the project is no longer feasible. Dr. Iachetta said he lives on this road. The project was to have stopped one hundred feet beyond his entrance, but was blocked because land owners were unwilling to donate the necessary right-of-way. They have now decided this may have been in error, and the project should have been completed four years ago. Mr. Roosevelt said he has meetings set with two of the three property owners who control~eright-of-way. Dr. Iachetta asked if this ~udget carries any maintenance money for Route 649. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. A contract ~was let for the entire district ~or~sealed treatment of roadways. As soon as this road is resurfaced, a cente~ line will be placed. Mrs. Grady Covington was present. She said Route 602 from Route 626 to Route 20 and Route 715, starting at Old Woodville, are both £n need of surfacing~ditch repairs and some tree removal. Mr. Roosevelt said ordinary maintenance will be accomplished when the manpower and funds are available. There is nothing budgeted for Route 626. Route 602 will be me~ ~ surfaced from Howardsville northeast. There are no plans for Route 715, but there are plans for Route 627 from Porters to Route 715. Mrs. Covington asked if Mr. Roosevelt would drive August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) over the road with her and let her point out some of the problems. Mr. Roudabush asked if Mr. Roosevelt would furnish the Board a list of Other projects which had been planned over the years, had monLes' allocated and have never been started. Mr. Roosevelt said yes, he would like to discuss these with the Board in the near future so that certain projects might be dropped, and the moniqs~ transferred to other projects. Mr. Roudabush asked if there are any plans for Route 769 from Route 29 into the back of Key West Subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said there is nothing planned in the six year budget. At this time motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Secondary System budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977, as submitted by Mr. D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, be and the same hereby is approved as follows: Ordinary Maintenance $ 784,838.00 Maintenance Replacements 334,620.00 ImProvements 952,272.00 Total $ 2,071,730.00 The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 3b. Road Viewers Report. Charlottesville, Virginia August 6, 1976 Board Of County Supervisors Albemarle County, Virginia Gentlemen: On May 5, 1976, we the undersigned Road Viewers, visited several roads for which application had been received for acceptance into the State Secondary Road System. We were accompanied by Mr. R. G. Warner, Resident Highway Engineer. After visiting these roads, we wish to make the following recommendations: Rivanna District - Road oZf of State Route 746 running approximately 3/10th of a mile southeast - The petitioner for this road has stated his willingness to improve this addition at his expense. The Road Viewers recommend acceptance of the road if same is constructed for the full 3/!0th of a mile to an acceptable State standard by the petitioner. Rivanna District - Road off of Route 616 running for approximately one mile to a dead-end. Recommend denial. Although the road does qualify for acceptance for a portion of its length, we feel the cost to bring this road up to an acceptable standard would be too much for the service rendered. Scottsville District - Extension of present Route 638 past present end of State maintenance. Recommend denial. We do not feel the road will provide'service to enough citizens. Scottsville District - Petition to have an existing right-of-way off of Route 627 accepted. Recommend denial. Does not qualify under State law since this land has been subdivided since 1959. Scottsvitle District - Petition to have an old CCC road taken into the system. Recommend denial. This land has recently been subdivided and does not qualify under State law. Samuel Miller District - Petition to have road approximately one mile long off of Route 712 taken into the system. Recommend denial. Adequate right-of-way could not be obtained smnce the road runs parallel with the railroad. Samuel Miller District - Petition to have a road approximately 1/4 mile in length from its intersection with Route 856 taken into the System. Recommend denial. Construction of this road would be too expensive for the nu~oer of people served. Samuel Miller District - Petition to have approximately 1,965 feet of road at the end of State Route 698 taken into the system. Recommend denial. This property has been subdivided since 1959 and does not qualify under State law. Samuel Miller District - Petition to have 4/10th of a mile off of Route 758 taken into the System. Recommend denial. Construction of this road would be too expensive for the service rendered. Respectfully submitted, 1976 ROAD VIEWERS August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) William A. Gray John' O. Higginson Alonzo Jones Mr. Fisher said that every year there is a controversy over the Road Viewers Re~ort. He asked that Mr. Roosevelt explain. Mr. Roosevelt said that a subdivision is defined in the Code of Virginia as the splitting of a parcel of land into two or more parcels since 1959, whether it fallS under the control of the County Subdivision Ordinance or not. He must be guided by the definition in the Code of Virginia. The Highway Department has a policy which says that if land has been subdivided since 1959, it is no~e!igible as a rural addition. In fact, any land subdivided after the County passes a subdivi§ion ordinance, is not eligible under this section of the code. Mr~ Fisher asked if this meant that on any subdivision of property, the owners must b~ing the road to an acceptable state standard before they can be taken into the system. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. This section of the code was adopted in order to keep property owners from working around the requirements of a County, and to force the County also to pass requirements on the subdivision of land, so as to stop the continuous dividing of land]into two parcels and then those two parcels being further divided into smaller and sm~tler lots. Before 1959, the Highway Department tried to get the Counties to control thi~ type of development. After 1959, action was taken to say that they would no longer make e~ceptions to the rule. · Mr. J. D. Huggins was present on item number 8 of the Road Viewers Report, concerning a road off of Route 698. M~. Huggins said his mother had lived on this property by herself. He and his brother had move4 here and built homes in order to be near their mother. The land had to be divided in o~der that they would have land to build on. He said that no one intends to sell off any more land. The. former Highway Engineer had told his mother for years that if she could get two a.~, more households on the road, this would help to get the road into the sta~e system. When he and his brother had decided to move to Albemarle and build, they had discussed this with the Resident Engineer. The subdivision regulation was never mentioned. He aaid there is a stretch of road some sixty-five feet, which comes up a hill off of Route 698, and has probably be~n there for over a hundred years. Every time it rains, water comes down the mountain and washes out this sixty-five feet and also the top of Route 698. If the Highway Department would do something for this sixty-five feet, they would help themselves also. Mr. Fisher said the Road Viewers have said they cannot recommend accep- tance of this road because ~he land has been subdivided~ Because there may be hardship involved, he requested that the Highway Department view this road to see if any assistance might be given. Motion was then offered by Mr. Dorrier to accept the report of the Road Viewers and to adop~ the following resdlution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same hereby is requested to accept into the State SecondarM System of Highways the following section of road in Albemarle County: Road off of Route 746 in the Rivanna Magisterial District, length approximately 3/10th of a mile. vote. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50~foo~ unobstructed right-of-way along this requested addition, but only if this 3/10th of a mile ms construct~d~ by Mr. M. B. Norford to an acceptable State standard. The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded Ayes: Nays: Absent: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. None. Mrs. David. Item No. 3c. Coggins Motor Site Plan (deferred from July 14, 1976). Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. James B. Murray, Jr. dated August 3, 1976. "The above captioned matter was scheduled to come before the Board of Supervisors for reconsideration on Wednesday, August 11 at 9:30 A. M. Mr. Coggins died suddenly on Monday, July 26. Because site plan approval was being considered for a personal business operation to be managed by Mr. Coggins, the future of the proposed use of the property zs now in question. For this reason, we ask that the Board defer consideration of the site plan approval indefinitely pending consideration of what action should be taken by Mr. Coggins' Estate." Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta deferring any action on this matter indefinitely. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 3d. Discussion of the third lane concept (deferred from July 14, 1976). Dr. Iachetta said that he, Mr. Roosevelt, Fred Payne from the County Attorneys~ Office, Mr. St. John, the County Attorney and Mr. Robert Tucker, the Director of Planning had met on August 2, 1976 to discuss this matter. Mr. Tucker had given a short history of what le4~ to the third lane concept. 336 August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) "After the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, the Planning Commission was requ~iring provision for dedication of the right-of-way for a service drive on the east~ and west side of 29 North as site plans were submitted. No actual construction of the service drive was required. ~eal Estate III's site plan is the ohly one that was approved with the service drive right- of-way dedicated. In a recent amendment to their site plan, however, the service drive provision was dropped and the third lane concept was required. The third lane concept has most recently been required by the Planning Commission since late 1975 in lieu of the service drive approach. This change in policy was recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation because it appeared that the service drive concept wQuld never actually be implemented. It was felt that the third lane concept could be implemented and still provide two lanes of free flowing traffic. The Planning Commission in accepting this recommendation also considered the legal aspects that had ~arisen about this time, as to whether The county had the power to require the building of a service drive." Dr. Iachetta said that basically this Board needs a policy in respect to the third lane concept. There are no plans for Route 29 North, other than the present Highway Department policy, requiring a deceleration lane. The present Highway Transportation study being cQnduc± ed by the Highway Department has no plans contained for 29 North, and the report will probably not be ready until 1977. That study is making a guess at the Highway needs for the year 2000 for the Charlottesville-Albemarle area. It involves establishing an elaborate computer program to update and adjust plans as circumstances change. This study is not geared toward making short term recommendations in order to keep Route 29 North as an arteria~ corridor. Those present at the August 2 meeting felt that a joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors, the Albemarle County Planning Commission, the Resident Highway Engineer and someone from the Culpeper Highway Office should discuss'the whole question of what can be done to try and reserve the arterial aspects of Route 29 North. Dr. Iachett~ said'khe feels the problems are severe enough that something must be done very soon, or all opportunity of correcting the situation Will be lost without spending a lot of money. Mr. Fisher said The first years that he was on the Board of Supervisors, the Board had tried to implement the service road concept. They tried to reserve space even if the right- of-way could not be reserved on site plans. He was not aware that the Board had changed this policy, and he saw no justification for dropping something which was a key part of transportation policy in an area of strip commercial development, like 29 North. He felt tha~ a meeting of those persons mentioned would be beneficial. Mr. Tucker said that policy statements are just a guide, something of this nature needs to be included in the ordinance, so it is common knowledge. On motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, a meeting to discuss the concept of a third lane along Route 29 North, was set for September 15, 1976 at 3:00 P. M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building and also requesting that the County Representatives in the General Assembly be invited. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: NOne. Absent: Mrs. David. Mr. Roosevelt said it might be better to have this meeting as a closed meeting in order to get information across on ground rules used by the Highway Department. Mr. Fisher said under the Freedom of Information Act, the Board cannot discuss this in a closed meeting. How- ever, the conversation will be held to invited guests only. Mr. Roosevelt said the whole purpose in asking to have a meeting with the members of the' Board, is to bring to the Board's attention that when the Board takes his recommendations on Highway matters, the responsibilit~ is then the Board~ in requiring whatever is needed for the third lane. Mr. Roosevelt said he will give the best transportation advice he can by using Highway Department staff at the loca~ and central offices. It may not be a policy or a requirement of the Highway Department that is made, but it will be the best transportation advice that he is able to g~ve. From that time on the responsibility for carrying out any recommendations falls on the Board of Supervisors. Item No. 3e. Attorney General's opinion regarding roads in existe, nce in Albemarle County before 1932 which were not incorporated into the State Secondary System. Mr. St. John noted that he had written the State Attorney General requesting an opinion on three questions: 1. Whether ~ld-roa~s, not incorporated into the State Secondary System in 1932, are in fact still public ways over which the public has the right of travel~ 2. Whether, regardless of the public's rights in these roads, adjoining private owners still have the right to use these old roads as ingress and egress to the nearest public road and if so whether this right is in the nature of a public right or a private easement~ 3. Whether, with respect to such old roads, which are not being used by anyone for ingress or egress, the County Board of Supervisors now has the power to officially abandon these old roads and ex- tinguish any public rights therein. A lengthy opinion dated April 1, 1976 was returned. (A copy is on file in the Clerks Office). Mr. St. John said there are numerons roads in the County, mostly wooded and located ~n the ~outhwest mountains, the Blue Ridge Mountains and the area around the Keene landfill, which are impassable, but can be located by the old banks that are still there. A subdivision could be built on one of these old roads, if the lots are larger than five acres, because lots of this size are exempted from the terms of the subdivision ordinance. The right of a developer to build on one of these roads, on the gr~n~ that there is an existing road and no new street is involved, has been questioned. The Attorney General stated that this ~an be done unless the governing body takes affirmative action to abandon these roads. In order to determine if a road has been abandoned, the minutes of the Board of Supervisors must be checked back to 1932. The Planning Commission has recognized, even though this is a legal means to keep from complying with the subdivision ordinance, that is not in the spirit of the subdivision ordinance and creates a bad situation for the public. Use of any such road for these purposes ~ill constitute a sub-standard road which will never be taken into the State Highway System. Mr. Roudabush said this matter is further complicated by the fact that in some cases, this is the only access some property. owners have to their property. Mr. St. John said a lot of these tracts of land have not been used since 1932, and have never needed vehicular access. If this is the only access to a tract of land end the owner objects, the Board cannot abandon that access. The Board could ~mend the subdivision ordinance to say that an old County ~n~d~.~bn~l~ p~o~ ~1-9~, which, h~ August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) 33? not been used and which in its present state is unusable, does not qualify as an existing street. Mr. Roudabush said he had discussed this matter with Mr. Agnor and suggested that some- one index all road abandonments made since 1932 b~ the Board of Supervisors. These abandon- ments do not appear in the chain~of title to a piece of property and he does not feel it is part of a deed researchers duties to research the Boards minutes. It would be costly to do this and he has suggested that this be used as a project for one of the summer interns in the future years. Mr. Dorrier said he did not understand how developers have taken advantage of this loophole. Mr. St. John said there had been two or three subdivisions established using this technique. The roads were improved and paved, however they can never be taken into the State System since they do not comply with current ~egulations. When all of the lots are sold, and the developer is gone, the owners will have to pay for upkeep of the roads. Dr. Iachetta said this is the same as the problem with the roads in Airport Acres. In that case the owners bought, fully intending to do their own road maintenance. Ten years later, the developer ms gone, the roads are full of potholes and the owners now want the State Highway Department, or the Board of Supervisors to authorize the repairs. Mr. Fisher said if the subdivision ordinance is ~mended to require that all access roads be built to State Standards and become a part of the State System, the exclusion in the ordinance for five acre lots would not bring the subdivision ordinance into the act so people would be able to subdivide five acre parcels on these old roads forever. He did not feel the question could be resolved today, and said the Board could ask the Planning Commission to review the question of amending the subdivision ordinance to require that all subdivisions be built on existing state roads, or on roads that will be built to state standards. Af this time Dr. Iachetta offered motion to refer the matter to the Planning Commission as stated above. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following record- ed vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David Item No. 3f. Resolution: Street Sign for 01d Forge Road. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution. WHEREAS, request has been received for a street s~gn to identify Old Forge Road (no route number yet assigned) at its intersection with George- town Road (Route 656); and WHEREAS, residents of 01d Forge Road have agreed to purchase this sign, said sign to be purchased through the Office of the County Executive and to conform with 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 High~ys_and Trans- pDrtation be and is hereby requested to install and ma~n~a~in the abo~e mentioned street sign. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 3g. Authorize Chairman to sign deed for Totier Creek access road. Motion was offered by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Dr. Iachetta authorizing the Chairman to execute the deed as set out below. DEED OF DEDICATION The undersigned parties hereby dedicate to public use as appurtenances to a public road known as the Totier Creek access road, the drainage easements shown on the attached plat, consisting of three pages, dated May 20, 1976, and prepared by the Office of the County Engineer for Albemarle County, Virginia. WITNESS the following signatures and seals. ATTEST: Lettie E. Neher COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE By: Gerald E. Fisher Clerk Chairman LEONARD LAND $ LIVESTOCK, INC. By: David A. Leonard Chester F. Baker The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Not Bocketed. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary Systems of Highways, subject to fina~ inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Albemarle County: Beginning at station 0~35 of Totier Creek Park Road, a point common to the centerline intersection of August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) State Route 726 and Totier Creek Park Road; thence with Totier Creek Park Road in a southeasterly and southwesterly direction 2,998.66 feet to station 30+33.66 the end of Totier Creek Park Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 60 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along this requested addition as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court Qf Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 541, page 563 and Deed Book 603, page 424. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Hen!~y, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 3h. Highway matters not listed on the agenda. At this time Mr. Roosevelt introduced the new Assistant Resident Highway Engineer, Mr. Bryan Cobh~ Mr. Dottier said he had heard complaints from the owners at Sherwood Manor Townhouses. He asked Mr. Roosevelt if he would check Route 780 between the City limits and Route 631 to see when and if improvements are scheduled. ~ Dr. Iachetta said that last month the Board was told that only the as-built drawings were needed before roads in Four Seasons could be taken into the Highway System. Now Mr. Roosevelt has said he still does not have everything that is needed by the Highway Department He asked that this matter be discussed. Mr. Roosevelt said he understands the Board had requested that these roads be taken into the system as of July 1, 1976, so there would be no need for a maintenance fee or a perfor- mance bond. It was felt that because these roads were constructed sometime ago, all expected problems should have arisen and been corrected. This is not the case. A~_~ma review of the roads recently, he feels there will be problems in the future that will require major funds to correct. There are sidewalks which are an inch or two below the drop inlet, sections where sidewalks have Almost disappeared and sections where the curb and gutter, after a year or two, going through the freeze and thaw cycle, will probably pop out into the street. Mr. Roosevelt said the problems in Four Seasons will not be solved by turning the streets over to the Highway Department with no funds to correc~ the problems. Usually the developer gives a performance bond to the Highway Department to cover cost of any repairs which might occur during the first year after acceptance into the system. (To ~.e~arify questions about the conditions of the roads and sidewalks in Four Seasons, Mr. Roosevelt showed photographsi~to the Board). Mr. St. John said the Board went through a long legal process last year whereby the County foreclosed on the bond posted for completion of these roads~ That money was deposited in a local bank~ S. L. Williamson Paving did the roadwork required by the Highway Department and these funds were used to pay for that work. Ail of the construction was done in eon- formity with state standards. The Board knew there was no money for posting a performance bond, but thought that other than ordinary maintenance there were no other defects. The Board understood that once the work was completed, and the as-built drawings furnished to the Highway Department, all necessary steps had been completed. Mr. Roosevelt said he was not indicating that the roads in their present condition would not be accepted by the Highway Department. However, if the roads continue to deteriorate during the next year, he needs a bond so there will be money available to make repairs. He would like to get the roads into the system immediately so the people in this development wil[ be eligible for snow removal this winter. Mr. Roosevelt said this is another problem that should be discussed at the meeting to be held on September 15.; the control of subdivision development in the County. Four Seasons is a good example of where the lack of control leads Mr. St. John said that a~ one time the streets in Four Seasons were acceptable to the Highway Department ~epresentatives. If the roads are not taken in at this time they will deteriorete and the County will be back in the same position, but there will be no bond money to use for repairs. Mr. Roosevelt said he would offer a compromise, but it involved coming to grips with problems in the future. He has determined from his files that the District Engineer has agreed to accept the streets without a bond. Just because the Highway Department takes over the streets,~asnot mean that there will be any more people or any more funds to take care o~ the problem. In a year or two,he will probably have to budget Highway Department ~unds to correct the problem. This will take funds from other roads in the County. If the Board feel that the service to the people in this area warrants depriving people in other parts of the County of services, the Highway Department will take the roads exactly as they are and with no bond. Mr. Fisher said the Board has worked diligently and long on recommendations of the Highway Department to get to this point. While he agrees that there are problems and money will have to be taken from secondary road funds, the Board has no other recourse. Mr. St. John said the Board has used every legal tool available to try and make this developer comply with regulations. During the process they have learned how to more effectiv ly bond these projects. Mr. Roosevelt said the Board must take steps to see ~Kat roads are constructed throughout a subdivision in accordance with the approved plan. A project of this type is normally constructed in fomr or five stages. After the first phase ~' Four Seasons was constructed, the developer was allowed to transfer his bond to section two, but the roads in section one were not taken into the system. A few of these roads have been in existence for six years.. Mr. Dave Hake was present. He said he hopes the County will develop procedures which will keep the bond current with construction cost. The Board has compelled others to do work by withholding building permits, although he did not know if that works. This~developer has demonstrated that it is very difficult to get him to finish a project. Mr. Fisher said the County was remiss in allowing the bond money to be transferred from section to section before each section was finalized and taken into the system. However, on this subdivision the Board has no further recourse Other than to request that the Highway Department honor the Boards resolution of January 15 and accept the roads. The Board under- stands that future funds will be needed for more than just ordinary maintenance. Dr. Iachetta asked the staff's progress on a report concerning the Bennington Road turn-aroun ? August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) discussed earlier this year. Mr. Agnor said the Board had directed that the Engineering Department do a property line survey, and it has not been completed. Mr. Henley noted that Route 811 between Route 810 and Route 611 is full of potholes. He asked that the Highway Department check this matter. Mr. Fisher said he had received a letter from a resident on Route 677 who asked the procedure for having signsserrected stating that there are children playing, horses riding, blind curves, etc. He asked Mr. Roosevelt To answer the letter and return a copy to him. Mr. Fisher asked that the Highway Department check the speed signs on Route 250 By-pass through the construction, so that the speed can be staged down gradually, rather than gomng from 45 to 25~miles an hour suddenly. Mr. Fisher asked if there is ~omng to be a cross-over on Route 29 North in fronto~ft~he Albemarle Square Shopping Center. Mr. Roosevelt said yes. The Highway Department is presently in the process of raising the road to gain the proper sight distance u~ the south bound lane in a northerly direction. There will be a turn lane and~a cross-over to enter into the Shopping Cen~er. Mr. Fisher said when the Board looked at this site plan a year or two ago, the traffic flows at that time were designed to avoid any entrances into AlbemarIe Squar within a certain number of feet of the Rio Road intersection, both along Rio Road and he thought along 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said that all preliminary work had been done on this project prior to his coming to Albemarle County. The Highway Department would rather not have had a cross-over there unless it were absolutely necessary. The developer was required to reconstruct one lane of Route 29 in order to put the cross-over at this point. If the County had indicated there should be no cross-over, it would not have been installed. Dr. Iachetta said it has been the installation of this cross-over along with another in this area, plus the new traffic light at Dart Drug that has lead to his caustic remarks about Route 29 North. He said no planning whatsoever has gone into how to handle traffic at the corner of Rio Road and Route 29 North. Mr. Roudabush asked if the Highway Department is planning on any resurfacing of the bridge deck on the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Mr. Roosevelt said plant mix will be put on the entire area and he hopes the contractor w~ll be able to do this in a week or two. Item No. 5. Public Hearing to ~emend sarCaSm sections of the Albemarle County Code to bring same up to date with the State Code. Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 28 and August 4, 1976. The following ~umendments weme offered for the Board's consideration. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Albemarle County Code be amended in Section 4-10, Chapter ~, Article II entitled "killing unlicensed dogs" by adding the following wording: "Any dog which has been confined by the custodial organization pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be kept for a period of not less ~han seven days unless sooner claimed by the owner; provided, that no provision herein shall be construed to prohibit the destruction of critically ill dogs for humane purposes." AND, RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Code be amended in Section 4-23, Chapter 4, Article II entitled "amoun~ of license tax" by adding the follow- ing wording: "prOvided, that no license tax shall be levied on any do~ that is trained and serves as a guide dog for a blind person." FURTHER, RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Code be amended in Section 12-9(b), Chapter 12, Article I, entitled "compliance with chapter; penalty for violation of chapter" by adding the following wording: "Every person convicted of a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto, for which no other penalty is provided, shall, for a first conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars; for a second conviction within one year such person shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars; for a third or subsequent conviction within one year such person shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty day's or by both such fine and imprisonment." AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Code be amended by repealing Sections 12-19, 12-20, Chapter 12, Article IV, entitled "motorcycle noise emissions, no The public hearing was opened, /one rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mo~ion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to amend the Albemarle Ceunty Code as set out above. The motion carried bY the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 6. T. J. Soil and Water Conservation District request to drop certain water- shed projects (deferred from July 14, 1976). Mr. Fisher said the Board had received a letter dated July 6, 1976 from Mr. D. N. ~rimwood, State Conservationist, requesting that applications f~mr~Public Law 566 Planning Assistance be withdrawn on the following watersheds: Ivy Creek, Priddy Creek, Buck Island Creek and Stockton Creek. Mr. Fisher said since the County is presently involved in trying to find alternative water sources, he was not sure why the District had requested that the County's request for planning assistance be withdmawn. Present from the T. J. District were Bourne Wayland, Harry Garth and Gussie Cosner. August 11,-1976 (Day Meeting) Mr. Wayland said that the District had received a request from the Richmond Office asking if these projects should be kept~ alive. Years ago the County had five excellent watershed projects: Beaver Creek, Totier Creek, Ivy Creek, Buck Mountain Creek and Priddy Creek. Mr. Wayland said that in correspondence from J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, dated April 15, 1976, Mr. Bailey had indicated that there remains a great deal of interest in new sources of water supply. The County still has the land which it acquired on Priddy Creek in preparation of its development. Currently the water quality study ~ the South Rivanna Reservoir is Collecting data on Buck Mountain Creek, relative to a future impoundment on that stream to supplement the South Rivanna Reservoir. While the interest of the County remains, the necessity for immediate action has been removed so far as a water supply zs concerned. As to flood control, the necessity or desirability for such on these streams has not been brough~ to the Board's attention. On May 21, Mr. Gordon Yeager of the Soil Conservation Service had told the District that the County is interested only mn Buck Mountain Creek, and had little interest in the others. Mr. Fisher said the Board should ~larify its position by stating that they are not able at the present time to discount the future need for water supplies, and would like to retain the County's request for planning assistance on these watersheds. Dr. Iachetta felt the recreational aspect of the watershe~should be reserved even if they are not needed ~_' .J an immediate water supply. He then offered motion to convey?~o Mr. Grimwood the desire of the Board to have the areas listed in his letter retained as areas 6f'~ study for possible use as recreation and om water supplies. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. ~Item No. 7: Discussion: Fees charged by Planning/Zoning Offices-review of certain appli~ Mr. Tucker said he had been requested to prepare a memorandum on fees charged for review of subdivision plats ~nd~'~m~ke~meenn~me~d~ions'~f~eSii~oche~hdrged for review of site plans. The fee presently charged for subdivision revmew is adequate. On those plats whemeaa variance or easement is requested from the Planning Commission, little staff time is used. These plans do not go before the Site Review Committee. The time spent on review of these is about the same as that spent on administrative review of plats containing three or less lots. If both a preliminary plat and a final plat is presented on these small items, the cost is approximately $80.75. A more equitable charge would be a flat fee of $40.00. On the question of site plan review charges, Mr. Tucker said he had contacted several areas in the State .about their fee schedules. The City of Charlottesville is in the process of adopting a flat $50.00 charge for all site plans. The City of Alexandria has a fee schedule based on the number of units in a multi-family apartment complex and a fee based on floor area for commercial and industrial uses. Loudoun County charges a flat fee for site plans under five acres of $50.00; for site plans of five to ten acres, a fee of $75.00; and for anything over ten acres $100.00. Henrico County charges a flat $200.00 fee, plus $15.00 per acre for each site plan. The City of Richmond has no fee. Fairfax County has a complicated formula based on the amount of imperv~us covering, curbing, etc. The City of Lynchburg has no fee. Mr. Tucker said he estimates that it cost $75.00 to review a site plan ~xclusive of certified mail and otheraadministrative cost. Since January 1976, twenty-five site plans have been received. Of these, twenty were for five acres, two were for between five and ten acres, and three were plans for over ten acres. He suggested that the Board adopt either a flat charge of $75.00, or a graduated scale, such as that used by Loudoun County. If a graduated scale is selected, he suggested that this be: $75.00 minimum for up to five acres, $100.00 for between five and ten acres and $125.00 for all of those ten acres and above. Mr. Henley asked if mobile homes would fall under this $75.00 fee. Mr. Tucker sa~d mobile homes do not require site plan review. The standard $20.00 fee presently being charged for rezoning applications, special permits and zoning text amendments, does not cover the cost any longer. Originally, this fee was set to cover only processing of the application and advertising cost. Certified letters now cost $.98 each. He recommended a flat fee of $50.00 for these items. Mr. Fisher said the State Code says that the fee has to be consistent with cost of work involved in processing the application, but the Board has to decide if they want the whole planning operation made as self-sufficient as possible. Mr. Henley felt $50.00 is too much for mobile home permits. Mr. Roudabush said there should be some way to leave mobile homes out. By consensus, the Board agreed to a flat fee of $40.00 for subdivision plats of three acres or less; a graduated fee schedule for site plan review, and a $50.00 flat charge for rezonings, special permits and zoning text amendments. However, it was suggested that the staff work out a more detailed cost study for applications such as Pud's and RPN zones and present this to the Board on September 8, 1976, along with recommendations on Soil Erosion Review fees. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush,to defer action on this matter until September 8, 1976. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. DaVid. Item No. 4. Other matters not on the agenda from the public. Present to speak was Mr. W. P. Heath. Mr. Heath said he had received a letter from the Zoning Administrator, concerning special permit 468 for James Armstrong and he did not agree with the con~ents. Mr. Agnor said Mr. Dick had given him a written report yesterday on this special permit. In examining the conditions imposed on this special permit, Mr. Dick had learned that the complete installation and extension of the fencing would place the fence on railroad property. It would not be entirely on Mr. Armstrong's property. If the length of the fence is reduced to keep the fence on Mr. Armstrong's property, he would then be in violation of one of the conditions placed by the Board ~n this permit. It would also be impossible for him to maintain the parking that was required under another condition, and would give him much less work area. Mr. Dick ~as attempted to bring about a compromise on the fencing, but has been unsuccessful. He will request later that this matter be brought back to the Board for review. ations. August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) Not Docketed. At the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Dri Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following resolution. WHEREAS, in May, 1973, the Chairman of the Board of Super- visors of Albemarle County, Virginia, signed an application for Hill- Burton funding in the amount of $398,000, said funds to be used to enlarge the Albemarle-Charlottesville Health Department Building; with $199,000 of this amount being funded 50-50 by Albemarle County and the City of Charlottesville; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 1974, the Board of Supervisors stated their intent to provide $99,500 as their share of such cost on the condition that the City of Charlottesville provide~an equal amount; and WHEREAS, said funds were granted, bids for construction were received and the low bid is in the amount of $339,934; MOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Ehe Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, is hereby authorized to szgn a revised application for Hill-Burton funds in the amount of $339,934~ Albemarle County"s share of the cost of this project to be $84,983.50, with the City×of Charlottesville providing a like amount. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, authorizing the Chairman of the Board to sign the contract with the lowest responsible bidder for construction of the Joint Health Department. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. At 12:50 P. M. the Board recessed for lunch and reconvened at 1:45 P. M. Item No. 8. Equalization Board. Mr. Robert Keller, Chairman of the Equalization Board, had requested time on the agenda to present a request. Mr. Keller said he had sent a written report (copy on file in the Clerk's Office) to the Board which contained an article from Consumer Reports. This article described the difficulties which a taxpayer has in determining whether or not his real estate appraisal is equitable and whether or not the appraisal represents market value. The article indicates that this problem is nation wide. It challenges all state and local governments to emulate the State of Oregon which makes a special effort to set equitable assessments by enforcing a ratio study that has a minimum 95% appraisal with a maximum 100% market value. Oregon also issues a brochure explaining taxes, the appraisal, the assessment and how the assessment can be appealed. The brochure is written in lay terms and includes simple illustrations. In Oregon there is a small claims court where the taxpayer can get a hearing for $1.50, which makes the avenues of appeal easily accessible. The Albemarle County Equalization Board does not consider any of these items too extreme to gain the confidence of the taxpayer. A small group of taxpayers in Albemarle asked the Equalization Board if their appraisal was equitable and whether or not it represented fair market value. The Equalization Board could not gmve~ a definitive answer. There is no statistical way to determine if appraisals are equitable or not. Virginia law provides all the enabling li~gistation that is needed to do a proper job of equalization. The Equalization Board asks for a policy direction of tax administration that will'bridge the separate functions of equalization and assessment. By law, the Equalization Board is charged with equalizing the land book whether or not a com- plaint is received. Originally, this was the only duty assigned to the Board. Later, the job of hearing public complaints was added. Mr. Keller said, in his opinion, equalization has not been done in Albemarle. This year the Board tried to do it by first preparing a sales/ratio~study of the current assessments. They made a comparison of ratios between the current assessments and the 1973 sales prices on over 1,000 samples of sales. There is a mode group, a 10% spread around the market value figure, which includes only one-third of the samples. The other two-thirds, therefore, do not represent the current market value. The Equalization Board did other studies and in all of these studies, the same dispersion pattern is shown. This demonstrates that it is not the sale which is causing the spread, but the assessment. ~he study made by the Equalization Board was not reduced to practice, thereto equalization of the land book was not carried out. Mr. Keller made the following specific requests and recommendations: 1) The Equalization Board would like to have a budget sufficient to hire clerical and technical assistance. The budget has been $3,000 and has been spent looking at individual properties in the county. Mr. Keller does not fee! equalization can be accomplished in this way. The Board is not qualified, or authorized by law, to do reappraisals. Equalization is a statistical job, primarily clerical with an overlay of statistical analysis. It is done while s~tting at a desk looking at facts and figures. A proper job of equalization would eliminate most taxpayer's questions. The Board is not requesting any additional funds, only a better allocation of those funds already appropriated. 2) The Equalization Board would like to separate its function from that of the Assessor's Office. 3) Access of all the records, both by the Board and the public. 4) The Equalization Board recommends a policy of selecting appointees for the Board tha~will assure continuity from one year to the next. 5) The Equalization Board critizes the replacement cost approach to appraising. The Board feels that if a direct sales approach were used, it would eliminate most of the dis- crepancies. The Board asks that a sales/ratio study be applied to the 1977 appraisal. 6) The Board also suggests going to a continuing annual reassess~ent s~nce it will cost August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) no more than the present practice. A continuing assessment does not require that every parce be physically, visibly inspected every year; only those parcels that change status. 7) The Equalization Board has received questions about the land use tax. Virginia en- abling legislation makes no special avenues of appeal available to applicants for land use value taxation. However, it does not exclude any of the normal avenues which are available under real estate levies. The state !aw provides for local revalidation procedures on land use applications. This provision is not included in the County's Ordinance. The Equalizatio~ Board feels this provision would eliminate some of the problems noted in the report. 8) Although tax map numbering does not directly affect equalization, it is such a large factor in the record keeping of the tax assessor's office, the system should be thoroughly explored and revised before the proliferation of numbers becomes impossible to sort out. Mr. Keller finished his report by stating that some of these ideas should be applied to the 1977 tax. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned aboUt the statement that equalization of property has not been carried ont in Albemarle. Mr. Keller said originally~ the assessor prepared the lane book and gave it to the Equalization Board. The book was equalized and given to the director of finance. Two changes were made in the procedure: 1) the period of time in which the equalization board could correct the land book was extended, and 2) the board was required to listen to public complaints. Mr. Keller said he does not think a complete job has been done because the Equalization Board has only held hearings and heard from some 20 applicants. He personally feels there are more than that number of inequities in the County. Mr. Fisher said he has not been in favor of a continuing reassessment program, although what is recommended may be different from that applied by the County in the past. Mr. Keller said this suggestion comes from the Governor's Committee on Tax Reform. This suggestion was in the report, but was not put into law. However, the idea is still there. Mr. Fisher said he feels the General Assembly ~s moving in that direction, but most likely instead of sitting in an office using a computer, it will mean an on-site inspection of each property. A~ this time, Mr. Fisher asked other members of the Equalization Board for comments. Mr. John Sinclair said he strongly recommends that a notice such as that used by Oregon be included with the notices to be sent out this year. Mr. Fisher agreed with this recommenda- tion. Mr. Charlie Yost said the people in the Scottsville District feel they were the most injured by the last assessment. As a member of the Equalization Board, he has been u~nable to find out what happened and these people are receiving no tax relief. Mr. Fisher said the Board of Supervisors has no power to adjust assessments. When the Equalization Board comes to the Board o~ Supervisors and says that something is wrong, as a member of the Board of Supervisors he is puzzled. Mr. Fisher said it is not easy for an appraiser to appraise property within 5% or 10% of what somebody is willing to pay for that property. He did not know how a staff and a new form of assessments will help this year. Mr. Dorrier said the Board of Supervisors can make recommendations for improving the assessment method if they do not feel the present system is being implemented properly. When the range is 10% above or 10% below fair market value, there should be some way to tighten up. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. Agnor for his recommendations. Mr. Agnor said a written reporl had been prepared by Mr..William Bradshaw, Director of Assessments, and a copy distributed to the Board members. (Copy on file in the Clerk's Office.) Although Mr. Agnor realized the value of some of the recommendations made bY the Equalization Board, he feels it is a matter of philosophy. He made comments on the suggestions as follows: 2) The Equalization Board this year wanted to be completely separated from the assess- ment procedure since t~ey are not directly involved in terms of evaluating that procedure. However, there is no way they can be completely separated from the real estate department because that department must furnish the Equalization Board with the method of their work, the manner in which they do it and the instructions which the field appraisers are given. 3) The assessor's information cards will be available to the public in January 1, 1977, when new state legislation comes into effect. 5) A sales/assessment ratio is made every year by the real estate department. This is used as the department proceeds with continuing assessments. The State of Virginia also does a sales/assessment ratio, although it is received rather later. Mr. Agnor said that the Equalization Board last year may not have equalized the entire land book, but they did con- sider the equalization on several hundred parcels. They made adjustments on quite a number of those and turned down others. They used a sales/assessment ratio which was compiled by the real estate office. Mr. Agnor said he understands that the sales/assessment ratio used by th'is year's Equalization Board, as we~l as the 1974, was done in a slightly different manner from that of the real estate office. The real estate office takes every sale and an~ alyzes that sale. If the sales price is listed in the transfer on record, and included anything such as personal property, machinery and livestock, pressure to sell, financial problems, divorce situations, etc., these sales are set aside and not considered in the average. The average is considered as the willing seller/willing buyer situation. 7) The problems encountered in Albemarle with administration of the land use tax were caused by this being a new law and trying to follow the interpretation of the law prOvided by authorities in Richmond. After some experience and finding that certain things were not working, these are being corrected one by one. Mr. Agnor recommended that the Board review both the report of the Equalization Board an. the report from Mr. Bradshaw and set a time for a work session on this matter. He said any recommendations which are in accordance with the wishes of this Board, may be adopted for future years. Mr. Agnor added that the Equalization Board has indicated Oregon as an example and he agrees that the publicity in that state is excellent. The staff of Albemarle County and this Board of Supervisors is interested in keeping the public informed and does not treat the taxpayer as an enemy (which was indicated in Mr. Keller's written report). He has talked with a number of taxpayers about the County and specifically asked if they had any complaints against its staff. Without exception, he was informed that the citizen is always treated courteously and the staff has been more than helpful in trying to answer questions. Another part of the report indicated that the staff's interpretations of the law are captious (mean- ing that they are insidious and s~btly mean~ to entangle the public). Mr. Agnor said these ~tatements about the County and its staff are of great concern to him. Mr. Fisher noted Mr. Agnor's reservations and asked for further comments. Mr. Dottier said the residents of the Scottsville District with whom he has talked have indicated that they are always treated fairly ~ real estate department personnel. Their problem is with the methodology used in appraising properties. Residents of the Scottsville District have been angry, upset and frustrated because they do not understand the reason for the large in~- crease in the value of their land. Mr. Dorrier said he realizes that the land in the August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) 343 fr~ Scottsville District was reappraised for the first time in ten years last year, and this caused a lot of the problems. He d~d not feel there was adequate public notice given of this reappraisal. Some publicity should have been given before the taxpayers received their re- appraisal notices. Mr. Fisher said he could nnderstand their shock. His property was reassessed in 1970 and again in 1974. Scottsville District was saved from the struggle endured by the rest of the County in the previous years. That is one of the reasons the past Board, over objections ~i~etf and Mr. Henley, had decided to go on a two-year reassessment program. The trend in Richmond at this time is to go on a shorter reassessment period which will mean the expendi- ture of more funds to carry out reappraisals. Mr. Fisher said he would like to study the two reports and then have a work session with the Equalization Board. At this time, Dr. Iachetta and Mr. Keller had a short conversation concerning the statistical method used by the Equalization Boerd in making their comparison of ratios. Dr. Iachetta said many taxpayers feel they have not been treated fairly. The question of whether the methods being used are the best must be resolved. If the standard deviation aspect of the distribution is not improved, then the method used by the Equalization Board may be no better than the one presently being used and the County could spend a lot of money and end up with an equally bad result. Mr. Fisher announced at this time that the Board would meet on September 22, 1976, at 3:00 P. M. with the Equalization Board to continue discussion of this matter. An unidentifie gentlemen asked when the citizens would have a chance to be heard. Mr. Fisher said if there ms ade~uate time on the 22nd, he may open the floor to public comments. Item No. 9. Policy: Central Well Permits. (deferred from July 14, 1976). Mr.~ Fisher said Mr. Walter Cushman has requested that the Board of Supervisors waive all County requirements and leave-the regulation of central well systems to the State agencies which regulate same. The County Engineer, in a report dated May 26, 1976, recommended that the Board change its policy to coincide with guidelines set by F.H.A.(which requires ~ gallon per minute, per unit)~and modified to read: 1) Well pumping tests shall begin at a rate which will exhaust undergroun~ storage and be stabilized at the recharge rate of the well. The capacity of the well shall be rated at the pumping rate which may be maintained over the final six hours of testing. 2) Whenever the apparent recharge rate of a well is 25 g.p.m, or less, the test may be ~concluded in 48 hours. Whenever the apparent recharge rate is greater than 25 g.p.m., the testing must continue through 72 hours in order for the well to be so rated. 3) In such cases where circumstances pr~ent the full scope of test pumping described above (such as when a well must be kept in service during the test period) the County Engineer may approve a modified method of testing. The allowable number of connections on a well so tested shall be limited to one connection per gallon of the well capacity. Although Mr. Cushman made this request to the Board in June, Board members were concern- ed more about the overall policy of requiring one gallon, per minute, per unit. The County Engineer was requested to check with other counties to see if they allow any variances to the requirements of F.H.A. or the State Health Department, and if so, the reasons for these variances. Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer, said he had checked with Augusta and Rockingham Counties. They do not have a policy other than that required by~the Sta~e of ~ g.p.m, and pump tests required to determine well capacity. Mr. Fisher said he understands there is a considerable difference in the amount of ground water on the other side of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The Augusta County Semvice Authority has led him to believe that they can put a well down almost anywhere in the County and receive flows of 100 g.p.m. Mr. Bailey said it is easier and~more desirable to obtain data through the testing of a wells ~n areas wh~me wells are more uncertain than on the other side of the Blue Ridge. In his opinion, the length of the tests and ~he other considerations stated in his report would give reliable information. Mr. Fisher asked if a 48 hour or 72 ~our test could reasonably show what might happen to a well after a number of years of usage. Mr. Bailey said in the experience of the Albemarle County Service Authority, there is a built in safety factor if ~ g.p.m, is used since the average use of water im a subdivision does not equal even ~ g.p.m, per connection. Mr. Fisher said this recommendation does not speak to peak demand. Mr. Bailey said the experiences the County had with the wells in both Flordon and West Leigh would not have occnrred if those wells had been properly tested at the beginning of their use. Mr. Fisher said he was concerned that the only localities checked have a different ground water level than Albemarle. Their geology is different. Mr. Bailey said he did not check localit- ies to the east and south of the County because they have no service authorities. Mr. Fisher said he had thought about Henrico and Chesterfield Counties where they have many more years of experience with the o~eration of public water systems. Mr. Bailey said they also have a different type of geology. Mr. Henley said one g.p.m, gives the County a margin for error. Since this polic~ was adopted, there have been no major problems. Usually, where central wells are installed, there zs no possibility of obtaining water from the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Roudabush said the State Health Department has recently issued a waterworks regulations manual in which they conclude that ~ g.p.m, has an adequate safety factor. In addition, they are imposing stricter requirements for water storage. Mr. Roudabush said he did not want to substitute his judgment in th~s matter for that of recognized authorities in this field. He is willing to accept the Health Department's recommendations with Mr. Bailey's recommendations for testing added. Mr. Fred Landess was present to represent Mr. Walter Cushman. He showed to the Board members a letter written by Mr. Lloyd Fox ~ho works for the Albemarle County Service Authority and resides in Meriwether Hills. Mr. Landess said he thinks the Board members are confusing the question of sufficient initial water supply with the question of how to protect themselves in the future if that supply fails. There must be some reasonable way to determine, on a per±odic basis, that sufficient water will continue to be supplied[by a central well. He suggested that the County might set up a system through the County~Engi- neer's Department to check on a periodic basis that the well is still functioning properly. He did not think the County should try to solve the problem by simply selecting a figure at random. Mr. Fisher asked how this would~help the citizens when there is no more water. This County has had two ~imes as many problems with water as the State of Virginia as a whole. This is the reason this policy was adopted. Mr. Landess felt this is an arbitrary policy and the problems should be determined by periodic checking. Mr. Fisher said this is an arbitrary standard for an average condition. Mr. Landess said the policy of the State Health Department is based on a number of years of experience throughout the State. Mr. Fisher replied that he has had a number of years of experience both as a Board member and as August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) a consumer. He has used this experience to try and develop a policy which will assure that the citizens purchasing homes on a central water supply will have water as long as possible and to also protect the remainder of the County's taxpayers from having to bail out these systems financially. Mr. Landess agreed, but did not feel that requiring twice the amount of water needed at the beginning of use will solve the problem. There must be someY~$Ycheck periodically to see that a system is functioning. Mr. Fisher suggested that the owner of a central well might make these tests himself and if the flows begins to drop, take steps to bring in additional water. If the operator of a well system will take on that responsibility and post bond money to assure that this will be done, Mr. Fisher said he is willing to talk about a change in the Board's policy. Mr. Landess said that makes more sense than just plucking a figure out of the air. Dr. Iachetta then said a citizen had called him four times since last Friday because she had no water. She is in a subdivision which has a central well system. The owner found a leak in the system and his solution to this was to turn the water off so the pump would not run 24 hours a day trying to keep up with the leak. The State's laws and the State Health Department all prescribe conditions that must be adhered to by owners, but in many cases they are not. If the Board prescribed a test procedure, someone on the County staff would have to police this to be sure the procedures were being used and adhered to. Dr. Iachetta said if the system is oversized at the beginning (which is apparently what the present policy is doing) there will still be ~ g.p.m, later on. Although-~the outcome may be the same, it will just take longer to reach that point. Mr. Fisher said Mr. Landess has indicated that they are willing to do a form of periodic testing. If this were done,it would require the use of County staff to keep records and monitor the testing. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board w-ould like to study such a procedure or continue with their present policy. Mr. Henley asked how many private well systems have been approved under the present policy. Mr. Bailey said he did not know, but there are probably 25 to 30 applications receiv. ed each year. Mr. Henley then offered motion to retain the present policy of one gallon, per minute, per unit, on the issuance of central well permits. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Roudabush said he thinks the Board is giving up a better policy. If a testing procedure can be implemented and better storage made available, a policy of one gallon, per minute, per unit may do more harm since this flow may not last that long without periodic checking. Mr. Henley asked who would do this testing. Mr. Roudabush said the owner would be responsible, although the Health Department might assist. Mr. Henley said he would rather have storage in the ground than in a tank. Dr. Iachetta said too many of these operators do not take seriously the fact that they are operating a public utility. He is not convinced that a program wherein the owner would ~ be responsible for the testing would be an adaquate safeguard for the public. Mr. Fisher said testing is fine, but when there is a problem, the problem is still there and who is going to pay for improving the water supply.. The owner may not be financially able To pay for improvements. Mr. Dorrier said he sympathized with Mr. Cushman, but he does not feel that creating an additional bureauemecyy to handle this will be the answer. Roll was called at this time and the motion carried by the vote which follows: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Iachetta. Nays: Mr. Roudabush. Absent: Mrs. David. Mr. Fisher said the Board would retain its policy of one gallon per minute, per unit. If, in the future, a new policy is found to be operationally feasible, which does not require more county staff, the Board may vote to change this policy. Item No. 10. Complaints regarding Business License Ordinance. Letters of complaint had been received from Ms. Alice LaVoie and Ms. Sharon Cady. Ms. LaVoie had raiaed the following questions and was present to discnss same: 1) Since she is a sales person operating in Central Virginia, with an office in her home used mainly for storage of equipment and supplies, why should she pay this tax (particu!ary since mnsurance agents are not covered)? 2) ~f~her:~h~ffe~!.~aa~in?the"~y~ ~y!~v~.3)!.;©S~neeashe~f~ilsknn~er~a~'~g~s~:~ree~pts'' category, would she still have to pay a tax if she were losing money? 4) Why should she pay a tax for being self-employed? Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, said insurance agents are exempted by State Law. They do however pay a tax to the State of Virginia based on their premium mncome. This is in addition to their regular State income tax. In answer to question #2, if a place of business is in the county, it is taxable on all receipts that go through that office. If a person has no other place of business, his home is his place of business according to State Code and the County's ordinance. In reply to question #3, Mr. Jones said all business and professiona licenses are based on gross receipts. Mr. Fisher said he had asked that Ms. EaVoie's letter be placed on today's agenda so the question of whether this tax is being administered fairly could be answered. When the Board of Supervisors adopted this tax a couple of years ago, they discussed in detail the various categories. It is difficult to exempt one person, without exempting everyone. He requested that Ms. LaVoie discuss State enabling legislation with Mr. Jones and the County Attorney and if she decided that she is being discriminated against, to come back to the Boar Also present was Ms. Sharon Cady. She said she was a part-time Tupperware saleswoman and was not aware of this tax. She has been told that this tax was used to protect merchants in the area. She never felt as though she were in competition with any other business. Mr. Fisher said the tax was enaceed purely for revenues. It was not intended to be punitive nor to direct people in how they. conduct their businesses. Ms. Cady said the Tupperware office was also unaware of this tax. Mr. Fisher said the County has received complaints because music teachers in their homes have to pay this tax. He believes the tax is being uniformly applied. Mr. Jones said the business schedules attached to State income tax returns are scrutinized. This is the way names of people doing business in the county are found. He has heard the comment from retailers that this tax is for their protection, but that is not true. Item No. 1!. Request for Resolution of Intent to amend the Albemarle County Zoning map by rezoning seven acres of land located in the Scottsville District from B-1 to R-1 pursuant to Section 14-1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance (deferred from July 21, ~1976). Mr. Fisher said Mr. Forbes Reback had made this request in conjunction with ZMA-2~4. The matter was deferred until this date because of the length of the agenda on July 21. He August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) 34'5 asked the County Attorney to summarize ways in which the Board could respond to this request. Mr. St. John said the Board need not adopt a specific resolution of intent to downzone this property. The Board can refer the matter to the Planning Commission and request that the Planning Commission make a recommendation as to the advisibility of re~oning this propert The Board has discussed many times the conditions necessary before they can legally downzone, namely; there must be a substantial change in conditions or find as a matter of fact that a mistake was made in the original zoning. The question has also been raised as to whe%her it is procedurally proper for those in opposition to the downzoning to appear today and oppose the action being requested by Mr. Reback. This is a public meeting and anyone can ask to be heard. Mr. Fisher said he had requested that the attorney for the owner of the property, Mr. H. Slade Dabney, Jr., be notified that this request was on today's agenda. Mr. St. John said that was a courtesy and not a legal requirement. Mr. Fisher said he felt a moral obligation not to discuss someone's property without giving some notice. Mr. St. John said because Mr. Dabney was not present did not make a procedural defect. Mr. Fisher said this is a unique request. A request of the Planning Commission ~Qntd nc necessarily indicate that the Board intends to downzone the property, but such a request would involve the staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors in a series of events that would have to Ue~o!iowed through to their culmination. Mr. St. John noted that adjoining property owners do not have any standing to request such a rezoning; only the owner or the Board~of Supervisors. Mr. Reback was present. He said the request was discussed in detail at the July 21 meeting. He handed to the Board a letter signed by 35 property owners in support of the request. Mr. Fisher said the Board must decide i~ Commission without a revision ~o the ComprehE general application, and without an applicat~ Henley felt it would be a mistake to do this sive Plan. Mr. Dorrier said although this c~ ready to support a request for rezoning.[ Mr. property upon ~equest of other than the propE in the original zoning because architectural is not conditional. Dr. Iachetta said he ag~ handled in the process of reviewing the Compz Mr. St. John said when land zs zoned, t~ a right to any use that is listed in the Zon%ng Ordinance for that zone. That is why, in the average zoning case, it is unwise to allow the applicant to bring in plans. 'An appli- cation for rezoning should be cQnsidered onl~ on the uses allowed in that zone and whether or not the Board wants to rezone on'that bas~s. Mr. Fisher said it has often worried him that people were permitted to talk about arcMitecture, etc., but he did not feel this can be controlled. He asked how the Board wanted t¢ Mr. Roudabush moved ~hat the Board take resolution of intent to amend the Zoning Map. Iachetta said he would not support the motioz referred to the Planning Commission for spec~ The motion carried by the following ~ote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley Nays: Dr. Iachetta. Absent: Mrs. David. Mr. Fisher asked that the staff communi¢ of special concern and it should be reviewed Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director o~ before the Planning Commission on August 24. dicating that they will not hear such reques- Fisher said the Board has not established an~ requests, case by ~ase. they want to refer this to the Planning nsive Plan, a new zoning ordinance and a map of on from the owner or a contract purchaser. Mr. now without a general revision of the Comprehen- .me about because of a complex issue, he was not Roudabush said he is not willing to downzone rty owner. He did not think a mistake was made drawings and landscape designs were shown; zonin eed with Mr. ~enley that this request should be ~ehensive Plan. .e Board must realize that the applicant receives ~.respond to this request. no action; in effect deny the request for a The motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Dr. in that form. He felt the matter should be fic review in revision of the Comprehensive .nd Roudabush. ate. to the Planning Commission that this ~m ~y the consultants during their-~work on the Planning, said a~mi~arncase will be coming He asked if by this action the Board was in- s from other than the property owner. Mr. kind of policy. They will decide on such Item No. 12. Report: Solid Waste Coll~ White and Mr. John Austin, summer interns woz (~opy of full report on file in the Clerk's Mr. White said the feasibility of such An area was chosen for a pilot program which Eartysville~ Free Union, Nortonsville, Boonee area was chosen at the suggestion of the Boa~ County operated landfill site. The purpose ¢ a pilot program is ~mplemented, it w~ll be d~ program should be approached with the idea o~ system. ction System. Mr. Kee!er introduced Mr. Dennis .king for the Planning Department on this report ffice). · program and how to attain same were studied. includes the communities of Stony Point, Proffi± ville, White Hall and surrounding areas. This .d in May, because it is farthe~ from a f the pilot p~ogram is to test usership. Once fficult to take it away. If approved, this creating at some future date a county-~ide Based on the staff's evaluation of all POssible alternatives, the following recommenda- tions are made: 1) The County should use a pilot project to test all feasi~bl~!container sizes and s~yles. This ~hould include four cubic-yard containers at limited user areas and specially designed six cubic-yard containers. 2) Ownership vs. rental of the containers. 3) The use of a waste compactor attached to a ro~l-off container should not be con- sidered because of initial high capital investment. 4) The administration of a pilot program should be given to the same County agency that would be expected to run a county-wide ¢~o!lection program. 5) The County should not use "low bid" as the award criteria of a pilot program con- tract. The staff has found that ability to to needs of a collection system a~ importan~ 6) The use of aesthetic screenzng shou] program. Mr. Fisher said he has had many questior because they feel implementation of such a p~ ness. He asked if any ~consideration was give Mr. Austin said yes, no containers were reco~ proposed area. They felt that most subdivis~ collection service, and although there will rovide back-up servmce and capacity to adjust to an effective program. d be given a low priority within the pilot s from the private collectors in the County 'ogram by the County will put them out of busi- n to the economic impact on the private haulers. ~ended for placement near subdivisions in the ons are large enough to support house-to-house robably be some loss of patronage, there are a lot of people in the County who are not offem~ed any service at all. August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked how the County would discourage small commercial ventures from dis- posing of their refuse in the containers. Mr. Austin said £f the Count~.adopted an ordinance, they could prosecute violators. Mr. J. H. Bailey, County Engineer, said the proviSions spoken to here are not for coltectiQn of appliances, stoves, stumps from land clearing, and such materials. These would still need to be disposed of in some manner. Mr. Austin said a citizens awareness program would be a large part of this. Sites near major population contributions of solid waste would need to have containers which are designed to handle this type of refuse. Another alternative would be to have someone in a truck police these sites who wOuld pick up such items and haul them away. Mr. Fisher said if the Board decides to have such a system, they would probably need to b±d the project and have it carried out by someone else. Mr. White said there are only two haulers in the County who are equipped to handle a pilot program. Mr. Henley said he would like to talk with some people in the White Hall District before deciding on this issue. Mr. Fisher asked the costs of this project. Mr. White said contained in the report are .costs of equipment, maintenance, service and repairs for one year based on the number of boxes used, an estimate of the cost of the sites and the cost of one person to police the site. The cost of administration is unknown. He estimated that a program would cost between $30,000 and $60,000, depending on which system the Board considered the most viable. Dr. Iachetta asked if consideration had been given to interaction with a central pro- cessing station. Mr. Austin said only to the degree that by putting the refuse india contain- er truck, it is already compacted and divided and would be more readily deliverable to any collection site. Mr. Henley asked if other counties own their equipment. Mr. Agnor said some do and some do not. It is not recommended for Albemarle County; only purchase Of the containers them- selves. Dr. Iachetta said the experience of other communities, larger than this one, has led them to design a system large enough to pick up anything. He asked if the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority could be expanded to include solid waste disposal. Mr. White said the Albemarle Service Authority woUld be the more likely agency to handle this. Mr. Fisher said until he is able to see a bottom line cost it will be difficult for him to take any action. He requested the staff to do some work on the preliminary costs for a pilot projects the preliminary costs for a county-wide system, have a meeting with the private haulers~ and consider the cost of maintenance, the number of people, buildings and equipment neede~o run such a system and to make a report back to the Board on October 13,1976 Item No. 13a. Jefferson Area Board on Aging: ReQuest for an appropriation for purchase of a camera (deferred from July 14, 1976). Present was Diane Ansley. She said in May and June she had contacted the Cfty and the County about the need for a senior citizens discount program and requested an appropriation for purchase of a camera. The City had approved one-half of $2,515.00. The County had felt there must be a cheaper camera and had requested that more information be gathered. Miss Ans!ey said she had now found a camera to suit her nee~at a cost of $1,800.00, and she re- quested an appropriation from the County to cover one-half of ~hat cost. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. RQudabush to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginias that $9~ be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from revenue sharing /~r ~he purchase of a camera for the Jefferson Area Board on Aging. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: -None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item 13b. Request to Amend the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement: Jefferson Area Board on Aging. Mr. Fisher noted that he is to have a meeting with the Chairmen of other Boards of Supervisors in the Region 10 District, and he would request that this matter be deferred until September 8, 1976. Miss Ansley noted that she had tendered her resignation as Executive Director of the Jeffer- son Area Board on Aging and introduced her successors Ms. Carol Stewart. Item No. 14. Approval of Reginnal Library State and Federal Grants-In-Aid. Mr. Fisher noted that the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has been offered $121,040.00 in State and Federal Grants-in-Aid by the Virginia State Library for fiscal year 1977. A new §tate ~aw requires the governing bodies in the Regional Library to approve the expenditure of these 'b~r funds. Mr. Agnor has noted that this grant should further reduce the total need for local funds in the fiscal year'77 library budget by $59,965.00. The library budget carries an estimate of $61,~75.00 in State Funds and zero for Federal Funds. The first quarter review of the library budget will be ~he appropriate time to consider this increase in revenues, and an off-setting reduction in local fund needs. He then read a resolution prepared for the Board by Mr. Agnor. WHEREAS, the Virginia State Library, in accordance with Title 208.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, has advised the County of Albemarle that the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library has been approved to receive grants-in-aid for FY 1976-1977 of $70,597 in State Aid and $50,443 in Federal Aid; and WHEREAS, Title 208.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires that the expenditure of said grants shall not be made with- out the written approval of the governmng body~ BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approves the expenditure of these funds for the purchase of library books, materials and equipment, library staff salary supplements, and travel by library staff or library board members to professional con- August 1t, 1976 (Day'Meeting) ferences in accordance with regulations of the State Library Board, and within limits of appropriations approved in the Jefferson-Madison Regional Library FY-?7 budget. Present was Mr. Christopher DeVan, Director of the Regional Library. Mr. Agnor noted that the State Library would not allow the locality to reduce the local appropriation below that of the previous year, but they do not preclude an adjustment of the appropriation for the present year. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the fore- goin~ resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Dorrier. Item No. 15. Discussion: Cable Television (deferred from June 16, 1976). Mr. Fisher noted that the Board members had received on June 16 a copy of the draft ordinance and memorandum on this subject prepared by the County Attorney's Office a year ago. He asked that the question be summarized. Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney, said there are certain economic problems related to cable television. It must have a certain density per square mile to be economic- ally feasible. The County has ~ueh an area around the edge of the City, but further out in the County these areas are small and far apart. Cable television is regulated by the State and the Federal Governments and the County can also regulate. The County has franchise powers, although one has not been granted in Albemarle. Before granting a franchise, the County must adopt an ordinance. Bids would then need to be solicited pursuant to that ordinance. The successful bidder would take the ordinance to the FCC (Federal Communi- cations Commission) and if it met their approval, could ~egin service. The County has the option to award as many franchises as they see fit. If the County is to get service in more than just the narrow circle around the City, a bidder would be required to spend a lot of money. Mr. St. John said State enabling legislation savs the local governing body can do two things: 1) They can tax the television company 3% of their customer receipts without any showing of need and if it can be shown that it costs more than 3% to administer the program, the tax can be enlarged; and 2) The County can regulate the service. Mr. St. John said the County has been faced with some questions regarding television service which must be answered soon. Virginia Television Company has applied to the FCC for a license to operate in the County. The County Attorney's office has sent a letter to the FCC asking that the FCC no~ take any action on this request that would foreclose the County's options on any ordinance adopted in the future in r~ference to franchising of cable television. Virginia Television has said that this letter is ambiguous and they want a clearer statement made of the County's intent in this matter. The FCC has also said'!~hat the letter is ambiguous and wants to know if the County objects or if it does not object. Mr. St. John said the County has no legitimate reason to object to competition in the cable television field. If authori- zed to send a clarification, he will state that the County has no objection to Virginia Television's application or any other application being granted, so long as it is clearly understood that by the granting of any such license that the FCC will not preclude the County opening the entire area of the County to bid, if the County does adopt such an ordinance. Mr. St. John said iff:the Board is going to consider adoption of such an ordinance they need to get off of "dead center" and put it in the mill for adoption. The County Attorney's office is not qualified to put in the technical terms of the ordinance. A consultant would have to be hired for this purpose. If the Board enacts such an ordinance they have the power to requime a certain number of public television channels be given a certain number of hours a week, monitor the quality of reception, etc. If the Board does not adopt such an ordinance, the State and FCC will continue to regulate the service. Dr. Iachetta said in fairness to the people who want to start a new company, the Board needs to make some sort of statement. Mr. St. John said he had received a letter from Mr. George Gilliam, counsel for Virginia Television, enclosing a draft of a letter to be signed by the County clarifying the County's position. "Albemarle County previously submitted a statement of its position with regard to the above captioned application. In reference to amendment to application for certification filed by VirEinia Television Company, Inc. on August 9, 1976, Albemarle County hereby clari- fies its S~ted position, specifically in view of the commitment by Virginia Television Company, Inc. that it will apply for a cable television franchise from Albemarle County, we have no objection to grant, by the Commission, of the above captioned application as amended. Mr. St. John recommended that this draft not be signed. He did not know if the s~ate- ment meant that Virginia Television agrees to apply for a cable television franchise and be taxed and regulated or whether it will insist that it is entitled to a franchise since it has a vested right in the area, or whether they will agree to be on the same footing as every other applicant. Mr. George Gil!iam said Virginia Television is presently serving about 600 customers in the section northwest of the City. Virginia Television now has a number of contracts that will add about !,000 additional customers to their service. These contracts will go into effect when a system up-grade is completed. Virginia Television has been operating in the County for a number of years without a franchise, just as Jefferson Cable has. Virginia Television wants to sit in the same position as Jefferson Cable. At this time, Mr. Gilliam said he could not answer the question of wh~ther either has a vested right. He is willing to state that if the county files this statement saying they have no objection to this system up-grade, it probably will not change this position. He did not want to give away any rights Virginia Television may already have mn the way of vested rights. Mr. Gilliam said he did not know if failure on the part of the county to submit a statement to the FCC would be fatal. The FCC counsel feels it would help to expedite a certificate of compliance. The customers presently being served will receive better service if the system up-grade is completed. Mr. St. John said he was not sure of Jefferson Cable'~s status, but felt ~hey were operat- ing under a grandfather clause. The Board could enact an ordinance tomorrow and Jefferson Cable would still have a.right to operaYe in the County until 1977 without a franchise. Mr. Joe Price was present representing Jefferson Cable. He said after they renegotiated their franchise in the City of Charlottesville, they had applied for a certificate of compliance with the FCC. They have received their certificate and are licensed by the FCC to operate in the City, but not in the County. By March 1977 something needs to be done to operate zn Albemarle County, although that date may be extended. August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. St'. John restate his original statement. Mr. St. John said he recommends that the Board not sign the document submitted by Mr. Gilliam, but that he be allowed to sign a letter saying: "Albemarle County has no objections to the granting of a license to Virginia Television, provided that the applicant agrees and understands that by accepting this license he will get no vested right whatsoever to continue to serve the licensed area after the Board adopts a franchise ordinance unless he is in fact the success- ful bidder in that area." Dr. Iachetta said it seems the Board must decide today to either forget franchising althg~h~mror say they are really serious and want to gather the data needed to make the ultimate decision. Mr. Fisher said the Board must decide if it wants to seriously investi- gate franchising of cable televisionnand if so, take a position similar to that recommended by Mr. St. John. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion to refer to the staff the investigation of the exper- ience of other counties in the State with respect to the operation and franchising of cable television, with a report to the Board within a reasonable period of time. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dottier and carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier~ Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. Item No. 16. Resolution: Special Law Enforcement Benefits under v.S.R.S. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush to adopt the following resolution. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED that Albemarle County, Virginia, currently participating in the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System under the provisions of Title 51, Chapter 3.2, Article 4, of the Code of Virginia, acting by and through the Board of Supervisors, does hereby elect to have those of its employees who are members of the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System and who are employed in law enforcement positions comparably hazardous to that of a State potic~ officer to become eligi- ble, effective July 1, 1976~ to be provided benefits equivalent to tho~se provided for State police officers of the Department of State Police, as set out in Section~l-lll. 37 of the Code of Virginia, in lieu of the benefits that would otherwise be provided, as such section has been or may be amended from time to time; and Albemarle County agrees to pay the employer cost for providing such employees such benefits. NOW, THEREFORE, Gerald E. Fisher, Chairman of the Board of Super- visors of Albemarle County, and Lettie E. Neher, Clerk, are hereby authorized and directed in the name of Albemarle County, to execute any required contract in order that the above described employees of Albemarle County may become entitled to retirement benefits equivalent to those provided for State police officers of the Department of State Police. In execution of any contract which may be required~ the seal of the County shall be affixed and attested by the Clerk; and said officers of the County are hereby authorized and directed to do any other thing~ or things, incident and necessary to the lawful conclusion of this matter. The Director of Finance of Albemarle County be and is hereby authorized and directed to pay over to the Treasurer of Virginia from time to time such sums as are due to be paid by Albemarle County and its employees for this purpose. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David. At 6:03 P. M., Mr. Fisher left the meeting and Mr. Henley, Vice Chairman, took over the cha~. item No. 17a. Discussed later in this meeting. Item No. 17b. Appointment:Advisory Council on Aging. This i~ema was ordered carried over to the next meeting of the Board. Item No. 17c. Appointment: Drug Abuse Council. This item was ordered carried over. Item No. ltd. Appointment: BOCA Code Board of Appeals. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, reappointing Mr. L. A. Lacy, as a member of this Board, said term to expire on August 21, 1981. The motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 17e. Appointment: Piedmont Community College Board of Directors. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta~ seconded by Mr. Dorrier, reappointing Mr. Walter F. Perkins as a member of the Community College Board of Directors, said term to expire on· June 30, 1980. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 17f. Appointment: Industrial Bonding Authority. Ordered carried over. Item No. 18. Report of the County Executive for July 1976 was received as information. August 1!, 1976 (Day Meeting) Item No. 19. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of June 1976 was received in accordance with Virginia Code Section 63.1-52. Item No. 20. Regional Jail Report for the Month of July 197.6 was received. by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, the statement was approved as read. carrie~ ~ the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier~ Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Upon motion The motion read. read. Item No. 21. Statement of expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of July 1976 was Upon motion by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, this statement was approved as The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 22. Statement of Expenses of the Director of Finance, the Officer of the Commonwealth Attorney and the Sheriff's Department for the month of July 1976 were received. Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 23a. Personal Property Tax Refund. Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dottier, the following resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. WHEREAS, ~he Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, has appeared before this Board and certified that Jean Harrison Gleitz was erroneously assessed on a 1975 Ford Pinto on 1975 personal property taxes on Ticket No. 104741; and WHEREAS, the County Attorney has examined supporting evidence and consents that such assessment was erroneous; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to the Code of Virginia, Section 58-1142, the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby direct a refund of $172.49 be issued ~o Ms. Gleitz. Item No. 23b. Tax Refund Business License Tax. Upon motion by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, the following resolution was adopted by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. WHEREAS, ~K~ Director of Finance of Albemarle County, Virginia, has appeared before this Board and certified that Crosby E. Bias has discontinued business in the County and is due a refund on his busi- ness and professional license taxi NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that pursuant to Section 11-6 of the Albemarle County Code, the Board of Supervisors does hereby direct of refnnd of $77.97 be issued to Mr. Bias. Item No. 24a. Appropriation:Fire Suppression Refund. Mr. Agnor requested the Board of Supervisors to approve the repayment of Fire suppression costs by issuing two checks in the amount of $175.00 each to Messrs. Wacher and Bryan, and directing the County Executive to write letters of explanation to accompany the checks. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, authorizing the repayment of ~hese fnnds and making the following appropriation. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $350.00 be, and the same hereby is appropriated from the General Fund and Coded to 0-1014, for repayment of Fire Suppression Refunds. The motion carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 24b. Appropriatinn: Space Committee~ Mr. Roudabush said the Space Committee has met from time to time with Judge Berry and Mr. Agnor and reviewed the plans for the co ~r~n.ection to the Courthouse. There is a need to pursue these plans by getting revised cost estimates. There may also be funds needed to investigate other sites for a County Office Building. He then offered motion to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors, that $5,000.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund, for use by the SpaCe Committee in investigation of office space for the Judge of the Circuit Court, etc. The foregoing motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta, and carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. 350 /£ August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Not Docketed. Mr. Agnor said the Deputy Dog Warden was recently involved in an accident which demolished his truck. Settlement in the amount of $2,125.00 has been received from the Insurance Company° and placed in the County's General Fund. In order to replace this vehicle an appropriation of $4,308.35 is needed. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $4,308.35 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the general Fund and Coded to 12-215A for purchase of a truck. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 17a. Appointment: Delinquent Tax Attorney. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervi.sors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that William H. Muller, III, Esquire be and he is hereby appointed as Attorney for the County of Albemarle, effective January 1, 1977, for the purpose of collection of delinquent real estate taxes by means of suit for that purpose, or by such other means as may be provided by law; compensation of the said William H. Muller, III, shall be provided by general law. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Item No. 25. Agreement with F.H.A. for inspection of residential housing. Mr. Agnor said about a year ago, F.H.A. had asked the County if they would do certain inspections for any residential units on which they had loans. These are basically rough-in inspections on plumbing, electrical and structural. This is not an actual inspection, but ohiy filling out a form, after the County makes an inspection on the County's building permit. The County agreed to do this and the County Attorney's Office prepared a formal agreement in writing of what would be entailed. The agreement was to have bee~ presented to the Board of Super- visors in December, and only recently it was found that it had not been. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to authorize the Chairman to sign the agreement which follows, inserting the date June 30, 1981 on page 3. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT dated between the County of Albemarle, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia (hereinafter called the County) and the United States of America act- ing through the Farmers Home Administration, .U. S. Department of Agriculture (hereinafter called the Administration) WI TNE S SETH : WHEREAS, the Administration has a duty to provide agricultural housing and other assistance for rural people of the Commonwealth of Virginia in accordance with ~ 331(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act (P.L. 92-419), and § 506 ~a), Title V of the Housing Act of 1949; and WHEREAS, in order to provide such assistance it is necessary for the Administration to carry out certain inspections of residential property c.onstructed as such assistance; and WHEREAS, the County is required by law to inspect all new resi- dential construction mn Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, the parties believe that the public interest may best be served and a substantial savings og vitally needed public funds may be made by employing the County's building inspectors to provide the inspec- ~onSo~?-: required by the Administration; NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein and the mutual benefits to be engendered hereby, it is mutually covenanted and agreed as follows: 1. The Administration certifies that it is empowered by the current Federal laws cited above, and related rules and regulations, to accept personnel assistance from the County as provided herein; and that the work assigned to County employees will be useful, in the public interest, could not otherwise be provided, and will not result in the displacement of employed workers. 2. The Administration hereby supplies the County with a narra- tive description of the two inspections to be performed by County employees and a copy of Exhibit A of FHA Instruction 424.1 (Breakdown of Dwelling Cost for Estimating Partial Payments) which ~re made a part August 11, 1976 (Day Mee.ting) of this Agreement as Attachments "A" and "B" respectively. 3. The Administration agrees to: (a) Provide training, subject to the approval of the County Building Official, for County employees in connection with information which should be included in inspection r~ports and the method of deter- mining percentage of completeness of construction (Attachments "A" and "B"). (b) Notify County employees promptly of houses to be construct- ed under the Administration's programs. (c) Provide the County with copies of the Administration's inspection report forms if used by County employees. 4. The County ,agrees to: (a) Have County employees furnish the Administration's County Office with copies of construction inspection reports on the regular form used by the County Inspector or on a form to be furnished by the Administration as mutually agreed upon by the concerned parties. The inspections will be made at the two stages of construction described in Attachment "A" of this agreement and will be made in conjunction with the inspections normally required by the Uniform Statewide Building Code, as the same shall be amended from time to time. (b) Not to charge either the Administration or the owner for the inspections; provided, however, that nothing herein shall be construed to impair the power of the County to charge any fees as provided by law. ic) Assign only qualified County employees to make inspections for the Administration. (d) Pay all salaries and other expenses of County employees~ No monies will be paid by the Administration under this agreement, either to the County or its employees. 5. The parties stipulate and agree that the County's building inspect6rs shall not be deemed agents of the Administration nor shall such inspectors be subject to the supervision or control of the Administration except as provided in numbered paragraph 3(a) hereof; it being the express intent of the parties that such inspector, s shall ramain at all times subject to the sole supervision and control of the County and its designated officers. ~. The terms of this agreement shall commence on the date hereof. It shall end on June 30, 1981, unless extended by mutual agreement, or unless terminated earlier by at least thirty (30) days advance written notice by either party to the other. 7. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties that~the County shall not be liable to any person or other entity for any act or omission arising out of the duties imposed hereby, except as provided by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; it being the express intent of the parties that the County and its employees not be subject to the provisions of Title 28 of the United States Code or any other provision of law relating to the recovery of damages for torts committed by agents of the United States. 8. Except as Qtherwise expressly provided herein, this agreement shall be governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and by the ordinances, rules and regulations of the County of Albemarle. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused their respective signa- tures and seals to be affixed by their respective authorized officers. ATTEST COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE By FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION By ~i~iA. Goodling FHA S~ate Director ~or Virginia ATTACHMENT "A" (1) Stage 1. When foundation excavations are complete and forms or trenches and steel are ready for concrete placement and the sub- surface installations are roughed in.?Customarily, the initial inspection in proposed construction cases is made just prior to or during the place- ment of concrete footings or monolithic footing and floor slabs. (2) S~age 2. When the building is enclosed, structural members August 11, 1976 (Day Meeting) are still exposed and roughing in for heating, plumbing and electrical work is in place and visible. Customarily, this is prior to installation of brick veneer or any interior finish which would include lath, wall- board and finish flooring. BREAKDOWN OF DWELLING COST FOR ESTIMATING PARTIAL PAYMENTS ATTACHMENT "B" FHA Instruction 424.1 Exhibit A 1 2 3 With W~hout Basement Basement % % 4 5 6 7 8 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 4 2 2 7 4 9 3 6 1 9 5 2 1 2 1 7 1 5 4 5 4 2 Excavation 2 Footing & foundations, walk, columns 7 Floor joist 2- Subfloor 1 Wall Framing (thru top plates) 7 Wall §heathing 4 Roof framing, ceiling joist, sheathing & felt 8 Roofing 3 Felt, siding, exterior trim, porches, etc. 6 Siding, primed 1 Windows and exterior doors 8 Plumbing - roughed in 4 Sewage Disposal 2 Heating - roughed in 1 Electric - roughed in 2 Insulation, walls & ceiling 1 Dry wall or plaster 6 Basement & porch floors - steps 2 Heating - finished 5 Flooring, including kitchen $ bath 4 Interior carpentry, trip $ doors 5 Cabinets & counter_tops 4 Interior decoration 4 Exterior paint 2 Plumbing - complete fixtures, sink & water heater 4 Electric - complete fixtures 1 Finish hardware 1 Gutters & downspouts 1 Sanding & finishing floors t Grading, walks & landscaping ! 5 26. 1 27. 1 28. 1 29. 1 30. 1 *Include with ~footings and foundations. (10-4-66) PN 17 !00 100 Item No. 26. Other Matters not on the agenda from Board members. Mr. Agnor said he had one matter ~on which he would like to report~ that of a special permit issued to-James Armstrong for a garage in Esmont. He asked permission to advertise this permit again for another hearing, so that conditions on that permit may be amended. The new Zoning Administrator, Mr. Benjamin Dick, has done extensive work And tr~ed to find a compromise to the Board's condition for fencing. Mr. Dick has made a recommendation for an opaque screen fence. It is acceptable to many people on one side of the issue, but not acceptable to people on the other side. Mr. Agnor said he hesitates to bring this matter back to the Board, but is convinced that if~he Zoning Administrator enforced the permit as it is now written, the matter will go to court and there is a very good chance of losing the case entirely and then there would be no screening at all, or it could result in Mr. Armstrong's being put out of business, and he felt that would be an unfortunate result of the County's effort to enforce a condition on a permit. Mr. Armstrong has indicated his willingness to apply for a new hearing. Dr. Iachetta then offered motion authorizing the staff to advertise SP-468 for a public hearing on September 15, 1976, if Mr. Armstrong makes the[_application for such hearing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote. Ayes: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Iachetta, and Roudabush. Nays: None. Absent: Mrs. David and Mr. Fisher. Mr. Agnor reminded the Board that the City Council has been invited to dinner with the Board on September 15, 1976 at 5:30 P-. M. at the Holiday Inn,South. Mr. St. John then distributed to the Board members present, a copy of the University of Richmond Law Review, which contained articles on subdivision requirements and Land Use in Vmrgmnma. Upon proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 P. M.