Loading...
1996-08-07August 7, 1996 '(Regular Day Meeti~ng) (Page 1) OOO00 . A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 7, 1996, 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 (arrived at 9:04 a.m.), 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 9:03 a.m., by the Chairman, Ms. Humphris. 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 from the PUBLIC. There were no other matters brought up at this time. Agenda Item No. 5. Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation. A certificate was presented to Ms. Lois Ann Brown who served on the Region Ten Community Services Board from June 8, 1988 until June 30, 1996. Ms. Brown was an outstanding leader in planning/overseeing services for persons with mental abilities. She served on the Executive Committee for four years, was elected Vice-Chairman of the Board, and served on the Mental Retardation Advisory Committee. The interests of persons with mental disabil- ities and the citizens of Albemarle County will continue to benefit from Ms. Brown's outstanding representation (she had almost perfect attendance over the eight years during which she served). A certificate was present to Ms. Grace Carpenter who served on the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors from June 29, 1988 until June 30, 1996. While serving, Ms. Carpenter was elected president of the Educa- tional Foundation's Board of Directors, and during this period, the Foundation launched its first major fundraising campaign, raising its goal of $500,000. She participated in the search for PVCC's president, Deborah M. DiCroce. She served as chair of the College Board during the 1993-94 and 1994-95 academic years. In 1995, Ms. Carpenter was named Outstanding College Board Member. On May 10, 1994, Ms. Carpenter received the PVCC Medallion, the college's highest honorary award for an extraordinary contribution to the college. Agenda !rem No. 6. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 6.1 through 6.13 and to accept the remaining items on the consent agenda for information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Item 6.1. Appropriation: IDEA Grant, $49,453.85 (Form #95087). It was noted in the staff's report that this grant funds a non-crack drug team to serve the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia. The IDEA-funded team will investigate drug violators and organizations that deal in drugs other than crack. This is the second year of a three-year grant. The County will be reimbursed for its expendi- tures by a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant administered by the City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent. The expenditure of these funds is being authorized for the previous year, FY 1995-96. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meet~hg) (Page 2) APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95087 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 95/96 DCJS DRUG ENFORCEMENT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1152029403110000 1152029403120000 1152029403210000 1152029403221000 1152029403231000 1152029403241000 1152029403540100 SALARY OVERTIME FICA RETIREMENT DESCRIPTION HEALTH INSURANCE LIFE INSURANCE LEASED EQUIPMENT TOTAL REVENUE 2152019000160502 2152051000510100 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE FUND BALANCE TOTAL 000002 AMOUNT $35,153 85 500 00 2,500 00 2,750 00 1,800 00 150 00 6,600.00 $49,453.85 AMOUNT $45,615.47 3,838.38 $49,453.85 Item 6.2. Appropriation: Criminal Justice Planner Grant 97-A9168, $59,555.00 (Form #96008). It was noted in the staff's report that grant funds from the Department of Criminal Justice Services have been approved to hire a criminal justice planner for the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) serving the nine participating localities under the Community Corrections Options Program. The nine localities participating in the Jefferson Area CCJB do not presently have a criminal justice planner. This position will collect data, assess criminal justice needs in the nine-County area and assist the CCJB in developing a strategic plan for community criminal justice services. The criminal justice planner will be funded by a grant of $44,555.00 from the Department of Criminal Justice Service Services plus $15,000.00 as the local match for a total of $59,555.00. The local match will be provided by the nine participating localities. The County's match of $3750.00 was approved by the Board at its May 1st meeting. The position will be housed and supervised by the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96008 FUND: DCJS FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS PLANNER GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1152029409110000 SALARIES 1152029409210000 FICA 1152029409550000 TRAVEL 1152029409600100 SUPPLIES 1152029409800100 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT $41,300 00 3,200 00 1,440 00 3,215 00 10,400.00 $59,555 O0 REVENUE 2152019000190207 2152019000190216 2152019000190217 2152019000190218 2152033000330408 2152051000512004 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE CENTRAL VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL COUNTY OF GOOCHLAND COUNTY OF NELSON DCJS CRIMINAL PLANNER GRANT TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $3,750 00 6,000 00 1,000 00 500 00 44,555 00 3,750.00 $59,555 00 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meetingi (Page 3) OOOO03 Item 6.3. Appropriation: Community Crime Prevention Grant 97-C8421, $20,345.00 (Form #96009). It was noted in the staff's report that for several years the County of Albemarle has experienced a steady increase in its crime rate. There have been dramatic increases in burglaries, larcenies and motor vehicle thefts. The purpose of this grant is to continue to develop a comprehensive crime prevention network for the community. Enhanced departmental crime prevention capabilities have been a factor in some target crime category decreases since 1994. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has renewed the Community Crime Prevention Grant, 97-C8421, in the amount of $20,345.00 ($15,259.00 in Federal funds and $5086.00 as the local cash match. The local match will be funded out of current budgeted expenditures.). By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96009 FUND: DCJS FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS CRIME PREVENTION GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1152029404110000 SALARIES 1152029404210000 FICA 1152029404312700 CONSULTANT 1152029404550000 TRAVEL 1152029404600100 SUPPLIES 1152029404800100 EQUIPMENT TOTAL DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $14,300 oo 1,071 00 867 00 951 00 905 00 2,251 00 $20,345 O0 REVENUE DESCRIPTION 2152033000330404 DCJS COMMUNITY CRIME GRANT 2152051000512004 TRANSFER FROM G/F TOTAL AMOUNT $15,259.00 5,086.00 $20,345.00 Item 6.4. Appropriation: Comprehensive Community Corrections Refund - $19,695.38, (Form #96010). It was noted in the staff's report that the County is holding a balance of $19,695.38 in escrow from previous Department of Corrections, Community Diversion Incentive Program grants. The Department of Criminal Justice Services has requested that $12,765.44 be refunded to the Commonwealth of Virginia and $6929.94 be forwarded to Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR). This appropriation will pay the refund and the transfer to OAR. Ms. Thomas said since the County is returning money, she would like to know if the program was carried out as expected. Mr. Tucker said "yes". By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96010 FUND: DCJS FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1152029406566130 DCJS-COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS TOTAL AMOUNT $19,695.38 $19,695.38 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) REVENUE 2152051000510100 000004 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $19.695.38 TOTAL $19,695.38 Item 6.5. Appropriation: IDEA Grant, $44,554.00 (Form #96011). It was noted in the staff's report that this grant will fund a non-crack drug team to serve the County of Albemarle, City of Charlottesville and University of Virginia. The team will investigate drug violators and organi- zations that deal in drugs other than crack. This is the third year of a three-year grant. The County will be reimbursed for its expenditures by a Department of Criminal Justice Services grant administered by the City of Charlottesville as fiscal agent. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96011 FUND: DCJS FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS DRUG ENFORCEMENT GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1152029403110000 SALARY 1152029403120000 OVERTIME 1152029403210000 FICA 1152029403221000 RETIREMENT 1152029403231000 HEALTH INSURANCE 1152029403241000 LIFE INSURANCE 1152029403540100 LEASED EQUIPMENT TOTAL DESCRIPTION AMOUNT $31,930 00 100 00 2,521 00 2,784 00 2,010 00 209 00 5,000.00 $44,554 O0 REVENUE 2152019000160502 DESCRIPTION CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE TOTAL AMOUNT $44,554.00 $44,554.00 Item 6.6. Appropriation: Intake Crisis Manager, $31,654.00 (Form #96012). It was noted in the staff's report that the project funded by this grant will provide a court services staff member to provide crisis intervention services to juveniles. The drop-in center case manager will be an Albemarle County employee and will be housed part of the time in the Albemarle County Police Department. Supplies, training, travel and other expenses will be funded by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court budget. This is the third year this program has been funded by the Department of Criminal Justice Services. The grant was approved for the period from July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1997. The grant requires no local match, and the County will act as the fiscal agent. By. the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96012 FUND: DCJS FUND PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR DCJS INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152029407110000 SALARY $29,400.00 1152029407210000 FICA 2,254.00 TOTAL $31,654.00 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) REVENUE 2152033000330407 DESCRIPTION DCJS INTAKE CRISIS MANAGER TOTAL AMOUNT $31,654.00 $31,654.00 Item 6.7. Appropriation: Comprehensive Services Act, $1,262,199.00 (Form ~96013) . It was noted in the staff's report that the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) was passed by the General Assembly in 1992 and implemented in FY 1993- 94. Under the Act, communities are required to form collaborative teams with members from public child-serving agencies, private agencies and parent representatives. The administrative body is the Community Policy and Manage- ment Team. State funding for various services includes foster care, special education, residential placement and court-referred juveniles in need of community services. The ultimate goal is to develop the most effective service plan through collaboration so that money would follow the child, rather than having to make the child fit into a category to access funding. The Commonwealth approved $1,262,199.00 for FY 1996-97. The local matching shares (General Fund, $412,505.00; Education, $157,000.00) were approved in the FY 1996-97 Appropriation Ordinance. This request is to approve an appropriation authorizing the expenditures and to recognize the State's share of $692,694.00. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96013 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 96-97 COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1155153120300205 1155153120571211 1155153120571212 1155153120571213 1155153120571214 1155153120571217 1155153120571218 DESCRIPTION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-MANDATED RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-MANDATED NON-RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-MANDATED NON-RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-MANDATED NON-RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-NON-MANDATED NON-RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-NON-MANDATED TOTAL AMOUNT $10,000.00 289,000 00 599,199 00 23,000 00 231,000 00 33,000 00 77,000.00 $1,262,199.00 REVENUE 2155116000160522 2155124000240609 2155151000512004 DESCRIPTION LOCAL-EDUCATION STATE-COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL AMOUNT $157,000.00 692,694.00 412,505.00 $1,262,199.00 Item 6.8. Appropriation: Virginia Commission of the Arts Government Challenge Grant to Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Virginia Discovery Museum, $200.00 (Form #96014). It was noted in the staff's report that during FY 1996-97 budget work sessions, an appropriation of $1900.00 over the County's local contribution to both the Piedmont Council of the Arts and the Virginia Discovery Museum was approved in anticipation of a Local Government Challenge Grant being approved in the amount of $3800.00 from the Virginia Commission on the Arts. The Commission notified the County in June that it had been given a $4000.00 Local Government Challenge Grant, $200.00 over the appropriated amount. This request will appropriate an additional $100.00 to each organization. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) 000006 NUMBER: 96014 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 GOVERNMENT CHALLENGE GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100079000560410 PIEDMONT COUNCIL OF THE ARTS 1100079000560401 THE VIRGINIA DISCOVERY MUSEUM TOTAL AMOUNT $100.00 100.00 $200.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100024000240418 VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF THE ARTS $200.00 TOTAL $200.00 Item 6.9. Appropriation: Bright Stars Program at Greer Elementary and Stone Robinson Elementary Schools, $150,530.00 (Form #96015). It was noted in the staff's report that during FY 1996-97 budget work sessions, the Board approved funding in the amount of $78,810.00 for the County's share of two Bright Stars four-year old programs, one at Stone Robinson and one at Greet Elementary. This amount was appropriated into the Department of Social Services FY 96-97 budget. The state share of these two programs has just been approved by the Department of Education in the amount of $67,720.00. Appropriation Form #96015 authorizes the transfer and expenditure of $78,810.00 from the Department of Social Services budget and the expenditure of $67,720.00 in Department of Education Virginia Preschool Initiative funds. It also authorizes the use of $4000.00 in FY 95-96 savings from the Stone Robinson Bright Stars program to be used to purchase start-up furniture and equipment for the Greer site. With the $1000.00 appropriated by the Board last month for start-up furniture costs, $2000.00 in state grant funds, and this additional $4000.00 in FY 95-96 savings, Greet will have $7000 for one- time start-up furniture/equipment costs, which would include one computer. This is approximately the amount spent at Stone Robinson for start-up furni- ture/equipment costs in FY 95-96. No additional local funds are being requested in this appropriation. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1996-97 NUMBER: 96015 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR FY 1996-97 BRIGHT STARS PROGRAM EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1155361122110000 1155361122130000 1155361122210000 1155361122221000 1155361122231000 1155361122232000 1155361122270000 1155361122310000 1155361122331100 1155361122331200 1155361122360000 1155361122420100 1155361122550100 1155361122550400 1155361122580000 1155361122600400 1155361122601300 1155361122800200 1155361129110000 DESCRIPTION SALARIES-GREER PART TIME SALARIES FICA VRS HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE WORKERS COMPENSATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE-FACILITIES ADVERTISING FIELD TRIPS TRAVEL TRAVEL-EDUCATION MISC EXPENSES MEDICAL SUPPLIES EDUC & REC SUPPLIES FURNITURE & FIXTURES SALARIES-STONE ROBINSON AMOUNT $49,700.00 1,500.00 3,600.00 3,200.00 3,000.00 150.00 450.00 1,000.00 150.00 1,000.00 200 00 600 O0 600 00 1,000 00 1,000 00 200 00 3,915 00 6,000 00 49,700 00 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) 1155361129130000 1155361129210000 1155361129221000 1155361129231000 1155361129232000 1155361129270000 1155361129310000 1155361129331100 1155361129331200 1155361129360000 1155361129420100 1155361129550100 1155361129550400 1155361129580000 1155361129600400 PART TIME SALARIES FICA VRS HEALTH INSURANCE DENTAL INSURANCE WORKERS COMPENSATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE-FACILITIES ADVERTISING FIELD TRIPS TRAVEL TRAVEL-EDUCATION MISC EXPENSES MEDICAL SUPPLIES 1155361129601300 EDUC & REC SUPPLIES 1155361129800200 PURNITURE & FIXTURES TOTAL REVENUE 2155324000240283 2155351000510100 2155351000512004 DESCRIPTION STATE CATEGORICAL GRANT FUND BALANCE TRANSFER FROM GENERAL FUND TOTAL 00000'7 1,500 00 3,600 00 3,200 00 3,000 00 150 00 450 00 1,000 00 150 00 1,000 00 200 00 600.00 6OO.0O 1,000.00 1,000.00 200.00 3,915.00 2,000.00 $150,530.00 AMOUNT $67,720.00 4,000.00 78,810.00 $150,530.00 Item 6.10. Recommended Personnel Policy Revisions. It was noted in the staff's report that many items in the recently completed and adopted compensation study have a direct impact on current County policies and procedures. These are set out in detail in the following chart: Definition of Employee Stattts P-02 · Clearer language for definitions of employment. Colmnonality hq Pcrsomlel P-08 · Deletion of confusing langnage regarding salary and benefits surveys. Practices Employee Discipline P-22 * Written disciplinary notices must be forwarded to the Director of I-Iuman Resources instead of the Hmnan Resources Office. Performance Review P-23 · Clearer, more thorough definition of probationary terms. · Aaa employee's probationary period may be extended dale to iliness or temporary disabiliD · Subsequent probationary terms may be required if an employee changes jobs. · Successful eolnpletion of subsequent probationary periods will not result in subsequent probationary salary increases. Recruitment and Selection of P-24 · To align policy and procedures with current practice. Persomael · Changes in the Procedure for Cmnpliance which coincide with the newly adopted pay especially with regard to salaries advertised on vacancy aunouneements. Terminatiun of Employment P-26 · Changes which align policy and procedure with current practice. Classified Employee P-30 · A policy has been created to accompany the procedural guidelines. Reduction-in-Force · A stronger statement to make it clear that a displaced employee who assmnes a position in a lower pay grade will receive a reduced salary as per policy P-60. · Procedures for aiding employees affected by reductions in force are streamlined. Course Rehnbursement- P40 · Language to make policy more accurate. Classified Employees Advanced Study P41 * Changes to clarify that this policy refers to release thne for advance study. · Section C of Procedure for Compliance is deleted to be consistent with newly adopted pa~ plan. Salary Achninistration and Po- P-60 · Several changes to make policy consistent with new pay plan. sition Classification · All elements/factors used hq classification/reclassification processes are listed. · Entrance pay rate delineations are changed to be consistent with pay plan. · Comaty Executive has authority to place new hirees at any point within a range. · Add section to address voluntary movement to a position in a lower pay grade. · Criteria for completing probationary periods are delffaeated. Vacation Leave P-84 * Ctmnge policy title to Ammal Leave. This change makes the policy consistent with leave reporting practices. · The statement regarding payment, upon termination of employment, for umued axmual leave is made clearer. Sick Leave/ P-85 · Add language whicli permits someone to submit written documenlation regarding sick Acceptable Attendance leave on the employee's behalf in cases where the employee is unable to complete/subl ale paperwork lfimself. · A change to clarify the process to be following during a reassessment for sick leave bm~ purposes. Ms. Thomas asked about deleting the policy for payment for advanced studies and advanced degrees. Mr. Tucker said during review of the pay plan August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) it was decided that this payment was not necessary for classified employees of either local government or the schools, so the policy is recommended for deletion. Ms. Thomas said this is one change with which she does not agree. By the recorded vote set out above, the recommended Personnel Policy revisions were approved as presented. Item 6.11. Authorize staff to coordinate request to change road name from Timber Point to Garth Oaks Point. It was noted that the 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 policy states that after this phase of the project has been completed, no further changes to road names will be permitted, however, a petition signed by all residents on a private road named "Timber Point" has been received requesting the alternate name of "Garth Oaks Point" due to problems associated with mail delivery. There is a road in the Forest Lakes subdivision named "Timber Pointe" with the same zip code. After consultation with staff of the U.S. Postal Service and the landowners on Timber Point, it was suggested that the road name be changed. By the recorded vote set out above, staff was authorized to coordinate the road name change from "Timber Point" to "Garth Oaks Point" Item 6.12. Request Board approval of Certificate and Adoption of Resolution for Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) Mortgage Loan for Moderate-Income Housing Rehabilitation Project in Laurelwood Subdivision. It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Mark Wolf, President, Wolf Property Corporation, has received approval for a Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) Multi-Family Loan for $735,278.00 to permanently finance and rehabilitate 33 single-family detached rental units on 66 acres in a develop- ment called Laurelwood originally built by himself and others in 1977. The VHDA loan will be used to repair roofs, replace kitchen cabinets, ranges, refrigerators, baths, and other needed repairs in all 33 units. Utilizing the competitive loan proceeds from VHDA will allow the owners to operate the units as moderate cost housing. All of the units have two-bedrooms and rent for $535.00 which includes water, trash removal, and all maintenance including snow removal. For comparison, the Fair Market Rent for the Low-income Section 8 Rental Assistance program is $585.00 including all utilities. There will be no increase in rents to the existing residents as a result of the refinancing. The property is located on Laurelwood Lane in the Samuel Miller District. According to VHDA regulations, the County has the ability to disapprove VHDA's proposed financing loan to Mr. Wolf on two conditions: 1) that it is not in compliance with zoning/land use regulations, or 2) that it is not consistent with the CHAS (the County's adopted Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy). The housing chief has verified that the proposed project is consistent with the CHAS in promoting the expansion of affordable rental housing and the zoning administrator has verified that the development is lawfully conforming. Staff recommends approval of a Certificate of Approval and adoption of a resolution approving the use of VHDA's Multi-Family Loan Program funds for the Laurelwood project. By the recorded vote set out above, the Chairman was authorized to sign the following Certification of Approval, and the resolution which follows was also adopted: CERTIFICATION OF APPROVAL In accordance with Virginia Code Section 36-55.39.B, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby certifies to the Virginia Housing Development Authority its approval of the proposed multi-family residential housing develop- ment called Laurelwood, as expressed in its resolution duly adopted on August 7, 1996, a certified copy of which is attached hereto. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 000009 RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle is committed to ensuring that affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing is available for all its residents; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 36-55.39.B of the Code of Virginia, the County has been notified that the Virginia Housing Development Authority is considering financing the rehabilitation and permanent mortgage of the Laurelwood development in the Samuel Miller District; and WHEREAS, VHDA's Multi-Family Loan Program funds will be used to upgrade 33 single-family detached rental units to be operated as moderate cost housing for Albemarle County citizens; and WHEREAS, the renovation project is consistent with land use regulations applicable to non-conformities; and WHEREAS, the renovation project is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors approves the use of VHDA funds for the renova- tion of the Laurelwood development project. Item 6.13. Request Board approval of a Resolution calling for the Scheduling of a Public Hearing with Respect to the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority to Finance Multi- Family, Moderate-Income Housing Development to be Located in Albemarle County. It was noted in the staff's report that Mr. Hunter C. Bourne, III, Vice President for Finance, Fore Property Company, is proposing to build a 160-unit rental apartment complex on land currently under contract adjacent to the existing Rio Hill Apartments zoned R-15, utilizing the Federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit program (Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Service Code). In return for income tax credits, the developer/owner agrees to rent the apartments for no more than defined maximum rents to residents whose incomes cannot exceed a specific percentage of the area median income levels, adjusted for family size. Fore Property proposes to build 32 one-bedroom units, 64 two-bedroom units, and 64 three-bedroom units. Income levels for proposed occupants of all 160 units would be restricted to 60 percent of the median income at the time the property is offered for rent. The resident profile would encompass young white collar and blue collar families. No students are eligible unless there is a full-time wage earner in the family. Mr. Bourne has had positive discussions with the County's Chief of Housing concerning participation in the County's Section 8 Rental Assistance program, especially for those households enrolled in the Family Self-suffi- ciency program. The Fore Company proposes using proceeds from the issuance of revenue bonds by the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority for permanent mortgage financing. The annual funds available for municipal housing issues are allocated by the state on a first-come, first-served basis. Of the $46.0 million available in calendar 1996, $34.0 million was allocated to a single Northern Virginia property in January, 1996. The Fore Property Company would like to be in a position to secure an allocation/reservation of funds in early January, 1997 with the required closing within 120 days thereafter. In addition to certain administrative level certifications, it is necessary to receive approval from the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors. The Fore Company has made preliminary contact with the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority as the potential issuer of the bonds. In order to move forward with Harrisonburg, the Board must conduct a public hearing on the proposed housing development, after which an "inducement" resolution could be adopted. This inducement resolution is adopted in order to allow the financ- ing through the Harrisonburg Authority to proceed and in no way obligates the County to take any further action with respect to the bonds or the housing development and, in no way, imposes any obligation upon Albemarle County. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution as required. 0000 0 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: RESOLUTION CALL OF A PUBLIC HEARING WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS BY THE HARRISONBURG REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY TO FINANCE A MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED IN ALBEMARLE COUNTY WHEREAS, the Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Author- ity (the "Harrisonburg Authority"), with the approval of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, intends to issue $8,500,000.00 of Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority Multi-Family Housing Revenue Bonds (Fore Property Company) 1997 Series A (the "Bonds") to finance the construction of a 160-unit apartment development located in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, under federal tax law, the Bonds can be issued as tax-exempt bonds only if a public hearing on the issuance of the Bonds is held in the jurisdiction where the project is located and approval granted for the financing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, does direct its Clerk to schedule and advertise a public hearing on September 4, 1996, to consider the issuance by the Harrisonburg Authority of $8,500,000.00 of Harrisonburg Redevelopment and Housing Authority Rental Housing Revenue Bonds (Fore Property Company Project) 1997 Series A for the purpose of financing the construction of apart- ments located at Rio Hill Drive in the County of Albemarle, Virginia. Item 6.14. Information on VDOT's "Pave in Place" Program. It was noted in the staff's report that the Board had requested informa- tion on VDOT's new "Pave In Place" program. This program applies to certain existing unpaved, dead-end roads which presently carry 50 or more vehicle trips per day, are not anticipated to carry more than 250 vehicle trips per day at maximum build-out of the adjacent land, and which are less than one mile in length and which presently connect to existing paved roads that are state-maintained. The improvement must be accomplished on existing prescrip- tive right-of-way. The policy does not apply to subdivision streets that are constructed by others. Pave in Place projects must address safety issues and meet the 1996 Pavement Design Guidelines for Secondary Roads. Any projects developed through this initiative must be included in the County's Six-Year Plan and Secondary Roads Improvement Budget for the fiscal year of the improvement. The Resident Engineer makes the eligibility determination. Staff will work with the Resident Engineer to identify roads in the County eligible for this program. Mr. Martin asked what happens with this program now. Mr. Tucker said roads that fit the type of criteria spelled out will come to the Board as part of an improvement using Secondary Road Funds. Mr. Martin had asked about this program previously and staff was not aware of this program so this has been included on the agenda for information only. Mr. Perkins said it is also mentioned in Item 6.28, and Ms. Tucker notes the funds are for stabilizing dead-end gravel roads. Mr. Martin said he had a constituent who asked about these road funds because he felt he has a road which will qualify. Mr. Tucker said the County can now start identifying those types of roads. He does not think there will be a lot of these roads. The program is rather limited in scope. Mr. Bowerman asked if these improvements will compete, along with all other projects, for secondary funds. Mr. Tucker said "yes". Mr. Martin asked if this program will be incorporated into the regular road plan. Mr. Tucker said "yes". Mr. Cilimberg said any roads that qualify will be included in review of the Six-Year Road Plan during the 1997 year. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11) Item 6.15. Comparison of Adopted FY 1995-2001 and FY 1996-2002 Primary Road Allocation Plans for Albemarle County Projects. It was noted in the staff's report that the FY 1996-2002 Primary Road Allocation Plan was adopted by the Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) on June 20, 1996. The following compares the Plan with the FY 1995-2001 Plan. 1) Eleven projects were listed to receive $46.017 million in funds over the six years of the FY 1995-2001 Plan. Twelve projects are listed to receive $51.298 million in funds over the six years of the FY 1996-2002 Plan, an increase of 8.97 percent. The total Culpeper District project funding for the six years of each plan was $100.562 million in the FY 1995-2001 Plan and $100.070 million in the FY 1996-2002 Plan, a one percent decrease in funding. 2) Nine Albemarle projects were listed to receive $37.857 million in funding over the 1996-2001 period (five common years of both plans) in the FY 1995-2001 Plan. Eleven projects are listed to receive $40.720 million in funding over the same five years in the FY 1996-2002 Plan, an in- crease of one percent. 3) The total cost for the sewer upgrade at the rest area on 1- 64 has increased from $136,000.00 to $3.312 million. The total cost for the fog detection system on Afton Moun- tain has increased from $240,000.00 to $1.025 million. 5) The total cost for the Western Bypass has increased from $39.053 million to $118.079 million. The year-by-year funding remained the same. 6) New projects include: Installation of overhead flashing signals at the intersection of Route 250 and Route 616 at a total cost of $19,000.00. A vertical improvement on Route 29 near the intersec- tion with Route 641 at a total cost of $975,000.00. Ms. Thomas said the plan contains a figure for the Western Bypass which is a gross underestimate. It is more like $150.0 million, but she thinks the summary is correct. Item 6.16. Copy of letter dated July 16, 1996, from Mr. Gerald G. Utz, Department of Transportation, to Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, providing notice that the Commonwealth Transporta- tion Board has approved an allocation of $450,000.00 in Airport Access Funds for Route 649 (Project 0649-002-158,C501), was received for information. Ms. Thomas asked if the $450,000.00 is adequate for this project. Mr. Cilimberg said this is the first of what is hoped to be two awards of Airport Access Funds which will total $900,000.00, and which requires $300,000.00 from the County as a match. Even that will fund only part of the costs. The project is also in the State Secondary Plan for over $2.0 million and addi- tional funding may be needed. It is hoped the design work can go ahead this year so there will be a more definite price estimate for next year's secondary road plan. Mr. Tucker said the road design must be finalized so this Board can make a final determination as to the design and cost. When a base figure is determined, staff will decide how to make up the difference in cost. There will not be enough funding unless the design specifications are lowered. Bike lanes and pedestrian ways will be a part of the ultimate design, at least at the beginning of the project. Ms. Humphris said she was at a meeting recently where Bryan Elliott made a presentation. He said the Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport has the worse airport access road of any in the state. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 0000 2 Item 6.17. Notice from the Department of Transportation that a Citizen Information meeting on the design plans for the Western Route 29 Bypass around Charlottesville will be held on July 30, 1996, at the Sheraton Inn Charlottes- ville, was received for information. The proposed bypass will begin north of the Route 29 interchange at Ivy Road (Route 250) and extend northeasterly to cross the South Fork Rivanna River just to the west of the Sheraton Inn and terminate just north of the twin Route 29 bridges across the River. A connector road extending south from the southern bypass interchange with the Route 250 Bypass would serve the University of Virginia North Grounds. Along with this notice was a letter dated July 9, 1996, addressed to Ms. Shelby J. Marshall, from Mr. R. H. Connock, Jr., District Construction Engineer, entitled Project: 6029-002-F22, PE-101, RW-201, C-501, from 0.70 mi. (1.12 km) north of Route 29/250 Bypass to 0.50 mi. (0.80 km) north of South Fork of Rivanna River; UVA Connector Road Project: RUVA-002-101, PE-101 from Route 250 Bypass to Massie Road, Albemarle County, City of Charlottes- ville. Item 6.18. Memorandum dated July 23, 1996, from Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development, addressed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, entitled: Resolution of Intent - Industrial Square Footage. Mr. Cilimberg noted that on July 16, 1996, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution of intent to consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to require issuance of a special use permit for any establishment exceeding a specified aggregate building floor area whether or not located on a single or multiple tracts of land. The report is for information only. Item 6.19. Letter dated July 18, 1996, from Mr. John P. Godfrey, Environmental Engineer Senior, State Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Operations, was received providing notice that a public hearing will be held on August 19, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. in the Albemarle County Office Building, on a Draft Permit for an experimental composting facility at the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority's Ivy Sanitary Landfill. Item 6.20. Letter dated July 29, 1996, from Mr. Warren C. Smith, Director, Department of Housing and Community Development, to the Honorable Charlotte Y. Humphris, providing notice that Albemarle County did not receive funds from the Virginia Community Development Block Grant Planning Grant funds, for this year. Item 6.21. Copy of memorandum from Gordon Walker, Jefferson Area Board for Aging, dated July 29, 1996, to Local Governments in Planning District 10, was received. Mr. Walker said that on July 22, 1996, the Board of Directors of the Jefferson Area Board for Aging and the Jefferson Area Board for Aging, Inc., voted to increase membership on the Board of JABA, Inc. from 16 to 22. By doing so, all the directors of Jefferson ElderCare would also serve on the Board of JABA, Inc. He noted that in order to effect this change, amendments to JABA, Inc.'s Articles of Incorporation will be filed with the State Corporation Commission. Ms. Humphris asked about the significance of this memo, and the filing of changes to JABA's articles of incorporation. This Board has had questions in the past as to participation in and funding of capital projects. Mr. Tucker said he has no further information about this notice. Staff has not talked to Mr. Walker directly, but will do so and report to the Board. Item 6.22. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 16, 1996, was received for information. Item 6.23. Copy of draft minutes of the Jail Authority for July 11, 1996, was received for information. Ms0 Thomas thanked staff for forwarding these minutes. Ms. Humphris said she would feel more comfortable with distributing such minutes after they have received final approval by the Jail Board. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) Item 6.24. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Albemarle County Service Authority for June 20, 1996, was received for information. Item 6.25. Copy of minutes of the Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for June 24, 1996, was received for information. Item 6.26. May, 1996 Albemarle County Financial Report, was received for information. It was noted that the projected General Fund revenues were last revised as of December 31, 1995. They have been reviewed since submission of the April Financial Report and it is anticipated that General Fund revenues should exceed the budget amount and approximate the December projection. The pro- jected General Fund expenditures have not been revised at this time. Projected School revenues and expenditures were revised to reflect the May Financial Report presented to the School Board. Although total projected expenditures are shown to exceed budgeted expenditures, the School Division expects to offset the overexpenditure in the instruction category with a reduction in operating expenditures not shown in the report. Item 6.27. Letter dated July 29, 1996, from Mr. Gary Everhardt, Superintendent, National Park Service, Blue Ridge Parkway, directed to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, expressing thanks for the County's letter supporting designation of the Blue Ridge Parkway as the first "All- American Road". Item 6.28. Letter dated August 2, 1996, from Ms. Angela G. Tucker, Resident Highway Engineer, to Ms. Ella W. Carey, Clerk, responding to trans- portation matters that were discussed at the July 3, 1996, Board meeting, was received as follows: The Department reaffirms that Route 743 (Hydraulic Road)/Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive), will not be relocated under the Route 29 bypass design. Current and proposed secondary projects improve both roads at their existing locations. The Greenbrier Drive connection project is proposed as a four-lane, non-divided roadway and will be presented as such in a public hearing in early 1997. (The Department has considered a five-lane urban concept only with respect to the 10,000+ anticipated daily traffic and the need to provide for efficient left turning movements now and through ultimate development of this corridor.) The Department will address the maintenance needs along Route 782 as discussed during the meeting with interested parties on July 17. Maintenance crews are continuing to repair low shoulders throughout the County. Mowing and brush cutting by state forces and contractors continues along primary and secondary routes throughout the County. A general cost estimate for the proposed four-laning of Route 20 from Route 53 to the Route 20/742 Connector road is approximately $1.6 million, exclusive of right-of-way. The drainage concern along the Booth property on Barracks Road has been addressed. Recent routine milling operations have exposed portions of "cobblestone" pavement beneath the railroad underpass on Route 240 in Crozet. We (the Highway Office) have received numerous calls both for and against restoration of the cobblestones in this area .... we have delayed repaying for two weeks while further consideration is given to the issue. A cursory field review indicates the following requirements August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) 000014 for restoration: Approximately six drop inlets (drainage structures) and 220 feet of pipe are needed to adequately address a severe drainage problem in the road at the under- pass. Over the years both the pavement and the sidewalk have been "built up" in order to provide positive drainage, so the sidewalk will need to be replaced/adjusted after installation of the drop inlets and drainage pipe, addi- tional milling is required to expose a uniform section of cobblestones along Route 240 (the uneven show of cobble- stones indicates the layers of asphalt used to build up the area to provide drainage). The milling operation (removal of asphalt)] was set at a consistent level but did not expose full cobblestone pavement, therefore, hand labor will likely be necessary to provide for a clean and thorough restoration of the cobblestones. The estimated cost for all of the above is approximately $80,000.00 to $100,000.00. The Department has some reservations regarding the long-term maintenance of a cobblestone pavement. Snow removal is of primary concern, as is proper patching materials and tech- niques to maintain the existing 5600 +/- adt on Route 240. Cobblestones may not provide the safest or smoothest riding surface. It is understood that the benefit of a "piece of history" must still be considered by the community. The Department would like additional guidance from the Board of Supervisors regarding the time needed to conclude a project scope and fund this work. We will direct our paving con- tractor to delay this work for the immediate future. A "Pave in Place" program is available for stabilizing dead- end gravel roads with traffic counts between 50 and 250 vpd and no longer than one mile. Design standards are less restrictive than regular secondary road standards. These projects will be funded through the secondary six year plan, competing with regular and gravel road projects. 1996. Agenda Item No. 7. Approval of Minutes: June 5, July 10 and July 29, Ms. Thomas had read July 10, 1996, and found them to be acceptable. Mr. Martin had read July 29, 1996, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read June 5, 1996 (pages 29 [Item #15] to the end) and found only two typographical errors. Motion to approve the minutes which had been read was offered by Ms. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 8. Transportation Matters. Mr. Bill Mills and Mr. Charlie Williams from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) were present. Mr. Mills said staff is drafting a list of roads which will qualify for the Pave-in-Place funds. Ms. Thomas asked about the road in Nob Hill which is a ~U-shaped" road. Mr. Tucker said VDOT has a traffic count on its roads. It will be a matter of identifying the roads which fall under that category. Mr. Cilimberg said that particular road would have to be added under the Rural Addition Law; it is not presently in the State System. Mr. Mills said he would like to discuss the cobblestones (see letter under Item 6.28) which have been found under the pavement at the railroad undegpass in Crozet where the Highway Department is presently engaged in a project. He then passed around some pictures showing the problems at that location. The problem has to do with drainage not only from surface water 0000:1.5 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) which does not move, but with the water that goes down through the cobble- stones. Mud is coming up through and around the cobblestones. Mr. Mills said there are four scenarios which could be used to solve the problem: 1) 2) 4) Pave over the road and cobblestones. Pave over the road and cobblestones, then get some funding and come back and remove the cobblestones at a later time. Some one can bring forth a plan to fund and maintain the cobble- stones as they are. VDOT is willing to move the cobblestones and give them to the County for some other use in Crozet. Mr. Perkins said there are a number of people present today from Crozet. He has received an extraordinary number of calls about this road project. The consensus of the community is that something needs to be done to fix the road. He thinks the best way to preserve the cobblestones is to cover them up. Mr. Mills said if the Board wanted to think about maintaining them as a cobble- stone street, they would have to be taken up anyway to get proper drainage. That means the cost would be double the estimate mentioned in Ms. Tucker's letter. Mr. Perkins said the pictures show that the cobblestones themselves are in bad condition, but the pictures don't show what your automobile will tell you. There are stones missing, so there are many holes in the cobblestones. There is probably no base under the stones, and in order to carry the weights of a present day road, it would all have to be dug out and a substantial base installed. Ms. Thomas said she had a request from Batesville. If the cobblestones are to be dug up, they would like them because they are trying to figure out ways to slow down the traffic there. Mr. Mills said he believes the cobblestones are very noisy. He under- stands that in Crozet the cars have slowed down because the whole road is rough. He wonders how much noise a cobblestone street would generate close to the nursing home. Mr. Marshall asked how much it would cost to remove the cobblestones. Mr. Mills said if they are just dug up and replaced with stone, it could be done at the local department's cost. Mr. Marshall said he thinks that is what should be done, and then just pave. Mr. Mills said if VDOT does that, they would like to remove only those cobblestones that have been fully exposed. There are a number of them that are not exposed, still being covered with asphalt. If the cobblestones are dug up, he does not know how the asphalt would ever be removed from the single stones. Ms. Thomas said that archeologists usually suggest that if something is not going to be used and restored, that it be covered over as thoroughly as possible. To her, that seems to be the solution. Mr. Marshall said if there is no demand for the 6obblestones, the obvious answer is just to pave over them. Mr. Mills said that is the preference of VDOT. Ms. Thomas asked if there is any way to keep the asphalt from bonding with the stones when they are paved over. Mr. Mills said it would be the same process that was done 70 or 80 years ago, and that could be milled off. Ms. Humphris said she would like to know more about the drainage problem. Is the problem with the asphalt, as well as with the cobblestones? Mr. Mills said that a few years ago water was standing in that area and sometimes would actually be deep enough to get over the sidewalk. VDOT raised the sidewalks somewhat trying to get the water out. The other problem is that the water goes down around the cobblestones, and since they don't have a proper base, they would need a proper foundation. There are a couple of problems with drainage at that point. Ms. Thomas asked if this project will take care of those problems. Mills said they hope to get the plant mix back the way it was a year ago. They hope to get at least the surface water out of there. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) Ms. Humphris said there are a number of people present, so she thinks the Board should hear comments from the public. Board members have received calls from people on both sides of the issue. Mr. Carroll Conley said he has lived in Crozet for 52 years. He would like to see the cobblestones covered over. There will be tractor-trailers running over one end of the road, and he does not feel it would ever hold up. It is the main thoroughfare of Crozet, not a side street. He thinks it should be covered up as soon as possible. Most of the people he has talked to in Crozet want to have this project completed soon. As a side note, he thanked the Board and Albemarle County for a job well done. He is very proud of the County and what is being done in it. Mr. Bill Worley said he lives on Shelton Mill Road. He has two concerns on this subject, one being about safety. He remembers a time when he was a child when there was a road built of cobblestone. When the road was settled in and the stones became polished, there were a number of accidents at an intersection because the road was on an incline. In Crozet, the situation is similar. Cobblestones don't absorb moisture so are very slick when it rains. There is also the winter weather of ice and snow. Safety is the main concern. His second concern has to do with cost. He has heard comments that if the cobblestones are reconditioned, the cost would be about $100,000. He assumes the time element must be considered also. As a taxpaying resident of the County and the State, he would like to see the road put back and conditioned using today's modern standards. It would be a much safer surface. Mr. Donald Seale said he runs Seale's Exxon at the intersection in question. He personally knows that this intersection is dangerous even with good pavement on it. With cobblestones, it will be very dangerous for the community, the school buses, and large trucks. Once a week he gets a tank load of gasoline, and he does not believe cobblestones would hold up under existing weight loads of traffic. Last week an elderly gentleman told him that this cobblestone runs all the way to Miller School. It was put in back in horse and buggy days to bring the coal from the railroad tracks to Miller School. There is plenty of cobblestone on the roads that have been abandoned on the way to Miller School. He does not think the deteriorating base should be dug up while everybody waits for this decision to be made on making the road safe again in Crozet. He said the businesses in Crozet have to compete with the businesses in Waynesboro and Charlottesville. They have ~tough enough times" without having the streets destroyed for months. Mr. Herbert McAllister said he is 65 and has lived in Crozet all his life and he has never seen a cobblestone until now. He was told that the cobblestones ran along the north side of the railroad tracks up to what used to be the old Herbert Cold Storage. He knows that there are not only cobble- stones under the bridge, but there are a patch of them in front of the drug store. As a citizen of the Crozet area, he thinks the Highway Department has done a good job of trying to keep the water out, but thinks they can do a better job after this project is completed. He said the people in Crozet have not complained about the sidewalks, but if one took a tour of the Crozet area, they would find other areas needing repairs such as the sidewalks on St. George Avenue. He thanked the Board for the job they do. Mr. Steve Meeks thanked the Board for asking VDOT to look into the cobblestone issue and the possibility of preserving them. He is in favor of seeing at least a portion of them preserved. It is a valuable historic resource. In the event the cobblestones cannot be preserved at this time, he thinks the best thing would be to pave over them. That would preserve them for the future. He is still concerned with the drainage problem. Even with the asphalt there that was removed, there was a drainage problem both during the summer and winter. The whole issue of drainage still remains. Simply raising the level of the road may solve the drainage problem, but it worsens the sidewalk problem, and the clearance height under the bridge. Some fairly extensive damage has been caused to the superstructure by large trucks hanging up under it. He appreciates the Board looking into this matter, and holding off repaying until he had time to look at the situation. Ms. Humphris said the Board appreciates what Mr. Meeks did by letting the Board know there was a situation the Board needed to investigate the Board would not have known. The tone of the letter from VDOT made it seem like it was just a drainage problem and it showed a combined cost. She did not understand the difference between the cobblestone problem, and the drainage problem. Mr. Mills said when the milling took place, it took off four inches August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) and exposed some cobblestones. When they put a top back on it, it will allow the water to positive flow out. Ms. Humphris asked if he was sure this would happen. Mr. Mills said he is "pretty sure". Ms. Humphris asked if the Board could finish the conversation and give Mr. Mills some guidance. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the road should be paved over and fixed as soon as possible. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mr. Bowerman also agreed. Ms. Humphris asked for a motion. Motion was offered by Mr. Perkins that the Board direct VDOT to do what they originally intended at the railroad underpass in Crozet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it has been made clear that the Board does not want to do anything that damages further the cobblestones if there are ways to make sure the paving will preserve them. Mr. Humphris said she is glad the Board has this discussion. Everybody has had an opportunity to speak, and the Board has learned a lot. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Ms. Humphris mentioned the letter from Ms. Tucker (Item 6.28) reaffirm- ing that Route 743 (Hydraulic Road)/Route 866 (Greenbrier Drive), will not be relocated under the Route 29 Bypass design. She said there had been a plan developed somewhere which showed that the intersection of Greenbrier Drive at Hydraulic Road would be relocated and go through the trailer parks on both sides at the Rock Store. Ms. Tucker says now that is not so, however, unbeknownst to Albemarle County, VDOT seemed to have been going ahead with planning a Greenbrier Drive connection project proposed as a four-lane non- divided roadway. That is definitely not what the County envisioned when a decision was made to put the Greenbrier Extension through from Whitewood Road to the Rock Store on Hydraulic Road. Mr. Cilimberg said five-lanes were not envisioned. Mr. Benish agreed. Ms. Humphris said she and Mr. Bowerman thought the Board approved a three-lane road when it was looked at in connection with the Whitewood Road Park. She asked that staff check on this because she never envisioned a four-lane road through there. Mr. Bowerman said they walked it, talked about sidewalks along it, talked about buffering it from Minor Hill, talked about it being unobtru- sive in the Park and allowing for an alternative stormwater detention basin, and that we were limited in absolute curvature because of the terminus of where it was in Townwood, and on Greenbrier at Whitewood. Within those constraints, he thought they had come up with a good concept to put that road in. He does not remember how many lanes it was. He thought it was as little as possible based on its traffic count. Four seems to be more than he recalls. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has in the record, a four-lane undivided road with wider right lanes to allow the possibility of fitting in full bike lanes. The right lanes in each direction were to be fourteen-foot lanes so bikes could be accommodated. Staff can go back and discuss the possibility of a lesser road. Mr. Tucker said he remembers there were to be four lanes, but said staff will have to look at the development of Townwood. It was to be built so it would tie in with the ultimate extension of Greenbrier Drive. What was done there may help determine what was actually expected on that portion of the road. Mr. Cilimberg said the lower section which was just done as part of the Route 29 project was discussed as a four-lane section, but VDOT decided it needed to be five lanes because of turning movements occurring for the commercial businesses. Now, the Greenbrier Drive section just done with the Route 29 improvements, up to the top of the hill, has sidewalks and four lanes with a middle turning lane. Staff did not envision that as being necessary beyond that point. From that point it was to be four lanes, undivided. That was the plan at the other end as part of Townwood. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) 0000 $ Ms. Humphris said when she was dealing with this it had a lot to do with preservation of the Park and the buffering of the neighborhood. She never had this in mind although she does not think it was ever spelled out. Mr. Bowerman said he remembers that Townwood had four lanes at the intersection. Ms. Humphris said now the Board is conscious of the impact roads like this are having on neighborhoods, particularly the work that is being done on Georgetown Road to do traffic calming. The County wanted people to come there and live in dense neighborhoods and now there is a need to protect them from through traffic. This neighborhood, which is just around the corner, deserves the same consideration. A connector road that does not attract droves of traffic to it, but just provides a connector, is needed to preserve that neighborhood. Preserving the neighborhood has the priority. Mr. Tucker said it can be looked at again. He remembers that the section from Townwood down to Greenbrier Drive/Whitewood Road had little access, and no turning movement, so that may help reduce the width. You can move a lot of traffic when you don't have curb cuts. Ms. Humphris said the way this question has come to the Board is unfortunate. Townwood was part of Albemarle's Night Out last night, and she was there. The neighbors told her they had gotten in touch with VDOT to find out what kind of plans VDOT was making for this road because a sign was posted about two blocks inside of Townwood that said "End Construction". The neighbors wondered what construction was ending there. They found out it meant the construction on Rio Road/Hydraulic Road which is yet to begin. In the process of finding out what the sign meant, they were told about the prospects of a five-lane road, and that is what set off the series of phone calls. She thinks there is a bad case of miscommunication. Mr. Bowerman said this was driven by the Route 29 Bypass interchange design. If an interchange had been placed in the area it would have dramati- cally increased the traffic flow off of the interchange to that intersection. With that understanding, VDOT decided to relocate Greenbrier Drive. The only trouble is that this Board never asked them to do the interchange. Ms. Thomas said she assumes the five-laning must have been a reaction to that because the interchange is supposed to increase the traffic in that area by 30 percent. Mr. Bowerman said if the interchange is eliminated, then the traffic flow is back to a reasonable neighborhood street. Ms. Thomas said Bullet #2 in the letter from Ms. Tucker refers to Route 782. She referred to this at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. Because City Council has formally moved to close the section of the road which lies in the City, she thinks this Board should take some formal action to inform City Council the County has changed its plans. She is not sure everybody knows why the plans have been changed. Ms. Angela Tucker attended the meeting held on July 17 with people from the University Research Park, and various staff people from Albemarle County, but no one from City staff was included. That is why there needs to be some sort of formal communication with them. She will be making this into a motion, so she will go ahead and read it as a motion, and then the members can discuss any parts she has not brought the members up to date on. Ms. Thomas read to the Board: ~We should inform the City of our change in plans. We should inform the Seminole Trail Fire Department and the Charlottesville-Albemarle Rescue Squad of the change in plans because they had safety concerns about closing that road. We should launch what we are calling "Operation Broken Window" which is named for the phenomenon that if a building has a broken window that you allow to remain that you attract more vandalism, whereas if you can take care of the problem in quick order it tends to cut down on repeat vandalism. The County, community and landowners are all going to attempt to clean up the broken windows as quickly as possible in order to avoid that phenomenon and a worsening of conditions there." Ms. Thomas said she drove the road yesterday, and was surprised to find three cars on the road in that period of time, but she was also distressed to find a chair, three sofas, a table, in addition to the refrigerator which had been there for some time. Now, there is a new influx of stuff being dumped. They were all dumped in separate locations. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000019 Ms. Thomas continued with her motion and read: ~The Operation Broken Window will involve initial clean-up of these large items. City works should be asked to assist VDOT." Ms. Tucker said VDOT can help in this. The County, does not have either the manpower, crews, or equipment to do this. UREF will hire students, but they don't have the large equipment either. City Public Works is the best bet to help with this. Ms. Thomas continued: ~Secondly, a neighborhood watch will be insti- tuted for new dumping." She said Mr. Gordon Granger is the main neighborhood who uses the road and he has agreed to report to Albemarle County any dumping he sees, and UREF will continue its surveillance. ~UREF and VDOT are investi- gating placing barriers or ditching of some type on the edge of the road to lower the attractiveness of the area for loitering and littering. UREF has already placed barriers to reduce the all-terrain vehicle destruction of banks along the road. Albemarle County Police have agreed to continue their surveillance, which they added to their patrol in the last few months." It apparently is having some effect. ~We should ask Charlottesville Police to add the road to their patrol area also." Ms. Thomas said that was the agreement that came out of the meeting. Ms. Humphris said Mr. Granger did call her and report some of the dumping, but obviously there has been more since he called. Ms. Thomas said this can be by consensus, but a motion might be more appropriate when writing to City Council to say the County will not pursue closing of the road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Ms. Thomas said this may seem to be a lot of effort for one small road, but it may be a model for the way the County can deal with some of the other illegal trash dumping problems. Mr. Marshall said he had talked with Ms. Angela Tucker at the Sheraton the other night about what impact the vote Ms. Humphris and Ms. Thomas made at the MPO (Metropolitan Planning Organization) will have on the construction of the Route 29 Blrpass. Ms. Tucker had an answer, but she is not present this morning. Mr. Mills said the only answer he has is that the State has the option of building the Bypass with State funding. Mr. Marshall asked what chance there would be of building it entirely with State funds. Mr. Mills said he has heard no one in his department talk about doing that. Ms. Thomas said the motion adopted by the MPO doss not say the MPO will never allow funding for this construction, or anything as extreme as that. The motion says this is not the time to initiate construction money in the long-range plan because there are a number of things which are too question- able. They did not want to rubber stamp the transportation improvement planning money plan received from the CTB. The corridor study will actually determine whether the northern terminus location is in the right location or should go north of Airport Road. The motion clearly points out that the MPO wants to have some additional discussion on the project. It is not ~digging in its heels" and saying "no." It is saying it would not be responsible to put construction money in that project now. They think there are things which should be discussed before that is done. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with the MPO motion and with what it is trying to do. But, he wants to know where VDOT stands on this issue. Some answers he got from Ms. Tucker and others is that this project will be "put on the back burner." He thinks that if it does get put on the back burner, there is a possibility it will never be built. Mr. Mills said he has not heard that statement. He will try to get some answers for Mr. Marshall because he does not think the department has made any decisions. Ms. Thomas said VDOT has not yet received the MPO's response. Mr. Marshall asked how long the Federal funds will be available, and whether Albemarle will be shut out on these Federal funds. If it is, that is a substantial amount of money for the State's taxpayers to pick up. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) 000020 Mr. Bowerman asked if the same amount of Federal funds still come into the State. Mr. Mills said as he understands it, the funds would just not be directed to this project. Mr. Marshall said if that is the case, it could be put on the back burner. Mr. Bowerman said the same forces that have driven the plan to be in place now, will continue pushing. He does not see that this is an action which will in any way prevent the construction of the Western Bypass. It seems there were major issues at the southern terminus. There are issues at the northern terminus. There are questions of the costs. There are questions of the way they will get through Stillhouse Mountain and the cost of that. He thinks the only thing the MPO said was to ask for more information before they approve the construction funds to begin that process. There seems to be a lot of information lacking. Mr. Marshall said he agrees with all of that. He does not know how VDOT sees this action, and the answer he got the other night is that they saw this as a possibility and he quoted, ~of putting this thing on the back burner, and it is possible that this road would not be built." If that is the case, he needs to know what this Board needs to do to remedy that. Ms. Thomas said VDOT has not yet received the resolution. Anybody who is reacting to it saying it does "X", "Y", and "Z", simply has not seen it, and is reacting without knowing what they are reacting to. A major item in the resolution is that when the Commonwealth Transportation Board took the vote in November, 1995 to remove the interchanges on the present Route 29 North, they also rescinded any participation in the phasing of the projects that Charlottesville, Albemarle, the University of Virginia, and the CTB had all agreed to in the past. This was done without any discussion, or notifica- tion, and escaped notice for months by most officials. Part of the MPO's motion says that the items in that agreement ought to appear in the long-range transportation plan. It does not say the projects have to be in the same order that was agreed upon. It says those items should appear in this plan. It is partly a way of bringing to the public's attention the fact that this rescinding was done by one clause in a long resolution adopted by the CTB. Mr. Mills said he was sorry he could not answer that question, but he has not heard that discussion. Mr. Marshall asked that the Board get an answer. Ms. Humphris said she hopes everyone will wait until the resolution is received before giving the answer. Agenda Item No. 9. Discussion: Request by Holiday Inn South, Erin, Inc., to abandon State Route 1104, which lies between Tax Map 76M(1), parcels 55A and 55C. Mr. Cilimberg noted that Mr. Robert T. Smith, representing Holiday Inn South, Erin, Inc., of Bangor, Maine, has requested that the County abandon a public road, Route ll04/Tebbs Lane, which is approximately 0.06 mile long and serves only three parcels. Two of the parcels are owned by Erin, Inc., the applicant, who is in the process of acquiring the third parcel which has legal access to Route 1104 but presently does not have physical access to the road. The road was apparently created to serve these parcels when the construction of 1-64 caused the realignment of Route 631. The road is presently used to access Holiday Inn South and is a dead-end. VDOT uses this area for construc- tion materials from time to time. Route 1104 has no historical significance and its abandonment would not negatively impact any historical property. Staff recommends that the Board set a date for a public hearing. Mr. Robert Smith was present to represent Erin, Inc. There are two reasons for the abandonment. Because it is a dead end there has been a problem of disposing of trash, etc. at the end of the road. Holiday Inn has no ability to keep people from doing it, but they have had to go in an keep the area clean. The other reason is that Erin, Inc. has engaged Dewberry and Davis, Engineers, to do a study to take part of that property out of the existing flood plain. That application is currently being reviewed by FEMA and it appears there will be a satisfactory result. Mr. Kevin Mahaney, President of Erin, Inc., has come today and will answer any questions. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to advertise for a public hearing on this request for the appropri- ate date. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 00002 AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing on a request to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority for water service only to Tax Map 60, Parcel 3, located on Barracks Road adjacent to the north of Colthurst. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 22 and July 29, 1996.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is set out in the minutes of July 3, 1996. The Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) made this request to the Board to provide water service to Tax Map 60, Parcel 3, for Mr. and Ms. Thomas Allan. Staff has found that the request, in terms of County policies regarding water and sewer service, does not meet the policy as established in the Comprehensive Plan. There is, however, the extenuating circumstance of the existence of a prior agreement through an easement that water would be provided to the property at the owner's request. That is not an agreement the County is a party to in terms of any legal obligation according to the County Attorney. The ACSA has an obligation in this case, and by the Board granting them additional service area to the property, it would allow them to meet that obligation. Should the Board consider amending the service area boundary of the ACSA to permit water only to one structure on the parcel. That would be similar to an action taken in 1989 for another applicant. Mr. Cilimberg said the staff was made aware yesterday that this property had recently closed in a sale, and a well had been drilled on site which assures there is water available even without the County granting a service area change for public water. There is apparently a well and ground water available for the development of the house that will be built on the property. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Davis the legal implications or precedent of the Board granting this request since a well is now available on the property. Mr. Davis said it is consistent with what the staff's report recommended. It assures that there is no greater development allowed by this connection than would otherwise be available under the rural areas policy. It would not create any greater development than could be done by right, so it is not inconsistent with rural development goals. The granting of a connection will not make an unbuildable lot, buildable. At this time, Ms. Humphris opened the public hearing. Mr. Bill Brent, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority, spoke. Mr. Brent said the facts of this request were presented clearly in the staff's report to the Board. In the County Attorney's memoran- dum to the Board he points out that the County was not party to the 1973 agreement, therefore it has no contract liability if the ACSA violates the contract. Mr. Brent said that in 1973 the ACSA did not have the separate identity that it has today. In 1973, the words ~ACSA~ and ~County" were used interchangeably, there being little distinction between the two. The County Executive was the Secretary/Treasurer of the ACSA. The County Director of Finance was the Executive Director of the ACSA. The County Engineer was the engineer for ACSA. Some of the projects that the County/ACSA undertook (such as the North Rivanna River water facilities) have the names of the County and the Board of Supervisors listed on the plans. The Stillhouse Mountain/West Leigh waterline, which is the waterline in question today, has the name of ACSA on it. (Note: Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:21 a.m.) Mr. Brent said that parenthetically the County is somewhere in that contract. In 1973, he believes the owners probably thought they were dealing with the County. He said the ACSA asks the Board to honor this commitment that was made in 1973. At that time, they simply agreed that the owner could connect to the waterline which the owner was permitting the ACSA to install across his property. Mr. Brent asked that the Board not bar the ACSA from keeping that promise. Mr. Tom Allan said he has purchased the property in question. (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 10:23 a.m.) He said they had a well drilled so they could close on the property within their contract period. They had 30 days and were granted an additional 30 days by the previous owner in order to make sure they could get electricity and water to the property. Because of the time frame on this request, he had the well drilled, which he may or may not use. He would like to have the hook-ups implied by the 1973 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) 000022 contract, and which were assigned to him along with the property. He read: ~In consideration of the granting of this agreement, the Authority covenants that it and its assigns and successors in ... will make available to the grantors, their assigns or successors in title, upon application to connec- tions (plural) to take water from such main at charges applicable when and if such connections should be sought." Mr. Allan said this is the only consider- ation in the granting of the easement, no money changed hands. This was the payment for it. Mr. Allan said he believes they have the right to construct five houses on the property. That is not their intent, but he does not want to give up anything. Personally, he thinks the property should remain as a single piece of property, but he does not want to give up that option to any subsequent property owner. His point is that the easement was never paid for, and that is the basis for his argument. He has a well, but until the water is pumped out for a while, he will not know if it is good water. He assumes it will be good water. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Perkins said he thinks the Board has a morale obligation, so he will move that the Board accept the staff's recommendation to amend the service area boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority to permit one. residen- tial connection only to Tax Map Parcel 60-3 for water service only. 'The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Mr. Marshall said he would like to discuss the request. He is concerned about limiting the connection to just one. He thinks that if there are five subdivision rights, Mr. Allan should be allowed five connections. He thinks the County has a morale obligation because he believes the property owners at the.time thought they were dealing with the County. He thinks it is only fair that the County honor the agreement originally made by the ACSA, and to him that would be five hook-ups for this one piece of property. He does agree the Board should take each individual request on its merit. He thinks this one has merit for the five hook-ups. Mr. Tucker said that is the key. That does not prohibit Mr. Allan or his successors from making a similar request. Mr. Bowerman said in 1973 the property did not have by-right five divisions. The 1980 ordinance created those divisions. He thinks that any additional connections on this parcel would be future business that this Board or a future Board would have to consider. Mr. Marshall asked if Mr. Bowerman was implying only one hook-up for this one house. Mr. Bowerman said that meets the obligation he has heard. Ms. Thomas said it does not preclude the applicant coming back at some point in the future. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Allan if he agreed with that. Mr. Allan said he would gratefully accept that one hook-up, as long as it allows him to come back. Mr. Bowerman said the Board does have some precedents in this area, and it might be a different recommendation from staff, but that is future business. Ms. Humphris said this does not bar anything in the future. Mr. Martin said he thinks it would be good to make that as part of the motion. Mr. Perkins said his motion is to accept the staff's recommendation. Ms. Humphris said it will not preclude the possibility of connecting other dwellings that might be constructed in the future. Ms. Thomas said the staff recommended that ~service to additional dwellings on this parcel, as well as to remaining parcels similarly entitled to water or sewer service, be consid- ered on a case-by-case basis and are not a part of this consideration." Ms. Humphris asked if the seconder was agreeable. Mr. Martin said he was. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (Note: The entire motion was: ~To accept the staff's recommendation to amend the service area boundary of the Albemarle County Service Authority to permit one residential connection only to Tax Map Parcel 60-3 for water service only. Further, service to additional dwellings on this parcel, as 000023 August 7 (Page 23 1996 Regular Day Meeting) well as to remaining parcels similarly entitled to water or sewer service, be considered on a case-by-case basis and are not a part of this motion." Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing on a request to consider granting certain utility rights-of-way and easements requested by Virginia Power and Sprint-Centel in connection with the construction of the Monticello High School in the County. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 22 and July 29, 1996.) Mr. Tucker summarized the reason for this public hearing (see minutes of July 17, 1996). He said this is just a formality to provide these utility easements for the construction of the new high school. The public hearing was opened. Ms. Jo Higgins, Director of Engineering, said these are parallel easements along the road right-of-way for the connec- tor road, and not necessarily to directly serve the high school, but it tlrpical that the County would provide the easements so the corridor of the utilities along the road can be coordinated and avoid crisscrossing-crossing the parcels involved. At this time, there is no particular plan as to what will be located within the easements except for the permanent service to Tandem School. With no one else rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Ms. Thomas, to authorize the County Executive to execute the easements before the Board (see descrip- tions set out below). Roll was called, and the motion carried by the follow- ing recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. EASEMENT - Central Telephone Company of Virginia That, for valuable consideration hereby acknowledged, the undersigned hereby grants and conveys unto Central Telephone Company of Virginia, its successors and assigns forever, a right- of-way easement to construct, install, operate, maintain, replace and remove a communication system consisting of such towers, poles, fixtures, guys, anchors, wires, cables, buried cables, buried wires, posts, terminals, location markers, conduits, manholes, and other appurtenances, as the grantee may, from time to time, require upon, under, across, and over certain land owned by the grantor or in which the grantor has an interest, situated in the District of Scottsville, County of Albemarle, State of Virginia, and more particularly described as follows, to wit: This propertyr known as Parcel No. 91-2E, is located on the east side of Route 742 approximately 0.6 miles south of 1-64 and is bounded on the north by Parcel 91-2, on the east by Parcel 91-2C, on the south by Parcels 91-lA. 91-2B and 91-2A, and on the west by Parcel 91-2D. Right-of-way shall be a 20 foot strip as shown on the attached plat "A" which is to be made part of this easement. and upon, under, along and over the roads, streets and highways adjoining the said land. The easement hereby granted includes the right of ingress and egress over, under and across the lands of the grantor for the purpose of exercising the rights herein granted, the right to open and close fences, the right to trim, top, retrim and retop, or cut any trees or brush along said right-of-way now or at any time so as to give and maintain a clearance of a least 10 feet for all wires and facilities, and the right to carry in said system the wires, cables, circuits, and appurtenances of any other person or communication or electric company. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) 000024 Virginia Power Right of Way Agreement between The County of Albemarle ("Grantor") and Virginia Electric and Power Company, a Virginia public service corporation, doing business in Virginia as Virginia Power, with its principal office in Richmond, Virginia ("Grantee"); the width of said easement shall extend thirty feet in width across the lands of the Grantor more fully described as Plat No. 81960088 (Note: Mr. Martin left the room at 10:32 a.m.) Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and Reordain Chapter 3, Amusements, Article III, Bingo and Raffles, of the Code of Albemarle. This amendment would conform the County Code to state law effec- tiv~ July 1, 1996; and readopt the County restrictions which the County can require under the new state law. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 22 and July 29, 1996.) Mr. Tucker summarized the reason for this public hearing (see the minutes of July 17, 1996). The public hearing was opened. With no one from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter Three, Amusementsr Article III, Bingo and Raffles, of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, as advertised. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. (The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE NO. 96-3 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER THREE, AMUSEMENTS, ARTICLE III, BINGO AND RAFFLES; 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 3, Amusements, Article III, Bingo and Raffles, is hereby amended and reordained by: Amending: Amending: Section 3-20 Local Ordinance Adopted Section 3-28 Limitations on Bingo Operations Repealing: Section 3-21 Section 3-22 Section 3-23 Section 3-24 Section 3-25 Section 3-26 for Section 3-27 Permit Required Application Fee Management and Operation Special Provision for Booster Clubs Interim Tax-Exempt Status Required Percentage of Gross Receipts Qualified Purposes Audit of reports, fees Sec. 3-20. Local ordinance adopted. Pursuant to § 18.2-340.15 of the Code of Virginia, the Charitable Gaming Commission shall regulate bingo, instant bingo and raffles, except as otherwise provided in this article. Sec. 3-21. Limitation on bingo operations. The hours of bingo operation shall be limited to the hours between 6:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. except on Saturdays and Sundays when the hours of operation shall be limited to the hours between 1:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. State law reference -- Authority, Code of Va., § 18.2-340.32 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 0000 5 Agenda Item No. 13. ZMA-96-12. Forest Lakes Associates. Request to add approx 120.6 ac of land currently zoned RA to Forest Lakes South PUD. Property adjacent to existing Forest Lakes South. TM46, P97A1 & TM46BS, PI. (Deferred from July 17, 1996.) Mr. Bowerman said this is a deferred item where he had previously excused himself. He abstained and left the room. Mr. Cilimberg said at the public hearing on July 17, 1996, there was only one issue left to be resolved. That is the potential for connecting Ashwood Boulevard from Forest Lakes South to a future Meadow Creek Parkway. The applicant has provided a new proffer, No. 10, reading: (a) Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purpose of the connection of Ashwood Boulevard to the Meadow Creek Parkway, the owner shall dedicate to the County a right-of-way consisting of a strip of land at a width deemed neces- sary by the County, but not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet in width within the area designated as "Area A" on the attached drawing of Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated July 30, 1996, entitled "Exhibit Showing Area A, A Portion of Parcel X Shown on a Plat Recorded At D.B. 1307, p. 45". (b) The owner shall dedicate a one hundred twenty (120) foot wide right-of-way for Ashwood Boulevard as it is platted in the Forest Lakes development. © Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, the owner shall dedicate to the County a right-of-way consisting of a strip of land at a width deemed necessary by the County, but not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet in width connect- ing Ashwood Boulevard as built to "Area A" on the attached drawing of Roudabush, Gale & Associates, if Ashwood Boulevard when completed by Forest Lakes is not contiguous to the area described in paragraph (a) above as shown on the attached drawing of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. (d) The owner shall place in the deeds from Forest Lakes Associates conveying Lots in Neighborhoods 16 through 23 a shown on the Master Plan the following language: "Notice: Ashwood Boulevard may in the future connect to the Meadow Creek Parkway." (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the room at 10:37 a.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said the County Attorney believes this proffer addresses the issues left with the Board at the last meeting. The recommendation is for approval of the rezoning request now with ten proffers. Mr. Martin said since the Board discussed this the last time, he had assumed he would hear from a number of constituents, and he has not. Mr. Runkle has worked with staff and they have some up with what appears to be solid proffers to protect the County in the future. It gives the Board the opportunity to make decisions in the future. He then offered motion to approve ZMA-96-12 with the 10 proffers which follow. The motion was seconded by Ms. Thomas. She said she would like to mention that she received an E-mail message from a person who requested that there be either sidewalks or asphalt walking paths considered in any project along these roads. Mr. Cilimberg said a pathway system does exist in Forest Lakes South and will be continued as part of the expansion. Mr. Davis said that for the purpose of making a clear record, this approval will also include approval of a flood plain crossing of Powell Creek which is a special use item which does not require a separate application because it is a part of the application plan. Mr. Martin said he would amend his motion to also approve (as recom- mended by the Planning Commission), the Special Use Permit for the flood plain crossing of Powell Creek subject to the following conditions: Demonstration of compliance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 30.3, Flood Hazard Overlay District; Demonstration of compliance with the provisions of Zoning Ordinance Section 4.2, Critical Slopes; Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment and Mitigation Plan for all encroachments into the Powell Creek Water Resources Protection Areas (WRPA) buffers; Receipt of all applicable Federal and State jurisdictional determinations and/or permits for proposed disturbances to August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000026 wetlands and streambeds, and submittal of all documentation to the Engineering Department. Ms. Thomas accepted the amendment to the motion. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Ms. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Mr. Bowerman. (The proffer, as accepted, is set out in full below.) PROFFER FORM Date: 7/11/96 ZMA# 96-12 Tax Map Parcel(s)# 46-9741, 46B5-1 120.6 Acres to be rezoned from RA to PUD Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, the owner, or its duly authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffers the conditions listed below which shall be applied to the property, if rezoned. These conditions are proffered as a part of the requested rezoning and it is agreed that: (1) the rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the conditions; and (2) such conditions have a reasonable relation to the rezoning requested. The development of the residential portion of the property shall not exceed 800 dwelling units. Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, to donate by gift to Albemarle County or its designee, subject to items of record affecting title, for such public use facilities as the County may select, a parcel of approximately five (5) acres as shown on the Application Plan for Forest Lakes South made by Clower Associates, Inc., dated 6/5/91, provided the owner may require reasonable visual screening/buffering of the five (5) acres Except for the five (5) acres described in Proffer 2 above, the development of the property will be limited to those uses al- lowed by right under Section 20.3.1 and Section 20.4.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance of Albemarle County, Virginia (hereinafter referred to as the Zoning Ordinance). Further, under Section 20.4.1(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, the uses permitted by right under Section 23.0, Commercial Office (CO), will be limited to Section 23.2.1(1), (2), (3), (6), (7), (8), (9), and (11) . To be excluded from use by special use permit under Section 20.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are Sections 20.3.2(3) and (7). To be excluded from use by special use permit under Section 23.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance are Sections 23.2.2(1), (2), (4), (7) and (8). All references to the sections of the Zoning Ordinance shall be to those sections as they exist on July 18, 1996. Copies of the sections are attached hereto. In the event that at least 240 of the dwelling units stated in Proffer 1 have not been built and a certificate of occupancy issued within ten (10) years from the date of the final approval of this Zoning Map Amendment, then the owner waives its rights under Virginia Code Section 15.1-491.2:1(B) . No lot within the property will front on or have direct access to any roads within the Hollymead PUD. Residential Areas 7 and 8 as shown on the Application Plan made by Clower Associates, Inc., dated 6/5/91, will be developed with single-family detached dwelling units. 7o The owner shall provide recreational facilities in accordance with Section 4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance as it exists on July 18, 1996, a copy of which is attached hereto, for multi-family areas remote from the central recreational areas. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 000027 The owner shall reconstruct and extend Powell Creek Drive from Hollymead Drive to the Forest Lakes Spine Road provided the necessary right-of-way exists or can be obtained at no cost to Forest Lakes Associates. The owner shall follow the General Conditions as stated in the Rezoning Application Plan for Forest Lakes South PUD dated April 19, 1996. 10. (a) Upon the request of Albemarle County, Virginia, for the purpose of the connection of Ashwood Boulevard to the Meadow Creek Parkway, the owner shall dedicate to the County a right-of-way consisting of a strip of land at a width deemed necessary by the County, but not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet in width within the area designated as "Area A" on the attached drawing of Roudabush, Gale and Associates dated July 30, 1996, entitled "Exhibit Showing Area A, A Portion of Parcel X Shown on a Plat Recorded At D.B. 1307, p. 45" (b) The owner shall dedicate a one hundred twenty (120) foot wide right-of-way for Ashwood Boulevard as it is platted in the Forest Lakes development. © Upon request of Albemarle County, Virginia, the owner shall dedicate to the County a right-of-way consisting of a strip of land at a width deemed necessary by the County, but not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) feet in width connecting Ashwood Boulevard as built to "Area A" on the attached drawing of Roudabush, Gale & Associates, if Ashwood Boulevard when com- pleted by Forest Lakes is not contiguous to the area described in paragraph (a) above as shown on the attached drawing of Roudabush, Gale & Assoc. (d) The owner shall place in the deeds from Forest Lakes Associ- ates conveying Lots in Neighborhoods 16 through 23 a shown on the Master Plan the following language: "Notice: Ashwood Boulevard may in the future connect to the Meadow Creek Parkway." (Signed) Stephen N. Runkle, 8-1-96 Frank A. Kessler, 8-1-96 Agenda Item No. 14. Request to set public hearing to amend the service area boundaries of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) for sewer service to Christian Aid Mission (Tax Map 59, Parcel 23G) . (Note: Mr. Bowerman returned to the room at 10:43 a.m.) Mr. Cilimberg said that Christian Aid Mission requests amendment of the ACSA's service area in order to provide for sewer service to the applicant's property. This would require access to the Crozet Interceptor which crosses the applicant's property. The applicant feels that they are statutorily entitled to connect to sewer, and the Health Department has suggested that the applicant connect to sewer to accommodate future growth. The applicant's property is located outside of the designated Development Area off of Route 250 West in Rural Area 3, and is zoned Commercial Office. The applicant's property is currently located in the ACSA service area for water only, and the property lies within the South Fork Rivanna watershed. Regarding provision of public utilities, the Comprehensive Plan is intentionally specific in objective and strategies as to where and under what circumstances public utilities should be made available. The Board of Supervisors considered and denied a similar request for this site on July 13, 1983. No significant change of circumstance has occurred since that time. The Board has considered and approved two requests for sewer service for nearby parcels along this stretch of Route 250 West. However, the circum- stances of those requests distinguish them from the request now under consid- eration. The Sieg/Kirtley/Javor request (1984) established a Board policy regarding properties in this area with pre-existing zoning that sewer service should be provided only to portions of the properties which could be served by August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) OOOO25 gravity flow and which drain away from the South Fork Rivanna Watershed. This action added Tax Map 59, Parcels 23C, 23B, 23B1 and 23F to the service area for sewer. It was felt that the circumstances were special for these parcels, and that no significant precedent was set by this approval. The second request, J. W. Sieg & Co. (1987), was based on the 1984 policy decision for the surrounding parcels and involved similar factors. This action added Tax Map 59, Parcel 23D, to the service area to be served by gravity sewer to drain away from the South Fork Rivanna watershed. A third request, Charlottesville Oil Company (1994), met criteria for change in service areas outside of designated Development Area boundaries. The site was adjacent to existing lines and the septic system was failing. This endangered public health and safety. This action added Tax Map 59, Parcels 77 and 80B, to the service area for sewer service. The Health Department is not aware of any complaints, repairs or existing problems with the septic systems on this site. Their opinion is that there would not be enough room to expand the sewage disposal system, with required reserve areas, if the applicant's facility is expanded or if the use of existing structures changes in the future. The section of the Crozet Interceptor crossing the applicant's property is a force main (under pressure) which the applicant could not tie into even if their parcel were located within the service area. In order to reach a gravity sewer, the applicant would need to extend a pipeline to the pumping station located to the west of the Ivy Nursery parcel (Tax Map 59, Parcel 23) or extend a pipeline to the east to the gravity line in the vicinity of the office buildings along Route 250 West. Mr. Cilimberg said this request is not consistent with the strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the provision of sewer service outside of the designated Development Areas and is not consistent with prior Board decisions in this area regarding the provision of water/sewer service. No verification of endangerment to public health and safety has been provided. Based on this information, staff does not recommend approval of this request and, therefore, does not see a necessity for this to proceed to public hearing. Ms. Humphris asked the County Attorney to speak about Paragraph #3 in a letter from Mr. Herbert A. Pickford which states: "The Mission property is statutorily entitled to connect with said sewer in accord with the provisions of Virginia Code Section 15.1-300." Mr. Davis said this request is not different from requests the Board often receives for extension of service areas. The Code section referred to, in his opinion and consistent with prior actions of this Board and other boards across the State, is not applicable to the situation. It deals with sewer lines which are extended through villages and towns and suburban parts of cities. That is not the case here. It only applies to systems owned by the County, and ACSA is an authority, not owned by the County. There is a legal distinction. In addition, there is another section of the Code that says "not withstanding any other section of the Code, the board of supervisors has the right to deny extensions of sewer systems if it is inconsistent with the master sewer plan." The service areas as desig- nated by the County in the Comprehensive Plan is a master sewer plan for this purpose. As long as the Board operates consistently with the master sewer plan, it has the right to deny extensions based upon it. Ms. Thomas said this property lies in her district. She talked with the applicants yesterday. She also talked with someone from the Health Department this morning. She has comments from people in the community which makes her think people would like to have an opportunity to discuss this request which may be grounds for having a public hearing. She does not disagree with the staff's recommendation. The property is zoned Commercial Office, so various alternative uses do exist. There is, apparently, as with any septic field, not a permanent situation, but they do have the required alternative loca- tions. It is of concern to them about future expansions. She would not mind having a public hearing. Mr. Marshall said if the Board decides not to hold a public hearing, the applicant will know their options immediately. Ms. Humphris said she has mixed feelings. Based on everything presented to the Board, she has no intention of supporting the request. She does not want to block a public hearing, but she wants all to know she will not support the request. She does not think it is the right thing to do. There is a lot of history behind the information presented, and it has been made clear over the years that this will not happen. She does not see any reason to raise false hopes. Mr. Bowerman said only if there were extraordinary circum- stances, and he does not see them in this case. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) 0000 9 Mr. Davis suggested that if the Board is not going to hold a public hearing, they afford Mr. Pickford an opportunity to be heard today so that any issue he has not raised can have a full forum. It does not require a public hearing, but the property owner may want to make some comments. Ms. Humphris asked if the applicant has anything to add that has not been made clear to the Board. Mr. Herbert Pickford, Attorney for Christian Aid Mission, was present along with Mr. Robert Finley, President of Christian Aid Mission, and his assistant, Mr. Rick Brown. Mr. Pickford said this request is premised on a statutory right as they view it, and is not a matter of discretion. It is whether or not the Board sees that it has a statutory duty to authorize the ACSA to serve this property. The property is on Route 250 West, and from the City Limits of Charlottesville out to this area there is considerable develop- ment. He has talked with Mr. Davis who said he does not feel this property qualifies as a suburb property. He disagrees with that. Mere designation for pl.annin~ purposes does not convert reality into non-reality. This is a suburb which is defined by the law as being a component of an urban area. The Board of Supervisors formed the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority and the Albemarle County Service Authority for the purpose of furnishing water and sewer services to urban areas. Mr. Pickford said he contends that this is urban area and Section 15.1- 300 gives counties the authority to establish sewer and water mains. It also consents to the governing body of the County locating those water mains and streets, alleys and public ways in any incorporated town, village or suburb of any city. He thinks it can be established that this property is a suburb of the City of Charlottesville. Further this Code section says ~the owners of adjacent lands (this line ~oes through this property, it crosses Route 677 and follows the road bed to old Route 250) shall have the right to connect their premises to such sewer and water mains on such terms as the governin~ body shall prescribe." Mr. Pickford said that seems to be clear. He said Mr. Davis pointed out the statute the County relies on, 15.1-327.1, but that has to do with approval of sewage systems by the County. It does not deal with connection onto existing sewer lines. This deals with the establishment of sewage systems. There is already an established sewage system, and what the Mission is asking is that the Board authorize the ACSA to serve this property. It is a legal question. It is not a matter of policy. He knows the Board wants to defend the Comprehensive Plan as stron~ as it can, but there are instances where State law supersedes local law. He believes this is one of those instances. He requested that the Board direct the ACSA to serve the Christian Aid Mission property. Mr. Martin asked what Mr. Pickford considers suburbs; how far beyond the Mission property do the suburbs extend? Mr. Pickford said the County seems to have had a problem with that question also. In the 1977 Comprehensive Plan, it defined the northern part of the urban rin~ around the City as being Iv]z Creek and the South Fork Rivanna River, but when it got into the area in question, it was not clear. He thinks the County has taken the position that because the surface drainage for this property, and those adjacent to it, are toward Ivy Creek and the South Fork, it is not to be in the ~rowth area. Because of that it was put in the rural area. Calling it a rural area does not make fact fiction. Driving from Route 677 all the way into Charlottes- ville (2.3 miles), there is a heavy concentration of buildings. The defini- tion of a suburb is ~a component of an urban community. It is merely an outlyin~ part of the city which may be used for business or residential purposes or a district adjacent to the city that is convenient to use as a place of residence for persons workin~ therein, or for location of plants and stores." Mr. Pickford said Route 677 might be the cut-off point for the actual suburb because beyond that point there is a nursery and there are farms. There is a farm across the road from the Mission property, but that is the only piece of agricultural property between Christian Aid Mission and the City of Charlottesville. Ms. Humphris asked the County Attorney if he had any further comments on the applicant's presentation. Mr. Davis said this is a matter where Mr. Pickford has taken a position different from what has been the established position of this Board and the general interpretation of the statute. He believes this Board has the discretion to act on the service area request as it always has, and that this does not require the granting of a connection. ooOoao August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 30) Ms. Thomas said she looked into the history of why the sewer line was installed here if this area was not intended to be suburbs and there was no intention to allow hook-ons to the sewer line. Apparently, the original proposal for the line was along Ivl; Creek. That would have been cheaper and more direct, but it would have drastically impacted the watershed. Just the construction of the line would have gone along the most sensitive area, so all the decisions that created the sewer line have had to do with protecting the Rivanna Reservoir. The line exists and it is small in size because it was to deal with the waste in Crozet and not any other waste along the way. The line would have been made larger and put in a different location if it had not been created to protect the Reservoir. One of the parking lots on the Mission property is over a septic field. That is one reason why the Health Department is unhappy about the drainfields on the site. The Mission does have the land now for the alternate sites which are required for drainfields. The Mission wants to add two buildings (another dormitory like they presently have and a second conference center). Ms. Thomas said she appreciates their dilemma and what good citizens they are, but as the representative for this district, and as one who actually opposed construction of that sewer line years ago, she thinks the Board's obligation is to continue the policy of protecting the watershed. This Board has gone all the way to the Supreme Court to protect that watershed. This is not something the Board does lightly. She does not see any overriding, health, safety, public reason for the Board to change the precedent of acting to protect the watershed. Ms. Humphris said that has always been crystal clear. Mr. Perkins said the Crozet Interceptor was built to take care of the problems in Crozet. It was not intended that everybody between Moores Creek and Crozet could connect to it. If Christian Aid Mission had a failing sewer system, he thinks the Board would be obligated to extend the service area, but apparently they don't have. They will probably just have to wait until they do have a failing system and then the Board will be forced to extend the service area or they will have to close. Mr. Perkins said he is not opposed to holding a public hearing, and if the Board does allow a connection, it should not be to the interceptor, but to the line that serves Charlottesville Oil and other businesses in the area if that line is adequate. Mr. Cilimberg said it about 1600 feet in either direction to connect to a line. Mr. Martin said it boils down to the same issue the Board talked about earlier, but in reverse. In that situation, morally, an obligation had been made to those people. In this situation, morally an obligation has been made to the people who the Board told that tie-ins would not be allowed. The same thing is happening in Mr. Martin's district with the line that goes to G!enmore. That line went there specifically with the promise that the Board would not allow people to attach onto it unless they met the qualification about the safety issue. He thinks the Board has to honor the policy of not haphazardly making connections to the Interceptor line. Ms. Humphris reminded Board members that staff has said that this request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, it is not consistent with prior Board decisions, there has been no verification of endangerment to public health and safety, and they do not recommend approval of the request to hold a public hearing. She asked the County Attorney if there should be a motion to deny the request. Mr. Davis suggested the motion state the Board will not hold a public hearing on the request. Ms. Thomas said the Board has no reason not to take public comments. Mr. Marshall said he has no intention of supporting the request. Ms. Humphris agreed. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it would be misleading to hold a public hearing and offered motion that the Board NOT hold a public hearing on this request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (Not Docketed: The Board recessed at 11:04 a.m., and reconvened at 11:20 a.m.) August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) 000032, Agenda Item No. 15. Update: Comprehensive Plan Review. Mr. Cilimberg said this is to provide the Board a status report and schedule for the review of the remainder of the Comprehensive Plan in accord with the consensus of the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors at its joint meeting of June 5, 1996. The Commission has generally accepted the concept of forming a Planning Commission sub-committee to assist in working on the Development Area initiatives. Staff will be working with two Commission- ers, Mr. Bruce Dotson and Mr. Pete Anderson, to further identify committee membership and outline committee work for Commission acceptance. By October, they hope to finish work on the section on the Natural Environment. That will coincide with the delivery of the Mountain Protection Plan and Historic Protection Plan to the Board so that can be dealt with as a set of natural, scenic and historic resource initiatives. Staff has talked to the Commission about Development Area initiatives (in-fill policy). They suggested that a committee be formed to work with staff to determine how this can be done, and hopefully they can do it within the month. On the subject of Rural Areas policy and Development Areas expansion, they expect the work to go into late 1997. They expect it to take and one and one-half years to finish the work needed. Ms. Thomas said she thinks it is important to involve residents in the update. She has heard a lot of interest and concern expressed about how this work will proceed. She has been impressed by what some citizens are doing so there is not a ~nimby" reaction. Mr. Martin said he received a letter from Mr. Tom Olivier that contained some excellent recommendations of people to serve on the committee. He asked if the committee is to be composed or ten or fifteen people. Mr. Cilimberg said the number of members has not been decided at this time. Mr. Martin said he thinks it should be a large committee, thus giving an opportunity to have viable subcommittees. He said there are quite a number of people who might be affected by these changes, and he thinks they should have an opportunity to serve on the committee. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has discussed ways to involve a lot of people. Ms. Thomas said a good design to show people is needed so they will know what is being suggested. That may involve design capability from an outside consultant. She is saying that some dollars may have to be put into this in order to get the idea across to the citizens. Mr. Cilimberg said staff has also discussed this. Ms. Thomas said she is not in favor of bringing in a consultant who uses the ~cookie cutter" approach and then leaves. She thinks this has to involve education, training and local people. Mr. Cilimberg said someone with facilitation techniques who can get the citizens involved is what staff has discussed. Ms. Humphris said this person would need to show how the plan would be apply in individual, specific neighborhoods. Mr. Cilimberg said that was done in the City a couple of years ago for the West Main Street project. Mr. Bowerman said citizens from Crozet brought to the Board some renderings for the Crozet area. They had some real community-level discus- sions. He said the County has the in-house expertise for this type of thing, but not the in-house hours needed to do it. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. Mr. Marshall said he thinks an entrepreneur will have to be involved in order to get anything developed, somebody who is willing to put up the money. Mr. Cilimberg said in order for anything in the Comprehensive Plan to develop, it is going to depend on property owners exercising their decisions consistent with the Plan, and that includes developers. The more the County can involve those people up-front and show how it can happen, the better the result will be. Ms. Thomas said she thinks the community would change dramatically if there were one really good example on the ground that was proving to be popular with buyers. Unfortunately, the County does not have that. Mr. Bowerman said Forest Lakes was a new concept when it was approved. The applicant said people were looking for smaller lots with more amenities. It was to have been a ten-year built-out, and they built Forest Lakes North in about four or five years. Mr. Cilimberg said he and Mr. Benish hope Mr. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 32) Dotson and Mr. Anderson will be able to help them find some examples of what has been done in other locations. This is not new business from a national perspective, although it certainly is different from the traditional develop- ment in Albemarle County. Mr. Marshall said this is a concept, that if advertised, could attract more people to the County. He, for one, does not want to attract more people to Albemarle County. However, people are coming so he guesses the County has to work out a way to control them, and that is probably to work with develop- ers to use the least amount of land possible to protect the rural areas. Mr. Perkins said he was surprised at the one-story model home being built in Dunlora. For the last ten or fifteen years, houses have been two- story houses because the ~baby boomers" are young and can climb those steps to go to bed at night. If you have elderly parents, you know that everything needs to be on one floor. Mr. Marshall said that is correct, it depends on what stage of life you are in. Mr. Martin said he would like to mention one issue for the committee to study. He thinks problems are created where old developments ~bump up against" new developments. Forest Lakes is self-contained, so no one really has a lot of complaints about it except at the point where it bumps up against older development. Transitioning is a big issue which should be discussed. Ms. Thomas said when the Board discussed the build-out issue, she was impressed with the idea that at least six dwelling units per acre were needed to have a walking community. She had always though the County would have places were people would be able to walk (maybe not to work) but to the grocery stores and recreational areas. The County is not building anything of that density, in fact the City of Charlottesville is not even that density. She said Crozet has that possibility with its grid streets and its built-in feelings of what you can do with sidewalks. She still thinks it is a goal to get such densities in new areas. Ms. Humphris asked if there was any member of the public who wished to speak. There was no one who wished to speak. Ms. Humphris said she saw an article in the New Hope Pennsylvania Gazette about a town which passed an open space preservation bond for $4.0 million in April with an unprecedented 93 percent approval rate. They intend to buy development rights and purchase land outright in order to maintain their open space. She thinks the Board should ask ~How did you do that?~ She thinks the Board needs to know more about who does such a thing, how it can be done and what options are available. Mr. Bowerman said he thinks there should be enough flexibility to be able to use some money from the County if there is a need to pay for what is needed to get this process into an intelligent expression so the people can understand what is being proposed. If outside people are needed, then some direct resources are needed. Ms. Humphris said the Board has to be realistic about what the staff has the time to do. That needs to be done fairly soon. Mr. Bowerman said he senses that since the UREF decision the community is going to have some growth and some decent jobs. He thinks the public is also saying that they under- stand what is going to happen, but they want to allow for that and also maintain the rural aspect of the community by protecting the rural areas. There is also the infill issue to be settled for the urban areas. He thinks there is enough critical mass among all of the different interest groups to be able to accomplish that. He feels this is the perfect time to put together a plan that really works for the area. Mr. Perkins wondered about the timing of this and the formation of the committee. He asked if there are enough staff people to direct and help the committee. He asked when staff would be expecting a report. Mr. Cilimberg said they have estimated that it would be in May of next year. Mr. Marshall said he wants some poor people involved with the committee. He does not want just the wealthy people who have all of the control involved. Poor people live in Albemarle County and they need to have a say. These people need affordable housing, jobs and a decent place to live too. The Board can't make Albemarle County a country club for the rich. There's a August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 33) 0000;3.3 place in Albemarle for everyone, particularly those who were born and raised here and who are being pushed out. With no further comments, the Board went to discussion of the next agenda item. Agenda Item No. 16. Discussion: Barking Dog Ordinance. Mr. Tucker said staff investigated how other jurisdictions have regu- lated barking dogs and reported those findings to the Board last month. The Board then requested that a draft ordinance be prepared for review at this meeting. The draft is similar to the City of Charlottesville's ordinance, but does not apply to dogs located in areas of the County zoned Rural Areas, or to dogs in commercial kennels. Staff feels the need for a barking dog ordinance has not been demonstrated in the rural areas, and that adequate land use regulations are in place to regulate commercial kennels. They are allowed only by special use permit in certain zoning categories. The draft ordinance requires that the complainant swear out the w~rrant, and then testify in court. A violation would be a Class $ misdemeanor which allows the court to impose a fine of up to $500. Three convictions within a twelve-month time period requires the court to mandate that the dog be relocated where barking would not be a problem. The Commonwealth Attorney's Office advised that their office would not actively prosecute such cases, but would be available to assist to the extent necessary. If the Board wishes to set the ordinance for a public hearing, staff recommends that it be set for a September meeting date. At the time the report was written, he did not know the Board had the opportunity to cancel its meeting on September 18. Mr. Marshall said he cannot be present on September 18. He did want to vote on this ordinance. Ms. Humphris said someone thought the Board was canceling September 18 because she will be away. That is not true at all. She was told by the Clerk that the meeting on September 18 could be canceled because there were no public hearings, so she had scheduled her vacation a day earlier. Mr. Tucker said Sgts. Martin and Limerick from the Police Department are present this morning to listen. They did not come to make a presentation, but can answer questions from Board members. Ms. Humphris invited them to speak. Sgt. Crystal Limerick said she is an active member of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Kennel Club which is against this ordinance. However, she has spoken to people in the County over the past 14 years that have a major quality of life issue with barking dogs in their neighborhoods. That is where her sympathies lies, so she is opposed to the Kennel Club's position on the ordinance. Her concern about the ordinance is that the barking is defined as ~loud frequent or habitual barking or howling." She asked if that is one loud bark, or two? The ordinance does require that the individual request a warrant from the magistrate, which is a positive step. As the system works, anybody can go the magistrate and get a warrant. Ms. Limerick said she feels there should be some way to verify there is a problem before getting a warrant. She is concerned with the lack of further definition of loud and frequent barking. This ordinance does not apply in the rural areas, and it can be just as bad a problem in those areas. It is a major quality of life issue. Ms. Thomas asked Ms. Limerick if it is her experience that the rural areas are just as impacted as the urban areas. She got a letter from a constituent who has moved his father out of an apartment near the ~famous dog" that all have heard about in Hessian hills because of the loud barking. The gentlemen lives in the North Garden area and he said the five-acre lots make a big difference. He just closes his windows. Ms. Limerick said she has spoken to many people in the County's rural areas where barking is a problem. Ms. Humphris said most of the subdivisions are in the rural areas. Mr. Marshall said two of his neighbors died recently, and the houses are now rented. The renters find it very offensive when he weans his cows. There have been cows on his farm for decades, but the neighbors have changed. Ms. Thomas said the Keswick Kennel Club is concerned because the kennel has been on the property for close to 100 years, and now the Keswick area is building up and people will be moving in to the big expensive houses and they will find if offensive that these dogs are barking. She said her sympathy is August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 34) 000034 with the dogs in that case, and that is why she has been trying to make a distinction between urban and rural. It may be a losing struggle. Mr. Tucker said staff wanted to focus on the more urban areas. There are complaints in all areas. If the ordinance is not adequate in some areas, the Board could always amend the ordinance. Staff knows the Board will receive many complaints if the rural areas are included in the ordinance. Mr. Marshall asked what recourse an individual would have under existing regulations. Mr. Davis said that currently, without a criminal warrant, a citizen can file a civil action and have a judge in a civil court find that a nuisance exists and sue for damages or ask that the nuisance be abated. Mr. Marshall said he thinks that is adequate. He does not understand the need for an ordinance. Mr. Martin said there is another issue. If he has a barking dog and only one neighbor objects and that person goes to the magistrate, all he has to say is that there is probable cause, and he has access to the Common- wealth's Attorney. The person with the barking dog has to hire an attorney. He feels some people will use the ordinance appropriately, and others might use it just to tie people up in court. Ms. Limerick said that was one thing the Kennel Club members discussed, the vindictive nature of some neighbors to pursue the warrant process. Mr. Martin said the judge has a person on one side saying the dog barks too loud, and another person paying an attorney who says the dog does not bark too loud. He feels the judge will dismiss the case, and this person has had to pay an attorney and be tied up the legal system. Ms. Thomas said that is what happens in the civil cases now according to what she read in the newspa- per. Mr. Davis said his experience in this type of situation has been that a judge is not likely to convict unless they find a sincere problem. The language in the ordinance is similar to that in other ordinances he has looked at. It is impossible to define what loud is as it applies to a barking dog. This ordinance addresses it in a general fashion and applies it to a person with reasonable sensitivities. A judge will have to make that call. Mr. Bowerman asked the difference between civil and misdemeanor. Mr. Davis said the argument for a criminal ordinance is that people will take it more seriously. It gives the police officer a tool when he responds to the scene. He can say there has been a complaint and if it persists, his neighbor can swear out a criminal warrant, and he would be required to go to court. It is probably an easier process for a person to pursue because they do not need an attorney. They would have the assistance of the police department and the Commonwealth's Attorney. It creates a cleaner, more efficient process for the complainant. On the other side, if it is done for an improper motive, it makes the person who owns the dog a criminal defendant in a serious process. The person who owns the dog has the more serious consequences if the ordinance is abused. In a civil process, it is simply a civil matter without any criminal connotations to it. Mr. Marshall said it could be a vindicative situation involved. Mr. Martin said if someone were convicted of having a barking dog, any time someone does a police check, it shows on that person's record. Mr. Davis said he has been told by people whose localities have similar ordinances that it is infrequent that they see it abused. There are not a great number of prosecu- tions under these ordinances even in very urban localities. Mr. Bowerman said that probably occurs because a police officer knocks on the door and says if you don't quiet down your dogs a criminal warrant will be sworn out by a neighbor, and that person responds. Sgt. Limerick said hopefully that would be the case, but that is not required with this ordi- nance. Instead of calling the police, they could go directly to the magis- trate and swear out a warrant. Mr. Martin said it would not have to be done at that time, in fact, it could be done at anytime and not even be an inconve- nience for the complainant. Sgt. Richard Martin said the Police Department had suggested to the original complaining party (Hessian Hills) that she talk to her attorney and bring a civil action in General District Court for the nuisance of the dog. They felt that if a large fine had been ordered, the owner would quiet the dog down. The complainant would not take any action. The Police went to the door several times and said there had been complaints about the barking dog. Finally, the person who had to move out of the apartment complex because of August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 35) 00003 5 the barking dog went to court, got a civil action, and the judge awarded them $250.00 for the cost of moving. The judge asked why they had waited so long, and he also said that if there was a second complaint, the next fine would be much worse. From that standpoint, the Police need some usable tool in the urban ring to work with this type of situation. One thing that would not work would be to require use of a noise meter to get a decibel level on the barking dog. A police office does not have the time to deal with this type of thing when they are busy chasing burglars, drunk drivers, etc. There is not enough manpower at night to do so. Animal control officers don't work past 7:30 p.m. in the summer, or 6:30 p.m. in the winter. He has already instructed the animal control officers to write a report on any complaints whether it is a criminal matter or not. The officer then visits with the owner and explains the complaints. The problem now is that the citizens thinks that if they complain often enough, the animal control officer will swear out the warrant and call them as a witness, then they don't come to court, so there is no solution to the problem. He said the animal control officers will enforce any ordinance the Board adopts, but they are getting a lot of complaints, so they need a tool to work with. Mr. Tucker said there is nothing in the present ordinance to explain the process to be used in order for a citizen to obtain a warrant. He thinks this ordinance might be a simple way to get that process out to the people. It also causes the least impact on staff and still gives the public an opportu- nity to feel they have the authority to take some action to correct their problem. Mr. Richard Martin said as the ordinance is written, the complainant is the one to obtain the criminal warrant. It does not prohibit the animal control officer or a police officer from obtaining the criminal complaint and issue witness subpoenas from everybody who is complaining. Mr. Charles Martin asked why the Board could not make this ordinance similar to the leash law ordinance and leave it as an option in individual neighborhoods. Mr. Davis said in the situation in Hessian Hills the com- plaints were being made against the dog, but the complaints were coming from the apartment complex next door. Requiring people in the subdivision to petition the Board for a barking dog ordinance would not have addressed that problem on adjoining property. Since noise travels between subdivisions, it would not solve the problems. Mr. Charles Martin said it might not solve every case, but he thinks the Board should use a ~go slow approach" on this question and leave it up to the individual neighborhoods to make a request for the law. Mr. Davis said if a dog is running at large in your neighborhood and that neighborhood has chosen to have a leash law, that law is effective. With barking, it does not solve the problem because your neighborhood may have chosen to restrict barking, and the neighborhood next door has not done so. You still hear the barking. The Police have another problem with the leash law in that it is very hard for them to identify the boundaries of a neighborhood and are having problems with prosecutions in criminal court. Mr. Charles Martin asked if there would not be the same problem with a judge trying to determine which area'was rural and which was not. Mr. Richard Martin said zoning of a property is on a tax map, but the leash law is not defined by tax map. Ms. Thomas said the first complaint about barking dogs that she received was from someone who lives in Peacock Hills. She urged them to see what the homeowners' association could do. She asked if they can, as a subdivision, restrict barking. Mr. Davis said unless it is in their restrictive covenants already, it may be difficult to put something in those covenants. That usually requires a high percentage of the owners to put further restrictions on their property. Ms. Humphris said the Board needs to decide whether it wants to go further and hold a public hearing on the ordinance. Mr. Marshall said he will not support the ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Marshall if he had received calls from his constituents about problems. Mr. Marshall said he has had about three calls, but they were all solved by the citizens themselves. Mr. Bowerman said he has had calls, and he told them they had civil remedies. In the cases he is familiar with, the property owner has been unwilling to deal with the situation and they did not seek civil August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 36) remedies. Not all people have the inclination to do that because they don't want to make an issue out of it. He feels sorry for people in a situation where they feel they have no recourse, like those people in Hessian Hills. Ms. Humphris said she has received numerous letters and telephone calls so she cannot imagine not holding a public hearing on the proposed ordinance. She feels the Board owes it to the public to hear from them and then make a decision based on a full-blown discussion, not just a discussion among the Board members. She does not want to just cut off discussion. Ms. Thomas asked the status of the Noise Ordinance the Planning Commis- sion is supposed to be looking at. Should one ordinance precede the other? Mr. Davis said a general draft of an Ordinance was presented to the Commission a couple of weeks ago, and they made comments. Zoning staff is rewriting parts of the ordinance with the help of the County Attorney's staff. His recommendation is that a barking dog ordinance not be part of a general noise ordinance. It is better to have as an animal control ordinance because it is generally dealt with by animal control officers. It is a different type of ordinance, because it is not a consistent type of noise. There are some provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that already deal with barking, and he recommends that those provisions remain in the Zoning Ordinance whereas other noise provisions may be deleted when the comprehensive noise ordinance is reviewed. Animal noises are different from other distinguishable noises. Mr. Marshall said it depends on where a person lives as to how things are perceived. The three complaints he received were all received from people living in very rural areas who had just moved into a rural area from a city and they didn't like dogs, had never been exposed to dogs. Mr. Bowerman said he agrees with Ms. Humphris that the Board owes the people on both sides of the issue and opportunity to comment on the ordinance. It is an issue of enough significance to hold a public hearing. Mr. Charles Martin said he does not agree that it is a significant issue. How many dogs are there in Albemarle County, and how many complaints are received? He does not feel the Board should adopt a law to handle the very few hard-core complaints that are received. He thinks it is an insignif- icant issue. Mr. Bowerman said that is the crux of the issue. Most of the complaints are dealt with by the people involved. It is only when people refuse to deal with the issue that it becomes like the issue in Hessian Hills. Mr. Charles Martin said he thinks that when an ordinance such as this is adopted, reasonable people who would have reasonably worked out a situation are going to take out a warrant rather than talking it through. Ms. Humphris said the County Attorney said evidence is to the contrary. Mr. Martin said he thinks this is an insignificant issue, but if the Board makes it a significant issue there will be a number of people who could have and should have worked it out together. The Board is doing all of this for the five dogs a year which are creating real problems. Mr. Bowerman said that is a reasonable argument. Ms. Humphris said it is not five dogs based on the communications she has received. Mr. Perkins said he does not disagree with Mr. Martin, but he thinks the Board still needs to hold a public hearing and take public comments. Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to set this item for public hearing at an appropriate time. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin. Ms. Humphris said the Board needs to decide on a date for the hearing. Mr. Marshall said he would like to be able to vote on the issue, and he will not be in town on September 18, 19960 Mr. Tucker suggested either October 9 or October 16. Mr. Richard Martin said he would not be available on October 9, 1996. 0000,37 August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 37) Ms. Humphris suggested the ordinance be scheduled for October 16, 1996. Mr. Davis asked if the draft ordinance is the ordinance the Board wants advertised for the public hearing. Ms. Humphris agreed. Mr. Davis said he has received a number of calls from concerned citizens living in the rural areas. These people may not be interested in the ordinance in its present format. Mr. Marshall said he thinks they will be if they find out they are adjacent to an urban area. Mr. Davis said the way this ordinance is drafted, if the dog is in the rural area, the ordinance does not apply to the dog. Ms. Humphris said information about this ordinance needs to get out to the citizens. Mr. Bowerman said that definition helps him. Mr. Davis said he thinks a lot of the controversy will be from people like kennel clubs and from the rural areas where the citizens have intense feelings about this issue. If they are assured that the ordinance being considered does not affect them, it will probably soften the public hearing. Ms. Humphris suggested that the draft ordinance have a cover letter setting out the particular points men- tioned by Mr. Davis. Mr. Marshall said he has problems about how the lines are drawn because there is property being used as rural land that is in the urban ring and is slated for development. Ms. Humphris said it depends on the zoning and not the use of the property. Mr. Bowerman said a subdivision in a rural area would be exempted. Ms. Humphris asked Mr. Davis about a statement in his letter which says ~The Commonwealth's Attorney advises that his office typically would not actively prosecute such cases but would be available to assist to the extent necessary." Mr. Davis said that now, in misdemeanor cases that involve a crime between two people that is not of a serious nature, they typically do not prepare a case and stand up and present the evidence on behalf of the complainant. The General District Court is a fairly informal process and the judge basically controls how the evidence is presented. If somebody has a question about how they are to present the case, or where they are to be, the Commonwealth's Attorney will tell them how it is done and walk them through the process. If it is a very serious case, the Commonwealth's Attorney may elect to present the evidence and argue the case on behalf of the complainant, and that is more likely to occur if the defendant is represented by an attorney. Mr. Charles Martin said he does not believe the Commonwealth's Attorney, who is an elected official, will say ~no" to any request for his participa- tion. Mr. Marshall said peacocks make more noise than dogs. Ms. Thomas said guinea hens make more noise. Mr. Davis said this ordinance only refers to dogs. Mr. Marshall said he is afraid that this will lead to adding others. He has had more complaints about peacocks than dogs. Agenda Item No. 17. Cancel September 18, 1996, Board of Supervisors' meeting. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Martin, to cancel the meeting of September 18, 1996. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from Board members. Mr. Martin mentioned the new road which will be built at the Monticello High School. He said in the process, the County is crossing the road into Tandem School. In the beginning, it was decided that the County would give Tandem another exit at a different place, and then, against their wishes, the County decided to leave their approach where it is now where there is a critical slope. He would like to have more information about this at a future meeting. It does not seem to be very neighborly. He has talked to Ms. Jo Higgins, but he would like for this Board to look at the issue in the near future to see how the Board would like to proceed. Mr. Marshall said he agrees that the Board should study the issue. August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 38) 000035 Ms. Thomas said moving the contaminated soil from Greenwood to Red Hill has been completed successfully. There is an open house being held this afternoon at Greenwood so people can see the finished site at Greenwood. A letter was sent to all neighbors who could be identified to tell them about the open house. She said the people in Red Hill were very cooperative after everything was explained to them. Ms. Thomas mentioned a report on school health issued by the League of Women Voters (a position paper regarding school nurses) . She volunteered to forward a copy to any person requesting one. Mr. Bowerman asked when the recycling center reopens. Ms. Thomas said it officially opens next Monday. Ms. Humphris said she would like to know the significance of the letter from Ms. Karen Lilleleht, Chairman of the Housing Committee. She did not understand about Thomas Jefferson Housing Improvements Corporation and the County's Housing Committee. She asked for a staff report giving the role of the AHIP, TJHIC and the County's Housing Committee. Mr. Martin said he had a matter which he wished to bring up about the board of the Juvenile Detention Home in Staunton. (Note: After conferring with the County Attorney, Mr. Martin noted that the item can be discussed in executive session.) Agenda Item No. 19. Executive Session: Personnel Matters. At 12:42 p.m., motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman to adjourn into executive session pursuant to Section 2.1-344.A of the Code of Virginia under subsection (1) to discuss personnel matters concerning appointments to boards and commissions, personnel matters concerning a personnel agreement for the Sheriff's Department and related salaries of specific employees, and a personnel matter concerning a performance evaluation of a specific employee; under subsection (3) to discuss the acquisition of property related to the Keene Landfill, and under subsection (7) to consult with legal counsel and staff regarding specific legal matters relating to reversion, a specific legal matter related to a lease of real property, and a legal matter regarding the regional detention home. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Certify Executive Session. At 4:33 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman 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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Perkins. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. None. (Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall that the Board authorize the purchase of 75.176 acres of property adjacent to the Keene Landfill currently a part of the VanClief Estate at a purchase price of $750 Approved by the Board of County Su- pervisors Date Initials~j3~ August 7, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 0000~9 (Page 39) per acre and that the County Executive be authorized to execute all documents necessary to purchase and accept such property. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Appointments. Motion was offered by Ms. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to appoint Mr. Philip Sparks to the Piedmont Community College Board of Directors with a term to expire on June 30, 2000. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Ms. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bowerman. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Adjourn. At 4:34 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.