Loading...
1998-04-01April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 1) 000 46 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on April 1, 1998, at 9:00 A.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Ms. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Ms. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 a.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Marshall. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. Mr. Wilson Cropp spoke concerning the maintenance of Route 769, Rocky Hollow Road. He considers it the worst road in the State of Virginia close to a metropolitan area and, an environmental hazard, due to the runoff pollution and dust. The State puts 50 to 100 loads of crushed stone on the road each year, but the stone~ end up in the river or the surrounding roads. As far as safety is concerned, there have been numerous school bus accidents on that road, the latest about two weeks ago. If the road were surface-treated, it would be safe to drive buses on. On the economic aspect of the road, the State spends a lot of money on maintenance each year, which could be greatly reduced by surface-treating. His proposal would be to surface-treat the road within its present boundaries, even if it is not possible to get rights-of-way from the property surrounding the road. Mr. Martin said that they have not been able to get the rights-of-way needed and hence, cannot surface-treat the road. He thinks Ms. Tucker has been doing a good job of keeping it usable as a gravel road. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to approve Items 5.1 through 5.8 and to accept the remaining items on the Consent Agenda as information. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Item 5.1. Howard Allen. Proclamation: Fair Housing Month and Dedication of same to It was noted in the staff's report that April is Fair Housing Month and Albemarle County's Office of Housing has planned a celebration for Wednesday, April 1, to recognize the County's progress toward equal opportunity housing made possible by Fair Housing laws. This year's formal program on Fair Housing will be held in the afternoon of April 1 and is focused on educating the County's mobile park owners on Fair Housing Laws, Zoning and Inspection regulations, and Landlord/Tenant Laws. The County also seeks to acknowledge Mr. Howard W. Allen for his advocacy on behalf of affordable housing efforts and to dedicate this third Fair Housing Month Proclamation to him. For example, as an original member of the County's Housing Committee, Mr Allen's dedication to the issue of housing education resulted directly in the creation of the County's Comprehensive Housing Counseling program and the HOMEBUYERS Clubs. Mr. Bowerman read the following proclamation declaring April, 1998 as Fair Housing Month and then made the presentation to Mr. Allen. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 2) ,~ 000147 PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, April, 1998, marks the thirtieth anniversary of the passage of the Pair Housing Act of 1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive province of the Federal government; and WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than federal efforts; and WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, that diminish the rights of some citizens diminish the rights of all; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming APRIL, 1998 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law; and RESOLVED, that Mr. Howard W. Allen has been an advocate for the housing needs of lower-income residents, has served the maximum terms allowable on the Albemarle Housing Improvement Program Board of Directors, was an original member of the Albemarle Housing Committee and, as an on-going member of that committee, continues to advocate for housing education for all citizens and life-skills programs for all County students. AND FURTHER RESOLVED, this third annual proclamation is dedi- cated to Mr. Howard ~Hank" Allen in recognition of his contributions to the County's affordable housing efforts and his longstanding record of comprehensive service to his community, especially for the benefit of our minority citizens. Mr. Bowerman then made the presentation to Mr. Allen who thanked everyone and stated that he has lived in the County since 1970 and will continue to live here and serve the county. Ms. Laurie Chapman, on behalf of the Board of Realtors, said they support this resolution and the whole concept of fair housing. Item 5.2. SP-97-65. Greenwood Farm Bridge (Sign #27) - conditions of approval) (deferred from March 18, 1998). It was noted in the staff's report that at the Board meeting on March 18, the Board considered approval of this petition. The applicant, at the meeting, suggested changes to Condition 1 and Condition 9 and proposed a Condition 10 for clarification purposes. The Board asked for a condition requiring investigation of the possible presence of the James Spiny mussel or other endangered species in Yellow Mountain Creek. In consultation with the Water Resources Manager, the applicant has suggested the following condition relating to the investigation for the James Spiny mussel: UA biological survey or such other investigation as m~y be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager to determine the presence Qf the James Spiny mussel in the areas in Yellow Mountain Creek immediately April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 3) 000:1.48 affected by the proposed bridge be conducted prior to development of the water quality mitigation plan required in Condition 5. The results of the survey or investigation will be reported to the Water Resources Manager for devel©pmcnt of design changes and/or mitigation measures to minimize impact on th~ species, if found," The Water Resources Manager supports this condition. It should be noted that this condition only covers the Spiny mussel and not all endangered species; however, the Spiny mussel is the only known aquatic endangered species in Albemarle County. The condition also requires that the mitigation measures or design changes only minimize the impact on the species, not abate the impact, if the spiny mussel is indeed found in the Creek. If any spiny mussels are found, the State and Federal agencies responsible for endangered species could mandate abatement measures. In the past year, the issue of impacts of proposed construction activities on endangered species has become more and more prevalent. At present the County has no regulations which routinely require screening for endangered species or natural heritage resources which might be affected by construction projects. State and federally funded projects require such screening and, through the special use permit process, such screening also can be required. The staff recommends further examination of criteria relating to preservation of natural heritage resources and endangered species to address this issue appropriately in future applications. Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with conditions set out in the staff's report. By the above recorded vote, the Board approved SP-97-65 subject to the following conditions: In addition to agricultural, forestal, and recreational activities (which activities include but are not limited to construction and use of structures related thereto), the bridge shall serve no more than two building sites for dwellings (or three building sites for dwellings if one or more of those sites is created as part of a family division) on the south side of Yellow Mountain Creek. The bridge shall also serve accessory structures for the dwellings; The building sites shall be located below the elevation of 900 feet as identified on the County's Open Space Plan; 3 o Engineering Department approVal of an erosion control plan; 4 o Engineering Department receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities affecting wetlands and watercourses; Engineering Department approval of a mitigation plan outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the stream buffer; Engineering~Department approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the crossing. These computations must demonstrate compliance with Sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plans must show the existing and proposed flood plain boundaries and elevations; 7o Engineering Department approval of structural plans, details, and computations; Engineering Department approval of grading plans to evaluate cut and fill in the flood plain; 9 o The 14-foot wide bridge and flood plain crossing shall be in substantial accord with the plan submitted by the applicant with the special use permit, subject to such modifications as are approved by the Engineering Department; i0. The landowner shall have the right to maintain, repair and replace the bridge and flood plain crossing, provided that the replacement, if any, shall be in substantial accord 000149 April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 4) with the design of the original bridge and flood plain crossing unless modifications thereto are approved by the Engineering Department; and 11. A biological survey or such other investigation as may be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager to determine the presence of the James Spiny mussel in the areas in Yellow Mountain Creek immediately affected by the proposed bridge be conducted prior to development of the water quality mitigation plan required in Condition 5. The results of the survey or investigation will be reported to the Water Resources Manager for development of design changes and/or mitigation measures to minimize impact on the species, if found. (Ms. Thomas said the last paragraph of the staff's report says: ~The staff recommends further examination of criteria relating to preservation of natural heritage resources and endangered species to address this issue appropriately in future applications." She asked if action is needed by this Board to start that staff work. Mr. Tucker said staff will start work so that when there are similar applications in the future, there will be a similar condition recommended.) Item 5.3. ZTA-97-02, Jamie Lewis. An Ordinance to amend Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance Supplementary Regulations Sections 5.1.25 (Farm Winery) (Deferred from March 18, 1998). It was noted in the staff's report that on March 18, 1998, the Board held a public hearing on ZTA-97-02 which, if approved, would amend section 5.1.25 (farm winery) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Board requested that several changes be made to section 5.1.25 before acting on the amendment. has now been revised to incorporate the following requested changes: It (i) Section 5.1.25(c) (4) has been revised to authorize a single festival to last for up to three consecutive days. (2) Section 5.1.25(e) (1) has been revised: (a) so that a zoning clearance is required only for festivals at which more than one hundred fifty people will be allowed to attend (rather than for all special events and festivals); (b) to require that an application for a zoning clearance be submitted to the Zoning Administrator at least thirty days prior to the first festival authorized by the zoning clearance (rather than fourteen days prior); and, (c) to require that the Zoning Administrator provide copies of the application to other County offices for their review (rather than require the farm winery to submit applications to each County office). (3) Section 5.1.25(e) (1) has been reorganized to more clearly state that a single zoning clearance may be obtained for multiple festivals that are similar in nature. (4) Section 5.1.25(e) (2) has been revised to allow caterers to use kitchens for, among other things, "warming" food (rather than "preparing" food), and to expressly prohibit using the kitchen to cook food. The ordinance is now ready for adoption to be effective March 18, 1998, if that is the consensus of the Board. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Ordinance: ORDINANCE NO. 98-20 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, is hereby amended and reordained by amending section 5.1.25 as follows: 000250 April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 5) Chapter 20. Zoning Article II. Basic Regulations Sec. 5.1.25. Farm Winery. Each farm winery shall be subject to the following: The owner shall obtain a farm winery license from the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. At least fifty- one (51) percent of the fresh fruits or agricultural products used by the owner to manufacture the wine shall be grown or produced on the farm, unless the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Board waives such requirement. Facilities for fermenting and/or bottling wine shall not be established until the vineyard, orchard or other growing area has been established and is in production. Co The following uses and activities are permitted at a farm winery with the prior approval of a site plan as provided in subsection (d). Special events and festivals are also subject to the additional requirements set forth in subsection (e). On-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. One (1) location may be established on each farm for the on-premise sale of wine and wine consumption. The aggregate total floor area for such sales and consumption shall not exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the aggregate floor area to exceed fifteen hundred (1500) square feet. 2 o Daily tours. Daily tours of a farm winery shall be permitted. Special events. Special events shall be permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. For purposes of this section, a special event is an event conducted at a farm winery on a single day for which attendance is allowed only by invitation or reservation and whose participants do not exceed one hundred fifty (150} persons; special events include, but are not limited to, meetings, conferences, banquets, dinners, wedding receptions, private parties and other events conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A special use permit issued pursuant to section 31.2.4 of this chapter may authorize the number of special events per year to exceed twelve (12), or the number of allowed participants at any event to exceed one hundred fifty (150), or both. Festivals. Festivals shall be permitted up to four (4) times per year. For purposes of this section, a festival is an event conducted at a farm winery for up to three (3) consecutive days which is open to the general public and conducted for the purpose of marketing wine. A use or activity identified in subsection (c) is authorized only with the prior approval of a site plan. Prior to approval of the site plan, the owner shall obtain from the Virginia Department of Transportation approval of a commercial entrance to the farm winery, and any required approval from the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. If a site plan waiver is requested, particular consideration shall be given to provisions for safe and convenient access, parking, outdoor lighting, signs and potential adverse impacts to adjoining property, and April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 6) 00015:1. reasonable standards and conditions may be imposed as conditions of such waiver. eo Special events and festivals shall be also subject to the following: The owner shall obtain a zoning clearance prior to conducting a festival at which more than one hundred fifty (150) persons will be allowed to attend. A single zoning clearance may be obtained for one or more such festivals as provided herein. (a) (b) The owner shall apply for a zoning clearance at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the first festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance. The appiication shall be submiEted to the zoning administrator, who shall forward copies of the application to the county police department, the county fire and rescue division, and the local office of the Virginia Department of Health. The application shall describe the nature of each festival to be authorized by the zoning clearance, the date or dates and hours of operation of each such festival, the facilities, buildings and structures to be used, and the number of participants allowed to attend each festival. (c) Upon a determination that all requirements of the zoning ordinance are satisfied and upon receiving approval, and any conditions of such approval, from the other county offices receiving copies of the application, the zoning administrator shall issue a zoning clearance for one or more festivals. The zoning clearance shall be conditional upon the owner's compliance with all requirements of the zoning ordinance and all conditions imposed by the zoning clearance. (d) The zoning administrator may issue a single zoning clearance for two or more festivals if: (i) the application submitted by the owner includes the required information for each festival to be covered by the zoning clearance: (ii) the zoning administrator determines that each such festival is substantially similar in nature and size; and (iii) the zoning administrator determines that a single set of conditions that would apply to each such festival may be imposed with the zoning clearance. 3 o No kitchen facility permitted by the Health Department as a commercial kitchen shall be allowed on the farm. A kitchen may be used by licensed caterers for the handling, warming and distribution of food, but not for cooking food, to be served at such special event or festival. An outdoor amplified sound system shall be prohibited. 4. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 9:00 a.m. and no later than 10:00 p.m. (Added 12-16-81; amended 1-1-84; amended 4-1-98) Item 5.4. Resolution to take Meadowview Lane in Advanced Mills Estates (SUB-89-011) into the State Secondary System of Highways. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 7) O00 SZ Mr. Mark Henry, Senior Engineer, wrote on March 16, 1998, that the road serving the referenced subdivision is substantially complete and ready for VDOT acceptance. Please request the Board of Supervisors to adopt a resolution for the road. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the streets in Advanced Mills Estates Subdivision, (SUB-89-011) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 1, 1998, fully incorporated herein by reference, are shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the streets meet the requirements established by the Subdivision Str~t Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transportation to add the roads in Southern Hills Subdivision as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated April 1, 1998, to the secondary system of state highways, pursuant to ~33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivision Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary easements for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Meadowview Lane from Station 10+08, right edge of pavement of State Route 743 to Station 15+80, rear of cul-de-sac, 572 lineal feet as shown on plat recorded 4/13/90 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 1095, pages 201-203, with a right-of-way width of 50 feet, with additional plats recorded 3/3/98 in Deed Book 1680, page 258, for a length of 0.11 mile. Total length - 0.11 mile. Item 5.5. Resolution for VDOT to install a "Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772) in Glenaire Subdivision. It was noted in the staff's report that the Glenaire Neighborhood Association requested that a ~Child at Play" sign be located on West Drive on the existing speed limit sign. Although the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, the area has a lot of children. The Board must endorse a resolution supporting the installation of the sign for VDOT to consider the public request. Staff will work with VDOT on the installation of the sign, as necessary. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Glenaire Neighborhood Association is concerned about traffic in their neighborhood and the potential hazard it creates for the numerous children at play in the subdivision; and WHEREAS, the Association believes that a "Child At Play" sign would help to alleviate some of the concerns; 000 53 April !, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 8) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby supports the community's request for VD©T to install the necessary ~Child At Play" sign on West Drive (Route 772) on the existing speed limit sign. (Ms. Thomas said the neighborhood is very eager to get this sign. It is typical of a number of neighborhoods where there has been a turning over of population and now there are again younger families living in an area where there was an older population. She said the signs may need a sunset clause on them as there may come a day when the neighborhood's population changes no longer requires these signs.) Item 5.6. Road Name Change Request - change the name of a portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe. It was noted that staff has completed the road name change phase of the Enhanced 911 implementation project in accordance with the Board's road name change policy. The Board's policy stated that after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names would be permitted without Board approval. The following road name change requests were referred to the Department of Planning and Community Development by the County Executive's Office for review and were subsequently discussed at the Board's meeting on February 4, 1998. At that time, the Board decided to take no action on a request to change the road name of a portion of Mill Creek Drive to Independence Boulevard and a request to change the name of a portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe until a petition was submitted representing signatures of a majority of the landowners adjacent to the roads in question in favor of changing the road name. The petition to change the name of Mill Creek Drive from its intersection with Avon Street Extended (State Route 742) to its intersection with Scottsville Road (U.S. Highway 20) to Independence Boulevard has been withdrawn. The petition to change the name of Berwick Road from its intersection with Ednam Drive to its terminus at the Amvest Building to Boars Head Pointe has been obtained. Staff verified that all landowners adjacent to the road in question have signed the petition in favor of changing the road name to Boars Head Pointe. A property owner will be responsible for costs associated with new signage. Should the Board approve the new road name as requested, it will need to grant staff the authority to coordinate/implement the above referenced change. By the above recorded vote, the Board approved a request to change the name of a portion of Berwick Road to Boars Head Pointe, and granted staff the authority to coordinate/implement the change. Item 5.7. FY 1999 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) Plan and adoption of Resolution for Albemarle/Charlottesville Juvenile Services. It was noted in the staff's report that the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) has allocated $179,956 in FY '99 Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act (VJCCCA) to Albemarle County. To access these funds, the locality (or a combination of localities), must develop an annual plan to show how these funds will be spent to serve the juvenile population. This annual plan must be submitted to DJJ along with a resolution from the Board of Supervisors. The FY '99 plan being submitted to the DJJ allocates the County's $179,956 in VJCCCA funds and local maintenance of effort (MORE) dollars in the amount of $52,231 to eight different programs. The local dollars, considered as MORE by the State, reflect County funds historically appropriated to Community Attention and do not require any additional funding from the County. The FY '99 VJCCCA allocation in this plan is less than the County's FY '98 allocation of $202,444 by $22,488, although the final budget approved by the Legislature approved a hold harmless clause that restores our funding to the current level. However, DJJ is requiring that this plan be submitted with the initial funding allocation of $179,956, which was the amount in the Governor's budget. It is anticipated that the County will need to revise the plan with the additional $22,488 after the budget is signed by the Governor. The eight programs are: Community Attention Programs (Community Attention Home, Family Group Homes, Outreach Services, Teens Give); Juvenile Court Assessment Center; First Time Truant Offender Project; Intensive Probation Program; Delinquency Prevention Program; Curfew Center; 16th District Court Services Fund; and April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 9) 000 54 Electronic Monitoring. The additional funds will be directed to the Electronic Monitoring Program and the !6th District Court Service Fund. Development of this plan has been a collaborative effort among representatives from the Court Service Unit, the CPMT, the Commission on Children and Families staff, the City Manager's Office and the County Executive's Office. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to be submitted to the Department of Juvenile Justice along with the FY '99 plan for Albemarle/Charlottesville Juvenile Services. By the above recorded vote, the Board adopted the following Resolution. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the 1995 Virginia General Assembly enacted the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act to establish balanced, community-based systems of sanctions, programs, and services for juvenile offenders effective January !, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Department of Juvenile Justice has approved funding for the County of Albemarle through the Virginia Juvenile Community Crime Control Act for FY 1999 in the amount of $179,956; and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has submitted a plan together with the City of Charlottesville to the Department, designating Charlottesville as the fiscal agent, to use these Virginia Community Crime Control Act funds to provide services to youth who come before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in FY 1999; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, certifies that it: no Will not contribute less funding for the implementation of this local plan than was expended for block grant funded programs for services either operated or utilized in FY 1995 in compliance with §16.1-309.6 of the Code of Virginia; Will not utilize funds provided by this Act to supplant funds established as the state pool of funds under §2.1-757 in compliance with §16.1-309.3 of the Code of Virginia; Will comply with all provisions of §16.1-309.9 of the Code of Virginia which gives the Board of Juvenile Justice the authority to establish and enforce standards and to review the expenditures and services established by the local plan; Consulted with the Judge(s) of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Director of the Court Services of the participating jurisdictions; and Will submit routine reports and other information to the Director of the Department of Juvenile Justice for each program.of service funded by the Act in compliance with §§16.1-309.3 E and 16.1-309.10 of the Code of Virginia and all applicable departmental procedures. Item 5.8. Authorize County Executive to Execute Deed for Foxcroft Subdivision Critical Slope EaSement. It was noted that as a condition of approval of the Foxcroft Subdivision plat in 1995, the County required that it be granted an easement on those portions of the subdivision lots that were critical slope areas. The purpose of the easement was to prohibit the disturbance of the natural grade of the 0001.55 April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 10) critical slopes. Critical slope areas identified on the final plat were based on information taken from a copy of an erosion control plan. However, as the lots were actually developed, it became apparent that the critical slope areas identified on the plat varied from the critical slope areas in the field. County staff and Hunter Craig Co. decided that a new easement based on a new survey of the critical slope areas should be created on those lots still under Hunter Craig Co.'s ownership. The "Reservation and Deed of Easement and DEed of Release of Easement" would establish a new easement over those portions of subdivision lots in critical slope areas that are under Hunter Craig Co.'s ownership, and would release the existing easement on those same lots. The proposed easement imposes duties on Hunter Craig Co. and its successors to not disturb the natural grade of the critical slope areas and to inspect, repair, replace, restore and maintain the natural grade. The proposed easement also grants to the County the right of ingress and egress to inspect the easement area. Lots that have already been sold would continue to be subject to the existing easement. The County Attorney's Office has approved the deed as to form, and staff recommends that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the deed and thereby accept the deed of easement and release part of the existing easement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. By the above recorded vote, the Board authorized the County Executive to execute the following deed and thereby accept the deed of easement and release part of the existing easement on behalf of the Board of Supervisors. RESERVATION A/fiD DEED OF EASEMENT AND DEED OF RELEASE OF EASEMENT THIS RESERVATION AND DEED OF EASEMENT and DEED OF RELEASE OF EASEMENT is made this 2nd day of April, 1998, by and between CRAIG ENTERPRISES, INC., a Virginia corporation, t/a HUNTER E. CRAIG CO., hereinafter ~Craig," Grantor and Grantee, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter the ~County," Grantor and Grantee. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Craig is the owner of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 of Phase 1 of the Foxcroft Subdivision (hereinafter ~Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37" or "such Lots" or, individually, ~such Lot"), the subdivision plat for which was made by Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc., dated October 5, 1995, last revised November 15, 1995, captioned ~Subdivision Plat Lots 1 thru 63 Phase One, Foxcroft" (hereinafter the "Subdivision"), and which is recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1504, Pages 5-13 (hereinafter the ~Subdivision Plat"); and WHEREAS, as a condition for the approval of the Subdivision Plat, the County required that it be granted an easement on those portions of those Lots within the Subdivision that include "critical slopes," defined as those slopes having a twenty-five percent (25%) or greater slope, which are associated with the Biscuit Run stream valley; and WHEREAS, by a declaration of slope easement dated November 14, 1995 and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1503, Page 511 (hereinafter the ~declaration of slope easement"), Craig reserved an easement unto itself and its successors and assigns, and conveyed an easement to the County for the purposes of prohibiting the disturbance of the natural grade of critical slopes on those portions of Lots 5 through 10, 14 through 17 and 27 through 37 of the Subdivision; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to release, surrender and quitclaim, as the case may be, the declaration of slope easement to the extent such declaration affects those portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 of the Subdivision that April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 11) 000:1.56 include critical slopes, and to have the easement reserved and granted hereby apply to such Lots, as shown on the plat attached hereto and recorded herewith, which plat was prepared by Roger W. Ray & Assoc., Inc., dated September 26, 1997, revised November 19, 1997, captioned ~Plat Showing Revised Location of Easement to Albemarle County on Lots 6, 7, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36 & 37, Phase One, Foxcroft" (hereinafter the ~attached plat"). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and one dollar ($1.00) cash in hand, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Craig does hereby reserve unto itself, its successors and assigns, and grants unto the County, an easement upon the critical slopes located on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 (the "easement"); and Craig and the County release, surrender and quitclaim, as the case may be, all rights and obligations reserved or granted by the declaration of slope easement, as follows: 1. Location of easement: The easement reserved and granted hereby shall be only on those cross-hatched portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 as shown on the attached plat which are critical slopes, as defined above, which are associated with the Biscuit Run stream valley. These cross-hatched areas shall be referred to herein as the critical slope areas. 2. Purpose of easement: The natural grade of the critical slope areas on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 shall not be disturbed, and such critical slope areas shall be inspected, maintained, repaired, replaced and restored as provided herein. 3. Rights and duties of Craig: Craig and/or its successors and assigns shall have the following rights and duties with respect to the easement reserved hereby: a. Duty to not disturb: Craig and/or its successors and assigns shall not disturb the natural grade of the critical slope areas on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37. b. Duty to inspect, repair, replace, restore and maintain: Craig and/or its successors and assigns as the owner of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 shall regularly inspect and maintain the natural grade of the critical slope areas on such Lots. If the natural grade in the critical slope areas has been disturbed, Craig and/or its successors and assigns shall promptly take all necessary action to repair, replace and restore the natural grade. c. Right of ingress and egress: For the purpose of performing the duties identified in sections 3(a) and 3(b), Craig reserves for itself and/or its successors and assigns a nonexclusive right of ingress and egress over the easement, and over those portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 identified as the 7.5 foot utility and drainage easement reserved along all lot lines, as provided in Note 6 on page 1 of the Subdivision Plat, to provide access to the easement on each such Lot (the ~access easement"); provided that if the access easement is obstructed, then access to the easement shall be over the remaining portions of such Lot on which buildings or structures are not located, to the extent necessary to provide reasonable access thereto. d. Assignment and successors : The rights and duties of Craig may be assigned to the Foxcroft Owners Association, Inc., and/or to the individual purchasers of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 as the successors in interest to Craig. Whenever Craig assigns such rights and duties, it shall promptly notify the County's Department of Engineering and Public Works of the assignment. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 12) 000:1.5'7 4. Rights of the CounTy: The County shall have the following rights with 'respect to the easement it has been granted hereby: a. Right to inspect: The County shall have the right to inspect the natural grade of the critical slope areas on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37, and if the natural grade in the critical slope areas has been disturbed, may notify Craig and/or its successors and assigns to promptly take all necessary action to repair, replace and restore the natural grade. b. Right of ingress and egr~s: For the purpose of exercising the right granted in section 4(a), the County is granted a nonexclusive right of ingress and egress over the easement, and Over the access easement; provided that if the access easement is obstructed, then access to the easement shall be over the remaining portions of such Lot on which buildings or structures are not located, to the extent necessary to provide reasonable access thereto. c. No duty to repair, replace, restore and maintain: If the natural grade of a critical slope area on Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 or 34 through 37 has been disturbed, the County shall have no duty to repair, replace and restore the natural grade. Such duty is exclusively that of Craig and/or its successors and assigns. 5. Easement shall run with ~h~ l~nd: The reservation and deed of easement established hereby shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of Craig and the County and their successors and assigns. 6. Surrender and release of declaration of slop~ easement: To the extent the declaration of slope easement affects those portions of Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 of the Subdivision that include critical slopes, Craig hereby surrenders and releases its reservation of an easement, and all rights and obligations pertaining thereto, and the County hereby surrenders, releases and quitclaims unto Craig and/or its successors and assigns the easement granted to it, and all rights and obligations pertaining thereto, set forth in the declaration of slope easement dated November 14, 1995, and recorded in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the County of Albemarle in Deed Book 1503, Page 511. This release affects only Lots 6, 7, 28 through 31 and 34 through 37 and not any other lots in the Subdivision which were originally subject to the declaration of slope easement. Item 5.9. Letter dated March 24, 1998, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, re: comments regarding transportation matters discussed at the February 4 and March 4, 1998 Board meetings, was received for information, as follows: ~We offer the following comments regarding transportation matters that were discussed at the February 4 and March 4, 1998 Board meetings. I have responded to Ms. Mallek regarding the private entrance on Route 743. Please see a copy of the letter which is attached for your information. The Department cannot prohibit the use of air brakes along the Route 29 Corridor, nor do we recommend that a restriction be pursued due to safety and liability issues. We are continuing to investigate potential remedies to this concern. The right of way on Route 667 (Catterton Road) west of Route 776 has been dedicated, however, several significant temporary construction easements are necessary in order to build the road and tie in slopes. Many of these easements have not been dedicated and several property owners have April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 13) 000:1.,55 refused to allow use of these easements across their properties. We will continue to work with interested property owners to obtain the required easements on the future occasion that road improvements can be funded (see attachment). The Department will consider appropriate means of notifying the public about the Route 29 South Corridor Study meetings. I will keep the Board apprised of these considerations. Route 615 (Lindsay Road) has been machined and gravel has been added as requested for routine maintenance. Please share this information with the Board members. If there are any questions, I will be prepared to discuss them at the April 1 Board meeting." Item 5.10. January, 1998 Financial Report for the General, School and Capital Funds, was received as information. It was noted that General Fund revenue projections were revised as of December 31, 1997. Preliminary estimates indicate that General Property Tax collections will be approximately $1.7 million less than budgeted. Permit fees and the GE-Fanuc loan repayment will help offset the estimated reduction in property tax collections, resulting in a net estimated revenue reduction of $1.4 million. General Fund expenditure projections have been revised to reflect a two-percent holdback for operating expenses. The expenditure reductions have not been adjusted to reflect the additional tax revenues of $130,282 from the January updated revenue projection. This will be done in the March report. Education revenue projections have been revised to reflect a $1.1 million General Fund holdback. This projection also does not reflect the additional $195,422 in tax revenues from the January revised revenue projections that the Schools will receive to address the School's $1.1 million in the current year. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5 percent operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. Item 5.11. February, 1998 Financial Management Report for the General, School and Capital Funds, was received as information. It was noted that General Fund expenditure projections have been revised to reflect a two-percent holdback for operating expenses. The expenditure reductions have not been adjusted to reflect the additional tax revenues of $130,282 from the January updated revenue projection. Education expenditure projections reflect a 7.5 percent operating expense holdback, net compensation adjustment. Item 5.12. Monthly update on the FY 1997-98 Project Schedule for the Department of Engineering & Public Works as of March 20, 1998, was received as information. (Ms. Thomas asked if some of the projects have been affected by the changes made in the Capital Improvements Plan. For example: the Crozet Park Fields project is noted as having been delayed by the Parks Department. Mr. Bill Mawyer, County Engineer, said that project was not delayed by changes in the CIP. The Parks Department is currently doing a master plan for the whole park in order to implement different phases in small parts. There has been some grading of the Little League Fields. (Ms. Thomas asked about the Murray High School renovations project. Mr. Mawyer said that was a consequence of changes in the CIP. The Schools decided to defer the project (air-conditioning, and other improvements) several years in order to stay within its budget. (Ms. Thomas asked about the time extension negotiations on Monticello High School. Mr. Mawyer said negotiations are in progress, in fact there is a job sit~ meeting with the contractor this morning. There have been ongoing discussions with them about time extensions for weather and change orders and April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 14) 000159 they recently came to a tentative agreement on time extensions to address all of'the issues to date. This would take "substantial completion" of the school to the end of July. The original contract called for substantial completion on June 15, and now it will be about July 30. He does not think that will impact the Schools significantly. It will not all be ready on the last day; it will be ready in parts. There are six individual buildings and some of them are more nearly completed than others. The three school houses are well along in completion stage. The administrative area is the part that lags in completion. He expects the Schools to get occupancy of the buildings in a timely manner. Mr. Mawyer said the weather situation the last 18 months justifies a time extension. They have been trying to deal fairly contractor, and at the same time, represent the County's needs in getting the school on time. Kenbridge has generally been reasonable with the County, and hopefully, both will sign off on the proposed agreement and the end of July will be generally the completion date. (Mr. Mawyer said as to transportation matters, Kenbridge has asked that Mill Creek Drive not be opened until around the time the school is completed. They feel it will help them expedite completion of the project. With materials stored on both sides of the road and equipment staged in the road, it would be too much to have public traffic in the middle of that operation. Staff does not know of any reason not to agree to that request. It would be mutually beneficial to allow Kenbridge to continue to maintain security on the whole site. (Mr. Martin said given the amount of rain that has occurred the last few months, it is amazing that the project is still close to being completed on time. Mr. Mawyer said the project started in December, 1996 about the time of tremendous snows in December and January, so there has been a lot of discussion as to how to fairly compensate Kenbridge on time for those periods.) Item 5.13. Copy of letter dated March 11, 1998, from Ms. Janice D. Sprinkle, Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Mr. Roger L. Gibson, re: Tax Map 58A2, Parcel 21, T/A Ivy Exxon - Determination of Official Zoning to be C-I, Commercial, was received as information. Item 5.14. Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road Apts.) Monthly Bond and Program Report for the month of March, 1998, was received as information. Item 5.15. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for March 10, 1998, was received as information. Item 5.16. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for January 15 and February 19, 1998, were received for information. Item 5.17. Letter dated March 24, 1998, from Gerald G. Utz, Contract Administrator, Department of Transportation, providing notice that VDOT will hold a location and design public hearing on the proposed improvements to Route 631 (Rio Road), from Brookway Drive to Stonehenge Road, Albemarle County, (Project #0631-002-S66,C501), was received for information. The proposed project is to install guardrail on the southeast side of Rio road between Brookway Drive and Stonehenge Road. In order to install the guardrail, five feet of additional roadway will be needed. VDOT proposes to widen the cut area on the northwest side of Rio Road to accommodate the installation of the guardrail at the top of the existing fill area. Rio Road will be closed to through traffic during the construction periods under the proposed plan. Access will be provided to all properties during this construction. Agenda Item No. 6. Approval of Minutes: February 21, April 17 and May 8, 1996. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 15) Ms. Thomas had read February 21, 1996, pages 1 to 12, and found them to be in order with the exception of some inconsequential typographical errors. Mr. Marshall had read May 8, 1996, and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to approve the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 7. Transportation Matters. Mr. Perkins asked for an update on the bridge projects at Sugar Hollow. Ms. Tucker said that VDOT has awarded a contract for that work and it should be starting this Spring. They have not yet set a preconstruction conference. Wilken's Construction will be building both bridges. She will copy the Board on the pre-construction meeting notice. Mr. Martin asked that she speak about Rocky Hollow Road. Ms. Tucker said Mr. Cropp's concerns are valid, as are those of most people who live on gravel roads. Everyone is familiar with the process for allocating the limited funds that include securing the donated right-of-way or easements for improving gravel roads. Usually VDOT looks to having that donation occur prior to adding the road to the priority list or Six-Year Plan. VDOT is interested in working with interested citizens if they want to pursue the right-of-way or easements necessary for improvements. She does not believe this road lends itself to the Pave-in-Place program, but she will look at minimizing easements and right-of-way. Mr. Perkins asked if the road could be black-topped in the places where there is frequent flooding. Ms. Tucker said they could look at approaches to pipe crossing or bridge structures to minimize the gravel washing into the streams. They usually do not do anything more than a couple of hundred feet of approach work. They can look to stabilize spot locations. Mr. Marshall asked if it would not be cheaper to put on some hard rock similar to that on primary grades. Ms. Tucker said it is cheaper, but the process involves improving roads first before that actual stabilization is made. They have to get a minimum 18-foot width before they can actually surface-treat a road. Even when they make exceptions and do spot improvements, they look to get that minimum road width just to allow the passage of two lanes of traffic. It is not a matter of being allowed to Pave- ~in-Place; rather, there needs to be improvement where they put a minimum shoulder and ditch alongside an 18-foot wide roadway back into right-of-way or easements. That usually means some grading and preliminary work. She stated that she will work with Mr. Cropp. Mr. Martin thanked Ms. Tucker for Route 615. Mr. Marshall said he is going to bring this up at the meeting in Culpeper tomorrow, but he is concerned about the new bridge on Route 20 (known as Carter's Bridge), which is going to be replaced. When this bridge is replaced, he would like to be able to drive across the bridge and see the river. He asked that VDOT not install a concrete wall. He thinks they can install guardrails and still have a nice wooden fence so that someone can look down at the river. He asked if he should bring this up at the Preallocation Hearing tomorrow. Ms. Tucker said it would be appropriate to state that desire at the hearing. It will only go to support what is already the intent, but it is good to have it on record. Mr. Marshall said he received a call from Mr. Irvin Jones, Principal at Monticello High School, who expressed concern about being able to exit the new road onto Route 20. He asked if a stop light could be installed at that point. 'Mr. Marshall said he would like for Ms. Tucker to call Mr. Jones and tell him how this is proceeding, with slowing the traffic down to make it April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 16) safer. Ms. Tucker said Mr. Jones has also contacted her and she suggested he talk with the County's Engineering staff. Mr. Mawyer said the Engineering Department has been working with VDOT staff to reevaluate that whole intersection. They plan on issuing a report within the week stating some recommendations so the Board can have input at that time. He believes the general recommendation is that the intersection does not warrant a stop light so he thinks other things to improve it will be recommended. Staff plans to meet with Dr. Hurt to see if he will allow some clearing on his property to improve the sight distance, particularly to the north. There is the possibility of installing some flashing lights on Route 20 at both ends of the intersection. Mr. Marshall said something needs to be done now to slow traffic down so people will start getting used to it before the school opens. He reiterated that it is a dangerous situation. He does appreciate everything that is being done. He asked that Mr. Jones be contacted and given the status. Mr. Bowerman asked the status of the through-truck traffic prohibition on Rio Road. Ms. Tucker said that request is in the State Traffic Engineer's office for the Commonwealth Transportation Board's (CTB) approval. Mr. Bowerman asked that the Board be made aware next month of the status including when it will be heard by the CTB. Ms. Thomas noted that the Ivy Store burned and will have to be rebuilt. They will also have to take up the gasoline tanks and replace those. She would like for some discussion of this with the property owner and the storekeepers at this point. There is going to be major work done there and everyone is aware of what a dangerous parking lot it is where people just sort of merge on and off of the highway. She just wanted to alert staff that if there is any chance of helping make that a safer parking lot with a more definite entrance and exit, this might be the opportunity. Ms. Tucker said VDOT supports that request. Ms. Tucker said a public notice has been mailed about the upcoming public hearing for the guardrail project on Rio Road. They are proposing that the road be closed, which is a potential 60 to 75-day road closing, beginning on June 1, 1999. She has met with the County and City Engineering staffs, County Police Department and Fire and Rescue, and all are unanimously in support of closing that road. Fire and Rescue feel they will better be able to deal with their operations knowing for certain that use of that road is not an option at any time. Since this is a secondary road, its closing is a local issue and needs Board support. Mr. Perkins suggested timing the closing of the road with the closing of the schools, but that would require the road to be completed before the schools reopened. Ms. Tucker replied that she had been told that bus routing would not be interrupted by the closing. Mr. Martin asked how the people living inside that area would leave. Ms. Tucker answered that the road would be closed between Stonehenge Drive and Agnese Street, which only includes two driveways. Mr. Bowerman suggested talking to Mr. Willie Smith, Transportation Director, to find out ahead of time what impact it would make on his operation. Mr. Bowerman asked whether they were aware that the main detour would be Route 29 and the Route 250 Bypass. Ms. Tucker acknowledged that there would be an impact to local traffic, but strictly through traffic would be guided into the Route 29 Corridor. She hoped to have appropriate detour information available at the public hearing on April 21, at Charlottesville High School from 5:00 to 7:00 p.m. Ms. Tucker noted that the $600,000 in safety funds allocated is $600,000 above and beyond the secondary allocation, and that if it is not used here, it goes away. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that staff draft a resolution in support of closing Rio Road during this time and that it be put on next week's consent agenda. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 17) O0016Z AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Mr. Mawyer reported that they have completed design documents for the stop light at Mill Creek, that is has been advertised for bids and that they expect to have it completed by September. Agenda Item No. 8. PUBLIC HEARING on a request from Hurt Investment Company to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to 119 acs (part of proposed Fontana Subdivision) on TM78, P57 (portion) located on E side of Rt 20 N, N of Phase III of Wilton Farms Apartments & Garnett Treatment Center. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on March 16 and March 23, 1998.) Mr. David Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant, Hurt Investment Company, has requested service area designation for water and sewer service to 119 acres of the proposed Fontana development which received preliminary subdivision plat approval for 167 lots on December 19, 1997. A special use permit was also recently approved for the Frost Montessori School on the property near Route 20. The property was part of the larger ~Luxor property." The southern portion of Parcel 57 is already in the service area for both water and sewer. He said there are two proposed lots which straddle the Development Area boundary which is at the 600-foot contour along the eastern edge of this property. These lots have both R-4 and RA zoning. Based on the approved preliminary plat, there are building sites within the R-4 portions of both lots. In order to be consistent, the County's policy for establishing service area boundaries says service should only be provided to the portions of these two lots within the Development Area. He noted that the Ashcroft development is to the east of this property and outside of the Development Area. However, it is within the service area for water service only. Water service is available on-site and sewer service is approximately 800 feet from the property. Mr. Benish said that as a general policy, staff has advised that public utility capacities be reserved to support development of designated Development Areas. This request is consistent with the public utility policy of the Land Use Plan provided service is limited to lots within the designated Development Area. Staff recommends that this area be included in the service area for water and sewer service. However, in order to insure that service is provided only within the designated Development Area, staff recommends that the Board withhold approval of an amendment to the service area boundary until approval of a final subdivision plat. This would allow staff time to insure that appropriate notes are included on the plat for lots in question limiting service to building sites within the designated Development Area (R-4 zoned portion of the lots). Mr. Bowerman asked whether the Board could put a note on the plat that the Board will never extend water to a building built inside the rural area portion of that site. Ms. Humphris stated that, for 18 years the Board has stuck strictly to the policy because they do not wish to endanger the watershed and that message must be emphasized. She would hope that such a policy would be the consensus of the Board and that the notice would be given up front. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Board simply concur with the service area recommendation of staff and that appropriate notes be included on the plat indicating that no public water will be provided to those lots above the 600-foot elevation. At this time, Mr. Marshall asked if the applicant wanted to speak. The applicant was not present. He then opened the public hearing. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed and the matter placed before the Board. Motion was offered by Ms. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve an amendment of the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water and sewer service to the proposed Fontana Subdivision, as recommended by staff, and that appropriate notes be included on the plats in large bold print that no public water will be provided on those lots above the April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 18) 600-foot elevation. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 9. Request from Ellis A. Sprouse to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park, Tax Map 57, Parcel 8, is located on the north side of Route 240 in Crozet. Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the applicant, Ellis A. Sprouse, requests service area designation for sewer service to the Beaver Hill Mobile Home Park. The 47.5 acre parcel is located on the north side of Route 240 across the road from The Highlands at Mechums River development. The property is designated as Rural Area in the Land Use Plan, and is located within both the Beaver Creek water supply and the South Fork Rivanna River water supply watersheds. This property is currently in the service area for limited water service to a ~house, storage building, equipment shed, shop, and 43 mobile home spaces." The service area boundary was amended in August, 1983 to provide limited water service. Mr. Benish said the subject property is not within a Development Area (Route 240 forms the northern boundary for the Community of Crozet) . The applicant is requesting sewer service for this site due the existence of at least one failing septic system which serves multiple ~mobile homes. The Health Department has evaluated the site and determined that there is a system failure, and that there are very limited reasonable alternative locations for replacement fields on the property. During a field review of the site, Health Department Officials also identified to staff two other septic fields which appear to be in the early stages of failure. Sewer service is available at The Highlands at Mechums River across Route 240 from this property. Connection to this line will require pumping from the mobile home park. There are no other sewer lines near this property where ~gravity service" could be provided~ Based on information provided by the Health Department, the request is consistent with the strategies of the Land Use Plan for the provision of service outside the designated Development Area. Staff recommends proceeding to public hearing to consider providing sewer service to existing structures and mobile home sites. Mr. Bill Brent from the Albemarle County Service Authority noted that the Board might want to specifically limit sewer service to the structure and those mobile homes and that the right to sewer service should expire if the mobile homes are removed. Mr. Marshall asked the applicant to speak. Ms. Bev Ergenbright gave a picture of the court to the Board and noted that it was a 30-year system that was deteriorating and the cost to replace the lines would be only a temporary measure. A sewer hookup would solve the environmental problems. She stated that the trailer park had a good reputation in the community and was usually near full capacity. The owners maintain a nice court and she would like to see the request go to a public hearing. She understands that the hookup is only 100 feet across the road, and the court was there long before the service area boundary was decided. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to set this request for public hearing on May 6, 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Request to set a public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for sewer service to the proposed Indoor Tennis Facility at Farmington Country Club, located on Tax Map 60E2, Parcel 1. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 19) Note: Ms. Humphris noted that she is a member of the Farmington County Club, but she feels she can deal with this issue fairly. Mr. Benish summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board of Supervisors. He said the Board of Supervisors will'consider SP-98-05 for Farmington Country Club on May 13, 1998. It is a request to locate an indoor tennis facility adjacent to existing maintenance storage buildings on Old Mill Road approximately 1200 feet east of the existing clubhouse on the Farmington Country Club property. Farmington Country Club is also requesting amendment of the Albemarle County Service Authority's service area to provide for sewer service to the proposed indoor tennis facility with bathroom facilities. The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is zoned Rural Area. Farmington lies within the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir watershed. The Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific regarding where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available. The Farmington residential area is designated for water service only. The Farmington Clubhouse complex was designated for both water and sewer service in the late 1970's when the Morey Creek Interceptor was constructed. That designation was made prior to establishment of the current policy regarding extension of public utilities to the Rural Area. The Farmington Country Club Clubhouse is currently served by privately maintained sewer lines and a pump station. An existing sewer line traverses the proposed indoor tennis facility property and connects to the Morey Creek Interceptor located on Route 601 (Old Garth Road) near the railroad underpass at the Route 250 Bypass ramp. The Service Authority has stated that the private lines and the Morey Creek Interceptor have adequate capacity to accept the additional load. The rate of flow is controlled by the existing pump station on the Farmington property. Staff is not aware of any public health or safety issues. The Health Department has not yet made comment on the potential for a septic system. This request is not consistent with Comprehensive Plan recommendations regarding provision of public water and sewer service areas. The proposed use is located outside a designated Development Area, within a reservoir watershed, and is subject to a special use permit. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. In its favor, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the special use permit, and the proposed use is located adjacent to an existing sewer line. An extenuating circumstance is the fact that the existing club is currently within the service area for sewer service. Based on this information, the Board may want to consider holding a public hearing to receive comment. Mr. Bill Brent noted that the Clubhouse was originally served by the treatment plant and the connection was made when the interceptor was built. He is not aware that any additional buildings were added to the sewer service that weren't on the original treatment plant. Ms. Thomas stated that she wanted to hear the special use permit before deciding on this request. Ms. Humphris noted the last paragraph of the letter from the architect, stating agreement with former County Attorney, George St. John, that the club had a vested right to access to the club-owned sewer line and wondered whether that was legally pertinent. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Ms. Humphris, to set this item for public hearing for May 13, 1998. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Humphris and Mr. Marshall. None. Agenda Item No. 11. Neighborhood Team and Neighborhood Connections Update. Ms. Lee Catlin passed out evaluations from the Neighborhood Connections '98 conference. The goal of the conference was to enable neighborhood groups and leaders to effectively lead and organize programs to enhance their neighborhoods. The workshops were led by local people, with local resources. She felt that the results were positive, that most participants considered it a worthwhile event that they would like to see happen again. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 20) Ms. Thomas commented that she had been there for the wrap-up session and that one of the charges made later was that the whole thing was drumming up more business for the County so that the County budget could be made larger. She, however, saw in the few minutes she was there that the focus was on how the neighborhoods could be more effective and do more. Ms. Catlin also announced the rededication of the W. D. Ward Center in Esmont for April 18, 1998. Agenda Item No. 12. Discussion: Proposed Dance Hall Ordinance. Mr. Davis said since the County's current Dance Hall Ordinance does not comprehensively cover contemporary concerns, the Board had requested staff to develop a revised ordinance. A draft ordinance was prepared to address the main issues the Board previously identified. Highlights of those items include: 1) Background Investigations: prior to consideration by the Board of an application for a dance hall permit the application shall be referred to: a) the chief of police for owner criminal background check and public safety issues; b) the fire chief for building and parking lot safety concerns; and, c) the Zoning Administrator to determine whether zoning and building requirements had been met for the proposed use. 2) Right of Entry: members of the police department and fire department may enter the dance hall at any time to ensure compliance with the applicable laws. 3) On-site Security: one special police officer, bonded private security officer, or police officer shall be provided on-site at the expense of the permittee for every 100 patrons in attendance, 4) Loitering: it is unlawful for any person to loiter around or about the premises of a dance hall while a dance is being held, 5) Regulations for Teen Dance Hall: a) persons 19 years of age or older shall not be allowed to enter or remain on the premises of a teenage dance hall unless they are an employee or guardian of a person attending; b) no alcoholic beverages shall be served or permitted on premises; c) no persons 18 years of age or younger shall be permitted to leave and thereafter reenter during the course of the dance, 6) Restrictions for Adult Dance Hall: no one under the age of 18 shall enter or remain in a dance hall unless they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian or by a spouse or sibling over the age of 18. 7) Revocation: upon finding that there has been a violation of any of the provisions of this article, the zoning ordinance, or building code, or upon finding that the use constitutes a nuisance, the Board may revoke any permit issued. 8) Exemptions: requirements shall not apply to dances conducted for benevolent or charitable purpose, nor to dances conducted not-for- profit under the auspices of religious, educational, civic or military organizations 9) Current Curfew: the County's curfew limits minors from being in motor vehicles from 1:00 a.m through 5:00 a.m., unless they have written parental consent. The City of Charlottesville's curfew prohibits minors under the age of 17 to remain in any public place or motor vehicle from 12:01 a.m. through 5:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and 1:00 a.m. through 5:00 a.m. Saturday and Sunday, unless they have written parental consent. Mr. Davis said this information is provided for the Board's review and discussion. Guidance is needed in order to deoide whether to go to public hearing or not. If a public hearing is needed, additional input is required on hours of operation and an annual permit fee. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 21) 000166, Mr. Martin said he felt the staff had done a good job and asked what would happen if the police did a background check on someone and found they had a criminal record. Ms. Thomas noted that a decision would have to be made as to whether the person was fit to engage in the business of a dance hall and asked what this would entail. Mr. Davis replied that the police would report their findings to the Board and the Board could use those results as a basis for denying the permit. Mr. Bowerman asked whether this was legal. Mr. Davis replied that it was, that the Board has to power to regulate dance halls and that this is modeled on other ordinances that have been sustained in other jurisdictions. Ms. Thomas asked what happened to the police findings. Mr. Davis answered that they were reported to the Board of Supervisors. The Board would determine the suitability of the proposed dance hall. He noted that because this is a police powers ordinance, the Board needed to address how they would deal with existing dance halls. On the issue of curfew, he would not recommend a general curfew ordinance, since it is very complicated and the City is currently embroiled in a lawsuit over theirs. On the issue of the license fee, under enabling legislature, the Board has authority to charge up to $600 annually, with the intent being to allow the County to recover the cost of this permitting process. Ms. Thomas asked if there would be a suggestion from staff as to how much the process would cost. Mr. Tucker replied that there would be and he would also check with other communities that have established similar ordinances. Mr. Bowerman noted that Section 3-11.10 prohibits intoxicated persons from the dance hall. It would seem to him that if an adult dance hall contemplated serving alcohol, that this section would be unenforceable. Mr. Davis replied that he was correct from a practical viewpoint; the police use more of a public drunkenness-behavior test, since defining ~legally intoxicated" is often subjective~ Mr. Bowerman commented that if this measure was designed to be a measure of enforcement of public nuisances, then it fits; as a practical matter, it seems unenforceable. Mr. Marshall asked how this would fit into bars that have dancing. Mr. Davis replied that this ordinance would require them to get a permit. Mr. Perkins asked about a private party at Boar's Head for a private party. Mr. Davis replied that if it were not open to the general public, it would not be covered by this ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked if there were any existing ordinances that allow dance halls without allowing alcohol. Mr. Marshall asked what would prevent a dance hall from signing people up and becoming a private club. Mr. Davis answered that they would have to look at that. Mr. Martin noted that the discussion started over teen dances and that it has now become much more broadbased, discussing every club that has dancing. His intention had been to allow people to open a nice clean dance club for teens, but all of a sudden, the discussion is over every single place that has dancing, with the exception of the clubs that cost a large sum of money to join. Mr. Perkins suggested an exemption if the dance floor does not exceed a certain amount of square feet. Mr. Martin said the Board needs to look at the outcome on various clubs, hotels and restaurants that would now suddenly be affected by this ordinance. Mr. Tucker noted that the current ordinance applies both to adults and teenagers; the Board could either say that the new ordinance would only apply to teenagers or not give any retroactive power to the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman stated that he did not consider many of the places mentioned as being dance halls. Ms. Thomas noted that they are still dance halls under the current ordinance. Mr. Davis replied that whether those places had received a permit to be a dance hall was another issue. Ms. Humphris thought that the discussion was about places whose primary purpose was dancing. Mr. Davis replied that it would be difficult to make distinctions in some cases. Mr. Martin suggested that the ordinance be limited just to teen dancing and that any other changes should be made with the public's knowledge. Mr. Marshall said that he did not want to cause any hardship to existing or future businesses. Ms. Humphris said.this ordinance was too much rigmarole for what the Board was trying tO accomplish. The new ordinance wouldn't apply to charitable dances, which doesn't seem to accomplish what the Board desired. She asked whether it could be made to apply to charitable organizations. Mr. Bowerman said such things weren't an on-going commercial event, that it was April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 22) 000167 not his intent to regulate school dances but rather to regulate, the for-profit weekly dances. He doesn't envision the ordinance regulating dances run by a school or church. Mr. Davis asked what adult dance halls the Board wished to regulate. Mr. Marshall asked whether there was any need at all to regulate adult dance halls. Mr. Thomas asked whether anything in the ordinance would make enforcement of nuisance laws better than the current situation. Mr. Bowerman replied that it would, but it would also penalize everyone. Ms. Humphris asked if the Board could define a dance hall based on square footage. Mr. Davis said they could define a dance hall as exceeding a certain number of square feet, so long as there was a reason for that number. Mr. Bowerman asked about establishments where the dancing is an ancillary use to the primary purpose of the business. He asked if the Board could look now at a teen dance hall ordinance. Mr. Davis said the ordinance could not separate teen from adult dance halls. Mr. Marshall said the Board needs to keep in mind the economic impact such an ordinance would have on a lot of businesses. Mr. Marshall said that when you get to the adult dance halls, you have to deal with hotels and such. Mr. Davis asked whether the old ordinance would be repealed as part of the teenage dance ordinance. Mr. Marshall replied that may be necessary. Mr. Martin said the Board needed to proceed on two things: regulating teen dance halls and then making the ordinance fit the businesses that the Board wants it to fit. Ms. Thomas asked how someone would prove that they are 14, without a driver's license or other ID. Mr. Davis noted that one can get identification from the DMV, even if under age. Ms. Thomas said this issue needed to be sent back to staff for further work, to end up with an ordinance that would regulate teenage dance halls. Mr. Bowerman said a background check was a "bit of overkill." Mr. Davis said he could take that out, leaving just a building and safety inspection. Mr. Davis asked whether the Board wanted to clarify what kinds of adult dance halls they were interested in regulating. His suggestion was that, if the status quo was desired, they should repeal the adult dance hall restrictions while accepting the teenage dance hall ordinance. Mr. Tucker asked whether this ordinance would exempt school dances. Mr. Davis replied that it would. The consensus of the Board was that Mr. Davis should redraft the proposed ordinance. Agenda Item No. 13. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Ms. Thomas announced that NACO's National County Government Week is in the middle of April. The theme is creating sustainable communities. She suggested there be a tie-in with the Sustainability Council if the Board wants to pick up on the national theme. Mr. Tucker said he would ask Ms. Caitlin to contact her if she has some ideas about what to do. Ms. Thomas asked about the advertisements for public meetings which appear in the Observer. She said the size and content of the advertisements seems to being decreasing. She asked that staff provide information on the costs involved and also look at the publications in which the ads are published. Ms. Humphris said a lot of people think that those few public hearings are all the Board deals with. Mr. Bowerman felt the Board should look at how many publications are carrying this advertising. Ms. Humphris said she had received in the mail yesterday from the State Department of Forestry a communication dated March 18 containing an invitation to a series of public hearings on riparian forest budgets, and a draft implementation plan for Virginia. Unfortunately, the hearings took place on March 30, March 31, with one being held today in Lynchburg, one tomorrow in Boydton and one on Tuesday the 7th in Fredericksburg. She asked if any member April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 23 ) 000 .68 of staff would be attending. Mr. Tucker Said he had sent the notice to David Hirschmann. Ms. Thomas mentioned that she has been attending the Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy meetings. At first she thought it was a waste of time, but it turned out that she was the only member of local government present. She was the only one who had any knowledge of the various tax programs, such as the land use value taxation, and how that might be used in getting to do best management practices. Information will be received later on the strategies to try and protect the Chesapeake Bay. Ms. Thomas said she was interested in communications back and forth about hunters. She left the meeting assuming the Board would get a report back from the staff including more factual information. The hunters she has talked to say it is the illegal hunters that need policing, but citizens are often more concerned about perfectly legal hunting activities which scare them. Mr. Tucker said staff will be providing a report on increasing enforcement activities during the next hunting season in the Fall and the cost of that. Ms. Humphris said the problem is not illegal hunters, but legal hunting taking place quite close to where people are living or walking. She thought the idea had been brought up of a citizen's committee to discuss the issue. Mr. Martin said he did not want ~to go down that road," to which Mr. Marshall replied that he would not, either. Mr. Perkins stated that people need to be more aware of the regulations. Ms. Humphris said there is a large segment of the public that wants the Board to take a closer look at this issue. Ms. Thomas said she is interested in a report from staff and will withhold judgment on the issue until she sees the report. Ms. Humphris said the Board should form a citizens' committee to come back with recommendations on this issue. Mr. Martin said the Board has heard hard facts on the issue. He feels a committee would just come back with a bunch of regulations to ban various things. Mr. Bowerman said the County has ordinances which deal with the rural area in terms of agricultural, silviculture uses by right. Also, it is recognized that some uses were abused in the past where there were actually development activities taking place before there was an approved plan. It is his understanding, and from looking at pictures, that there has been about a 100-foot wide, two-mile cut of timber made in a location where the County has no approved plans for a road. He asked if there is an application on file. Mr. Cilimberg said there is an application for road plans, part of the total property that was approved for a final plat, but staff has nothing being processed now. Mr. Bowerman said the intent of the ordinance is to prevent destruction of property without controls, grading or soil erosion and all those measures. When there is a situation where the intent is clearly one thing, but has been represented as something entirely different, it is clear to him there was an activity on the property. It is not a parcel of land that has been forested. His point is that if the County cannot do anything about it, get rid of the ordinance. If the incident is prosecutable, then that needs to be done. If this is a logging operation, it is a violation of State law and the Best Management Practices ordinance. Even if the contractor is gone, hold the property owner responsible. Mr. Davis stated that in adopting the Water Resources Ordinance, there were specific guidelines given as to when something is a development. If there are plans for the property that were approved for development, it becomes a factual dispute over whether someone is foresting or just clearing for roads. If it is development, they can be required to have permits. Mr. Cilimberg said that from the viewpoint of the plan approval, he needs interpretation to see if they are allowed to hold anything that may come in at a later point. Foresting would be an allowable use, but clearing it for development would be a violation. Mr. Marshall announced that people wishing to speak at the public hearing on the budget on April 8, 1998, may n©~ sign up to speak until 6:00 p.m. that day. April 1, 1998 (Regular Meeting) (Page 24) Agenda Item No. 14. Executive Session: Personnel and Legal Matters. At 11:46 a.m., motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board go into Executive Session pursuant to Section 2.1- 344.A of the Code of Virginia, under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters regarding the status and assignment of a specific employee and legal representation issues; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding a service agreement; under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding pending litigation concerning the transit: of Charlottesville to town status. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas Mr Bowerman, Ms Humphris and Mr. Marshall. ' ' · None. Agenda Item No. 15. Certify Executive Session. At 1:20 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Ms. Humphris, that the Board certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member,s knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas, Mr Bowerman, Ms Humphris and Mr. Marshall ' · None. Agenda Item No. 16. Appointments. None were made. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was immediately adjourned. by the of County Chairm~n