Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1996-01-03
January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 1) 000269 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 3, 1996, beginning at 9:00 A.M., Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Mr. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Mr. Charles S. Martin, Mr. Walter F. Perkins and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County Attorney, Larry W. Davis; and Director of Planning and Community Development, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M., by the County Executive, Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Election of Chairman. Mr. Tucker asked for nominations for Chairman. Mr. Bowerman nominated Charlotte Humphris as Chairman. Mr. Marshall seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations. Mr. Tucker closed the nominations. Roll was called and the nomination carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mrs. Humphris. Mrs. Humphris thanked the Board for the honor of allowing her to serve as Chairman. Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Humphris whether she wanted to be referred to as Chairman, Madam Chair, etc. Mrs. Humphris said she has no problem with being referred to as Chairman. Agenda Item No. 5. Election of Vice-Chairman. Mrs. Humphris opened the floor for nominations. Mr. Perkins nominated Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., as Vice-Chairman. Mr. Bowerman seconded the nominations. Mrs. Humphris closed the nominations. Roll was called and the nomination carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall. Mr. Marshall thanked the Board for the honor of electing him Vice- Chairman. Agenda Item No. 6. Appointment of Clerk and Deputy Clerk. ' Motion was made by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to reappoint Ms. Ella Carey as Clerk and Ms. Lettie Neher as Deputy Clerk. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 7. Set Meeting Times, Dates and Places for Calendar Year 1996. January 3, 1996 (Regular (Page 2) 000270 Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set meetings for the first Wednesday of the month at 9:00 a.m., and the second and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m., with said meetings to be held in the County Office Building. Mrs. Humphris said in 1995 the Board decided to cancel its third meeting in December due to its proximity to the holidays. She asked if the Board had any preference as to whether it wanted to cancel its third meeting in December for 1996. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that the Board's first meeting for 1997 is on New Year's Day. He suggested that the Board also set that meeting date at this time. Mrs. Humphris said the Board could meet the first business day (January 2) or move everything forward one week. Mrs. Thomas then amended her motion to cancel the Board's December 18, 1996, meeting due to its proximity to the holidays and set the Board's first meeting for 1997 for January 2, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 8. Set Dates for Hearing Zoning Text Amendments Requested by Citizens. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to set dates to hear zoning text amendments by citizens for June 19, September 18 and December 11, 1996 and March 19, 1997. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Agenda Item No. 9. Adoption of Rules of Procedure. Mrs. Thomas said the Rules of Procedure state that the Board must be notified by registered mail or by the Sheriff for special meetings. She asked if the notice could be provided by telephone. Mr. Davis responded that this is a State Code requirement. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Martin, to readopt the Rules of Procedure. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. There were none. Agenda Item No. 11. Consent Agenda. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve items 11.1 through 11.6 on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items for information. (Discussions on items are included with the agenda item.) Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. Item No. 11.1. Find vacation of portion of right-of-way of Thurston Drive in compliance with §15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia, and authorize County Executive to sign deed of vacation. January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 3 ) 000 71 The Executive Summary states that Thurston Subdivision was originally approved in 1977. This development is located on the east side of Route 810 approximately one mile north of Route 240. A portion of the lots were combined and developed with a farm and horse training center. This proposal is to vacate that portion of Thurston Drive which is beyond the remaining lots in the Thurston Subdivision. Ail individuals served by that portion of Thurston Drive which is proposed for vacation have agreed to this vacation. The rear portion of the Thurston Subdivision has been consolidated into two lots which are used to operate a horse training center. The owners of these lots have no intention of developing the property for a residential subdivision at this time and desire to vacate the public right-of-way in order to allow the bond for the road to be released and to restrict access. Due to the use of the property as a horse training center, use of the road by the general public may dis- tract/frighten the horses resulting in injury to horse and/or trainer. Staff can identify no public purpose to be served by retention of the public right-of-way. In fact, abandonment of the right-of-way would be in response to agricultural operations which is recommended for this property. (The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas). The action required by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors is to find abandonment of this right-of-way in compliance with §15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia. To make a positive finding, abandonment of the right- of-way must be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. As the Comprehen- sive Plan identifies no public road or need for a public road in this area, staff can find no conflict between this proposal and the Comprehensive Plan. Should the Board of Supervisors agree with this analysis, staff recommends that the County Executive be authorized to sign the deed of vacation. By the recorded vote set out above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the deed of vacation. DEED OF VACATION THIS DEED OF VACATION, made this day of May, 1996, by and between FRED S. LANDESS, as Trustee of BRAEBURN FARM LAND TRUST, under Agreement, dated September 2, 1986, First Grantor of the first part, BRAEBURN FARM CORPORATION, a Virginia corporation, Second Grantor of the second part, BRAEBURN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership, Third Grantor and Grantee of the third part, JOSEPH D. MILLER, JR., sole-acting Trustee of the fourth part, NATIONSBANK, N.A., Noteholder of the fifth part, and the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA, of the sixth part; WI TNE S S E TH : Thurston Subdivision (hereinafter "Thurston") is a residen- tial subdivision situated in Albemarle County, Virginia, and is described on a subdivision plat entitled "Subdivision Plat of Section One Thurston near Crozet", prepared by William S. Rouda- bush, dated December 1, 1977, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia, in Deed Book 637, page 458, and revised June 8, 1979, and re-recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 703, page 467 (hereinafter "the Subdivision Plat" ). The lots in Thurston are served by a public road, namely, Thurston Drive. The northeastern terminus of Thurston Drive is a cul-de-sac adjacent to Lot 36, Lot 37, Lot 38 as shown on the Subdivision Plat. Thurston Drive extends in a westerly direction adjacent to Lots 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and a portion of 50, as shown on the Subdivision Plat, to a temporary cul-de-sac adjacent to Lot 50 as shown on the Subdivision Plat, and Parcel 32 1, T.M. 40B, as shown on a plat recorded in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 820, page 80. Fred S. Landess, as Trustee of Braeburn Farm Land Trust, is the owner of Lot 37, as shown on the Subdivision Plat, which lot contains 36.79 acres, more or less, being in all respects the same property conveyed to the First Grantor in paragraph 2 of a deed January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 4) 000272 from Caleb N. Stowe and Lynn W. Stowe, husband and wife, dated September 2, 1986, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 879, page 273. In addition said Braeburn Land Trust ow-ns a tract of 74.218 acres which adjoins Lot 37 on the east and which is identified on the tax map of Albemarle County as Parcel 68G, T.M.56. Braeburn Farm Corporation is the owner of Lot 38, as shown on the Subdivision Plat, which lot contains 9.00 acres, more or less, being in all respects the same property conveyed to the Second Grantor by deed, of Braeburn Farm Land Trust, dated Septem- ber 30, 1993, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 1350, page 38. Braeburn Limited Partnership is the owner of Lots 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49, as shown on the Subdivi- sion Plat, which lots, excluding Thurston Drive, contain 81.127 acres, more or less, being portions of the property conveyed to the Third Grantor by deed of exchange with Caleb N. Stowe, dated September 26, 1984, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 817, page 108, and deed of exchange with Felix J. Nuesch and Annamarie T. Nuesch, dated October 9, 1984, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 817, page 111, and deed of exchange with Raymond V. Long, Jr., dated September 18, 1984, of record in the said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 817, page 113. Braeburn Limited Partnership is also the owner of Parcel 32 1 on T.M. 40B, containing 34.916 acres, as shown on a plat record- ed in Deed Book 820, page 79, which combines Lots 29, 30, 31, 35 and 36 as shown on the Subdivision Plat with Lots 32, 33 and 34 which had been previously combined on plat of record in Deed Book 771, page 263, being added to and becoming a portion of Parcel 32 1, T.M. 40B, as shown on plat in Deed Book 820, page 80, being other portions of the property conveyed to the Third Grantor by the three deeds of exchange referred to above. By deed of trust, dated December 19, 1986, of record in said Clerk's Office in Deed Book 913, page 370, as corrected and re- recorded in Deed Book 939, page 46, the Third Grantor conveyed a larger property of which the lots of the Third Grantor herein described are a portion, to Joseph D. Miller, Jr. and Jerry H. Matthews, as Trustees, either of whom may act, in trust to secure a line of credit at Sovran Bank, N.A. (now NationsBank, N.A.) Joseph D. Miller, Jr., sole acting Trustee in the absence of Jerry H. Matthews, joins in the execution of this deed of vacation by and with the consent of the Noteholder and at its direction as evidenced by its becoming a party hereto, to consent to the vacation of the Subdivision Plat, as required by statute. The parties hereto, being all the necessary owners required to be made parties hereto by §15.1-482 (a) of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, wish to vacate that portion of the Subdivision Plat herein described, including Lots 39 through 48, as well as a portion of Thurston Drive, as shown on plat of B. Aubrey Huffman and Associates, Ltd., dated August 23, 1995, attached hereto and made a part hereof, me vacation of said portion of the Subdivision Plat will not impede or alter drainage or access for any lot owners other than those lot owners immediately adjoining or contiguous to the vacated area. NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to §15.1-482 (a) of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, Fred S. Landess, Trustee of Braeburn Farm Land Trust, as First Grantor, owner of Lot 37 and Parcel 68G, T.M.56, Braeburn Farm Corporation, as Second Grantor, owner of Lot 38, and Braeburn Limited Partnership, as Third Grantor, owner of Lots 39 through 49, and Parcel 32 1, T.M. 40B, hereby VACATE that portion of the Subdivision Plat as more particularly shown and described on the plat accompanying this deed. Pursuant to §15.1-483 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, and the plat attached hereto and approved by the owners as evidenced by their signatures thereon and on this deed, the effect of this vacation is to combine Lots 39 through 48 which are January 3~ 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 5) 000273 hereby added to and made a part of a new Lot 49 as shown on the attached plat, and to vest fee simple title in that portion of Thurston Drive shown on said plat containing 2.810 acres in the Grantee, and said portion of Thurston Drive shall henceforth constitute and become a private access easement and utility easement fifty (50) feet in width appurtenant to the lands of the First, Second and Third Grantors and shall be subject to a road maintenance agreement among the parties, contained in a separate instrument. Pursuant to §15.482 (a) of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the County of Albemarle, Virginia, joins herein to evidence its consent to and approval of this vacation. And in compliance with 15.1-485 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County is hereby requested to make all necessary notations and references on the Subdivision Plat of record in Deed Book 637, page 458, as revised in Deed Book 703, page 467. WITNESS the following signatures as of the day and year first above written. BRAEBURN FARM LAND TRUST (Signed) by: FRED S. LANDESS, Trustee BRAEBURN FARM CORPORATION (Signed) by: President BRAEBURN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ( Signed) by: Felix J. Nuesch, General Partner NATIONSBANK, N.C. (Signed) by: Joseph D. Miller, Jr. Senior Vice President COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE (Signed) by: Robert W. Tucker, Jr. County Executive Item No. 11.2. Approve resolution permitting the transfer of unexpended highway funds for U. S. Route 29 North Landscaping/Street Lighting. In a memorandum dated December, 15, 1995, Mr. Tucker stated that he had recently been contacted by Mr. William S. Roudabush, the County's local repre- sentative on the Commonwealth Transportation Board, indicating that the funding needed for landscaping of Route 29 North is considerably less than what has been budgeted for this project. In discussing this with staff, it has been indicated that perhaps street lighting and pedestrian-oriented facilities such as benches and trash receptacles would be beneficial along the 29 North Corridor from Hydraulic Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. Mr. Roudabush has indicated that VDoT would permit the transfer of unexpended funds from one line item to another provided the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approves such reallocation of funds. If the Board concurs that street lighting and pedestrian-oriented facilities are an appropriate use of those unexpended funds, staff will notify XrDOT of this request with the contingency that any street lighting must be shielded and directed only to the roadway. Mrs. Thomas asked staff to underline the need that the lights be shielded and directed towards the roadway. Mrs. Humphris asked if the County would be liable for completion of the project, if there are not enough funds available, since this request is to shift some of those funds. Mr. Tucker said this request is only to shift money from landscaping, not from the construction. There is additional money January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 6) that was available from landscaping; the amount is several hundred thousand dollars. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved the transfer of highway funds. Item No. 11.3. Approve resolution requesting acceptance of Worth Crossing in Forest Lakes North into the State Secondary System of Roads. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution was adopted: The Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virgin- ia, in regular meeting on the 3rd day of January, 1996, adopted the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the street in Forest Lakes North (Worth Crossing - SUB-95-042) described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 3, 1996, fully incorporated herein by reference, is shown on plats recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County, Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation has advised the Board that the street meets the requirements established by the Subdivision Street Requirements of the Virginia Department of Transportation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors requests the Virginia Department of Transpor- tation to add the road in Forest Lakes North (Worth Crossing (SUB- 95-042) as described on the attached Additions Form SR-5(A) dated January 3, 1996, to the secondary system of state highways, pursu- ant to §33.1-229, Code of Virginia, and the Department's Subdivi- sion Street Requirements; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board guarantees a clear and unrestricted right-of-way, as described, and any necessary ease- ments for cuts, fills and drainage as described on the recorded plats; and FURTHER RESOLVED that a certified copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road described on Additions Form SR-5(A) is: 1) Worth Crossing from station 0+00, right edge of pave- ment of U.S. 29 northbound turn lane, 798.80 lineal feet to station 7+98.80, right edge of pavement of Timberwood Boulevard as shown on plat recorded 4/14/95 in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 1463, pages 481-484, showing a variable right-of-way width. Additional plat recorded 12/4/95 in Deed Book 1507, page 307. Total mileage - 0.15 mile. Agenda Item No. ll.4a. Appropriations: Comprehensive Community Correc- tions Grant and Pre-Trial Grant (Form #95037), $236,762; (Form #95038), $117,927. The Executive Summary states that previously Community Correction and Pre-Trial Services have been provided to the community by the Community Diversion Incentive (CDI) program and Offender Aid and Restoration (OAR) direct grants from the State Department of Criminal Justice Services. In 1995, new legislation radically changed the planning and service delivery system for criminal justice programs at the local level with the requirement that all localities appoint Community Criminal Justice Boards (CCJB) to plan, direct and implement criminal justice services in their own communities. January 3~ 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 7) The purpose of the collaborative board was to provide a more efficient and effective way of providing community based alternatives to incarceration by consolidating the efforts of the criminal justice agencies currently working together in Central Virginia. Recommendations from the newly estab- lished CCJB would be used to set policy and direct funding for needed commu- nity services and one jurisdiction would be designated as the fiscal agent for the Board. Albemarle County was designated as the fiscal agent for the Jefferson Area CCJB (JACCJB). After officially being appointed as the Jefferson Area CCJB in April by the nine localities (Planning District 10, Orange, Madison and Goochland) their first charge was to submit a grant proposal to DCJS for community corrections and pretrial services. Grants were approved by the state in the amount of $236,762 for community corrections services and $117,927 for pretrial services. There are no required local matching funds. Since the County was designated as the fiscal agent to the CCJB, all grant funds must be appropriated by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. To pass an these funds to the community, the County has contracted with OAR to provide community corrections services for the nine jurisdiction region and pretrial services for Charlottesville and Albemarle (Community Diversion Incentive program staff have merged with OAR). As part of the PreTrial grant conditions, the County as fiscal agent has also contracted with the Central Virginia Regional Jail in Orange to provide pretrial services directly from the jail facility to the other localities. Staff recommends approval of Appropriation #95037 in the amount of $236,762 for community corrections services contracted out to OAR and Appro- priation #95038 in the amount of $117,927 to be contracted to OAR and the Central Virginia Regional Jail for Pretrial Services." By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95037 FLIND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS GRANT EXPENDITI/RE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152029406566130 COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS GRANT TOTAL $236,762.00 $236,762.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2152024000240440 COMMIINITY CORRECTIONS TOTAL $236,762.00 $236,762.00 FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95038 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: PRETRIAL SERVICES GRANT EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1152029405566110 PRETRIAL SERVICES TOTAL $117,927.00 $117,927.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOI/NT 2152024000240421 PRETRIAL SERVICES TOTAL $117,927.00 $117,927.00 Agenda Item No. ll.4b. Appropriation: Comprehensive Services Act (Form #95047), $1,122,752.08. It was noted in the staff's report that under the CSA communities are required to form collaborative teams with members from public child-serving agencies, private agencies, and parent representatives, the administrative body of which is the Community Policy an Management Team. State funding for various services including foster care, special education, and Court 286 funds January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 8) 000;2'76 were all put into one fund known as the CSA Pool Fund. The ultimate outcome 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. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 N-JMB E R: 95047 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES OPERATING BUDGET EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1155153120300205 1155153120571211 1155153120571212 1155153120571213 1155153120571214 1155153120571217 1155153120571218 1155153120571221 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-MAb~ATED RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-MANDATED NON RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-MANDATED NON RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-MANDATED NON RESIDENTIAL PUBLIC-NONMANDATED NON RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE-NON MANDATED MANDATED SERVICES-SUPPLEMENTAL RESERV TOTAL $ 10,231.00 256,019.00 532,034.00 20,462.00 204,628.00 3,000.00 7,000.00 89,378.08 $1,122,752.08 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2155116000160521 2155116000160522 2155124000240109 2155151000510100 LOCAL-ALBEMARLE COUNTY LOCAL-EDUCATION STATE-COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES CSA FUND BALANCE TOTAL $357,450.00 157,000.00 568,356.00 39,946.08 $1,122,752.08 Item tl.4c. Appropriation: Artist-In-Residency Grant (Form #95048), $5,5o0.oo. It was noted in the Executive Summary that on December 11, 1995, the School Board approved an appropriation for an Artist-In-Residency Grant from the Frederick S. Upton Foundation for Henley Middle School in the amount of $5,500. Diane Taylor, Artistic Director of The Studio of the Performing Arts, will work with Henley's students as they participate in theater production activities that develop their imagination, improve memory retention, connect concepts being learned in academic classes and build personal self-esteem. Staff recommends approval of appropriation ~95048 in the amount of $5,500.00. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95048 FUND: GRANT PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: ARTIST-IN-RESIDENCY GRANT FOR HENLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1310460252312500 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PROF. SVCS.-INSTRUCTION $ 5,500.00 TOTAL $ 5,500.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2310418120181221 UPTON ART GRANT $ 5,500.00 TOTAL $ 5,500.00 Item ll.4d. Appropriation: Video Conferencing Equipment for the Magistrate's Office (Form #95049), $24,000.00. It was noted in the staff report that inadequate parking at the new office and the safety issues associated with transferring prisoners in and out of patrol cars at that location were to be addressed by the eventual installa- tion of video teleconferencing equipment between the joint security complex and the magistrate's office. Utilizing the new technology, City and County January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 9) 000277 police officers would be able to take prisoners directly to the joint security complex and book them interactively with the magistrate using a teleconferenc- ing unit for identification and signed verification forms. At that time, initial estimates for this type of equipment ranged from $20,000 to $30,000 for each jurisdiction, depending on the leasing or purchasing arrangements and that a request would be forthcoming to both the Board and City Council for funding approval. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of appro- priation was adopted: FISCAL YEAR: 1995-96 NUMBER: 95049 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR VIDEO TELECONFERENCING EQUIPMENT IN MAGISTRATE'S OFFICE. EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY 1100021030800733 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT VIDEO EQUIPMENT TOTAL $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 2100051000510100 GENERAL FUND BALAi~CE TOTAL $ 24,000.00 $ 24,000.00 Mr. Bowerman said he thinks Adelphia Cable should be recognized for its public service since they are donating the necessary cable to connect these two facilities. Mrs. Thomas said the system is being used in Fairfax County and asked if it was successful. Mr. Tucker said he has not heard any negative comments. Item 11.5. Request for approval of Early Retirement requests for FY 1996-97. It was noted in the staff's report that Albemarle County Personnel Policy §P-63 provides for voluntary early retirement for County employees who have been employed by the County for ten of the last thirteen years and who are at least 50 years of age and currently employed. By the recorded vote shown above, the Board approved early retirement to be absorbed within the appropriate departmental FY budgets. Item 11.6. Authorize County Executive to sign Teen Center Lease Exten- sion. It was noted in the staff's report that the current two-year Teen Center Lease is set to expire on January 31, 1996. They have been discussing with the landlord extending the lease to have the lease term coincide with the fiscal year. Since the building is currently for sale and a new owner would have to honor an existing lease, it is staff's opinion that the five-month extension is preferable. By the recorded vote shown above, the County Executive was authorized to sign the Teen Center lease extension on behalf of the County. December 18, 1995 Extension to the lease dated December 7, 1993 between JKL Land Trust "Lessor" and Albemarle County and City of Charlottesville, "Lessee" and Hasbrouck Real Estate Corp. "agent" for 446 Westfield Road, Charlottesville, VA. The lease is to be extended from February 1, 1996 to June 30, 1996. The current rent of $1890 will be increased 5%. The adjusted rent will be $1984.50. Deance A. Cropp (Signed} Agent for JKL Land Trust January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 10) Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive (Siqned) Lessee Gary O'Connell, City Manaqer (Si~ned) Lessee 000275 Item 11.7. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for December 5, 1995, received as information. Item 11.8. Memorandum from Mr. David B. Benish, Chief of Community Development, dated December 21, 1995, entitled: "Route 20/Avon Street Connector, Monticello High School District Park, Pool Facility and Fire/Rescue Station for Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan (§15.2-456 review) received for information. Mr. Marshall asked if the diagram provided in the Board's information is the actual location of the road. He also asked if anything has been done about whether the road will be two, three or four lanes. Mr. Cilimberg said it is his understanding the precise location will be designed during the design phase of the project. VDoT has determined that the road will be two- laned and a continuous center turn lane. The road is not proposed to be four- laned. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the location where the road will connect with Route 20. It is a busy intersection. Mr. Tucker said VDoT is looking at that intersection and is receptive to working on the issues. Item 11.9. Copy of memorandum dated December 15, 1995, from Mr. Frank Preliminary Morgan, Assistant Superintendent for Support Services, entitled" ' ' Information about the School Budget," received as information. Mrs. Thomas said she would like a response during budget discussions on why the division's Composite Index had increased so dramatically and caused Albemarle to lose a significant amount of money. Item. 11.10. Report of November, 1995 operating results of Acme Design Technology Co., received as information. Item 11.11. Copy of minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority for November 16, 1995, received as information. (Note: The next two items were heard jointly.) Agenda Item No. 12.a.1. Transportation Matters. Public Hearing to consider request for funding under the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transporta- tion Enhancement Program for installation of bike lanes along Ivy Road (Route 250 from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass. This project will enhance the Entrance Corridor status of Route 250 and improve the safety of the corridor which has a high concentration of pedestrian and bicycle traffic due to its proximity to the University. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 25, 1995.) Agenda Item No. 12.a.2. Public Hearing to consider request for funding for Phase III of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway. Phases I and II have already been supported by the Board of County Supervisors and funded under the enhancement program to approve additional money to apply to items envisioned in the original conceptual plan but not covered under previous grant applica- tions. It would also defray the cost of providing safe crossing of Route 53. {Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 25, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg said the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Transportation Enhancement Program provides a means of financing activities that go beyond the normal elements of a transportation project. A unique and innovative element of ISTEA is a set-aside for transportation enhancements. The intent of an enhancement program is to creatively integrate transportation facilities into their surrounding communities and natural environment. Up to 80 percent of a transportation enhancement project can be financed with January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 11} OOO279 Federal STP (State Transportation Planning) funds. A minimum of 20 percent must come from other public or private sources. The County proposes two applications for Enhancement Program funding. One is from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation for Phase III of improve- ments to Thomas Jefferson Parkway and to provide safe crossing of Route 53. This project will consist of construction of a bridge over Route 53 at the Monticello entrance and a tunnel under Route 53 near the Route 20 intersection for bikes and pedestrians. The total cost of this project is $2,250,000 with $750,000 in grant funds and the remaining $1,500,000 matched by private sources. Phases I and II of this project were funded under this grant program. The second application is a joint application from the City of Char- lottesville and Albemarle County for the construction of bike lanes along Ivy Road. This project was recommended in the Ivy Road Design Study adopted by the City, County and university. The City's portion is from Rugby Road to Ivy Road (County line) and the County's from the City limits to the Route 250/29 Bypass. The City, County and University will be partners in this application. The County's portion of this project has been tentatively estimated to cost $17,000 in the proposed FY 1996-97 to 2000-01 CIP. Staff is reviewing these costs and will have a final cost estimate and grant amount for the public hearing. Staff believes this joint application will make 'this project stronger at the highly competitive evaluation stage. Mr. Cilimberg said staff had developed some Preliminary costs for the bike lanes, but unfortunately the costs did not reflect decisions about this project that were agreed to by the Planning and Coordination Council earlier this year. The new cost estimate for the project through its entire length is approximately $750,000 for the City and County. Under the grant requirements, the County can ask for up to $600,000 which is 80 percent of the projected amount. The 20 percent match would be split equally between the City, University and County which would be $50,000 each. The University has already committed to its share. It is his understanding that City Council last night committed to its share. The CIP will require an adjustment to reflect the $50,000 County part of the project. This project is dependent on the ISTEA grant for its construction. At this time, there is no commitment to do it as an entirely local project. Mr. Cilimberg said both applications appear eligible for Enhancement Program Funding. The beautification of entrance corridors is listed as the top priority in the County's Enhancement Program list. Construction of bikeway facilities is the County's second priority. Staff recommends the Board endorse both projects and adopt a resolution to be forwarded with each project application to VDoT. It is important to note that although the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation application does not require the County to provide matching funds, the County is guaranteeing local funding by its resolution of endorsement. This will require an agreement between the County and the applicant with surety of some form. This will also require the County to administer the project locally to assure all state requirements are met in the expenditure of funds. At this time the Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Hatch, Director of Gardens and Grounds at Monticello and the Project Manager for the Thomas Jefferson Parkway asked, the Board to official endorse Phase III of the project. This endorsement is a prerequisite for their application which is due on January 31, 1996. Monticello is pleased and excited with the progress of the project. The construction documents have been prepared by Riley and Associates and were recently submitted to VDoT for its review. ISTEA reimbursement checks have been coming in regularly to cover the cost of the design and development stages of Phases I and II. Construction is on schedule to begin this spring. Phase III of the project includes some aspects that were unfunded in earlier applications including a scenic over- look, some planting and walking trail development. It will also includes a pedestrian/bicyclist tunnel underneath Route 53 for the 2.4 mile trail that will connect the Monticello Visitors Center and the Monticello Shuttle Station. Finally Phase III will include a stone arch bridge at the entrance to Monticello that will be provide an entrance for bicyclists, pedestrians and vehicles. The Foundation will match the ISTEA funds with $1.5 million. This is a 200 percent match, more than the required 20 percent match. This provides a sound foundation for their application, but it also reflects the overwhelming commitment that the Foundation has towards this project. He January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 12) 000eS0 thanked the Board for its support in 1993 and 1994. He then introduced Mr. Will Riley, the architect for the project. Mr. Hatch said the Thomas Jeffer- son Parkway is not just providing an enhanced and attractive entrance corridor to Monticello for its 550,000 yearly visitors, but also a community park for the citizens of Albemarle County. Mr. Riley said Albemarle County and the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation have worked together successfully in acquiring ISTEA funding for the first two phases of the Thomas Jefferson Parkway which undergo construc- tion this spring. This would not have been possible without the enthusiastic and active support of the Board for which the Foundation is grateful. The idea of a parkway occurred at the County level when it recognized the need for a scenic, protected and safe entrance to Monticello. The Board modified the County's Comprehensive Plan in 1991 with the recommendation that a scenic protected parkway be constructed to Monticello within the existing Route 53 right-of-way. With the new high school and proposed growth area expansion in this area, the Parkway takes on a new and important role in securing a several hundred acre park at this location. The Foundation is now ready to undertake the final phase of construction. Phase III will include a vehicular and pedestrian stone bridge over Route 53 near the Monticello Gatehouse and a tunnel under Route 53 just east of the intersection of Route 20. By avoiding an on-grade intersection with a busy highway, both of these projects are critical to providing safe access to Monticello by pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. After reviewing many alternatives the Foundation Board made the commitment to build a stone vehicular bridge as originally envisioned in the conceptual plan for the Parkway. This decision was made because (1) it will significantly improve the safety of the Monticello entrance by eliminating the need for a vehicular, left-hand turn lane; (2) the bridge will provide safe access to Monticello for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as greatly improved safety for vehicles entering Monticello; (3) stone bridges are the defining image of America's best parkways including the Blue Ridge Parkway; and (4) Thomas Jefferson wrote admiringly of stone bridges, calling one of them "the most handsome bridge in the world," and considered a bridge at this very location. In addition, the Foundation hopes to complete other Phase III projects shown in the original conceptual plan: hiking trails, the scenic overlook and additional plantings in the park and arboretum. Mr. Riley then presented drawings and explained the proposed design of the bridge and tunnel. Mr. Marshall asked if the bridge will be one-way traffic. Mr. Riley said the bridge will be capable of carrying two-way traffic exactly as the existing entrance. Mr. Riley said they are here to ask for Board support of the final ISTEA funding request. Of the $2.25 million for this phase of the project, they are requesting $750,000 in ISTEA funding to be matched by $1.5 million from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. He reiterated that this is a 200 percent match. The bridge, tunnel and other elements, as described, will lend safety, durability and beauty to a Parkway that many believe is a show case of the ISTEA Enhancement Program nationwide. It is a model of state, local and private foundation cooperation. Mrs. Thomas said Route 53 is a major commuter route. She asked if there are any plans to widen Route 53 at this point other than what the bridge would allow. Mrs. Tucker said there are no plans currently for widening Route 53 in this area. She cannot imagine the improvements that could be contained through that area of Route 53. The road has been there several hundred years; it fits into the side of the mountain. Mrs. Tucker said VDoT's current concern is keeping guardrail properly installed and maintaining its integrity. The shoulders are limited and restricted through that section of road. VDoT does not anticipate widening that road to provide for additional travel lanes. There being no other comments, the public hearing was closed. Motion was made by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt the following resolution. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 13) RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPLICATION FOR ISTEA TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS 0002 2 WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion program an enhancement project in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County wishes to integrate transportation facilities into the surrounding community and the natural environ- ment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, wishes to utilize Intermodal Surface Transporta- tion Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Transportation Enhancement Program funds for two high priority programs identified by the County, the beautification of entrance corridors and bikeway facilities; and WHEREAS, the Board held a duly advertised public hearing on January 3, 1996, to receive public comment on the application and local commitment to these projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby supports the County's application for ISTEA funding for construction of a bridge over Route 53 at the Monticello entrance and a tunnel under Route 53 for pedestrians and bicyclists and construction of bike lanes along Ivy Road from the City limits to the Route 250/Route 29 Bypass; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors agrees to pay twenty percent of the total cost for planning and design, right of way, and construction of this project, and that if Albemarle County subsequently elects to cancel this project, Albemarle County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. Agenda Item No. 12.b. Other Transportation Matters. Mrs. Tucker said she has no new information. She is available to answer questions Board members may have regarding changes or revisions to the Six Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission has scheduled a work session on the Plan for next week. No date has been set for a work session by this Board. (Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at 9:41 a.m.). Mrs. Thomas indicated that there are some significant shifting of priorities of a few roads in the Red Hill area in the Six-Year Plan. Although she thinks they are reasonable shifts, given that Red Hill will not be in a designated growth area in the Comprehensive Plan, she feels the public should be aware of the changes and have an opportunity to make comments. Mr. Perkins asked about the status of the Millington Bridge project. Mrs. Tucker said the steel beams, the final material needed for the project, are en route. Although she expects the contractor to start back to work by the end of January, she has requested written confirmation as to when he will be on the job site. Everything is ready for the beams to be set. She is remaining in contact with many of the surrounding property owners regarding the project. Mr. Marshall renewed his requests for an acceleration lane on Route 20 coming off 1-64, the four-laning of Route 20 at the entrance of 53 and the straightening of Route 20 to the entrance where the new high school will be built. Mrs. Tucker said the addition to the acceleration lane from 1-64 on to January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 14) Route 20 South is a project slated to begin mid-to-late 1996. The four-laning of Route 20 from the Route 742/Route 20 connector road north into the existing four lane Route 20 cross-section was submitted by her office as one of the needs in the primary system. She asked the Board to also support the request at VDoT's pre-allocation hearing ~in March, 1996, along with support of other needs in the primary system. Mr. Marshall said he thinks the timing of those two projects need to be the same as the completion of the new high school. Mrs. Tucker said she would discuss the need for that coordination along with prioritizing the rest of those primary needs. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 9:45 a.m.) Mrs. Thomas said she noticed in a recent communication that the Zoning Administrator is doing her part in trying to get the Ivy store owners to pay attention to traffic circulation. She hopes VDoT is working closely on that and keeping the Zoning Administrator informed as to what is going on. Mrs. Thomas mentioned a road in the Scottsville District where the owner was allowed to relocate a portion of a road. Residents of the area are concerned about a dangerous ditch where the new road connects to the original road. She thinks a guard rail or fill in of the ditch is needed. (Note: The road she is referring to is Route 627.) Mrs. Tucker reported that the Route 29 North project has essentially met its December 31, 1995, deadline. There is a lot of sidewalk and landscaping work to be done, which will start this year. There are also portions of Rio Road added as a change order to the project; that work will continue through June. For the most part, the lanes are in place, but their use will be restricted so as not to bottleneck traffic for the next phase of the project, which runs north of Rio Road to the South Fork Rivanna River. Agenda Item No. 13. Comprehensive Plan Update and Disposition. Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission has completed its work on the Land Use Plan element of the Comprehensive Plan which was the second priority review item. The first priority was the Economic Development Policy, which the Board received earlier last year. The Land Use Plan review went through an extensive process of public input as well as Commission work sessions. There were five public meetings held, as well as, a public hearing. At its last meeting in December, 1995, the Commission recommended a Land Use Plan to the Board. The fully recommended document will be coming forward to the Board soon. He has provided for the Board's information, the areas recommended by the Commission for the addition to the growth areas. Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission focused on growth area considerations and took action to remove Earlysville and North Garden as villages in the Plan. The Commission added no additional villages or communities, but did add land south of the urban area to the growth area. Mr. Cilimberg said staff would like to know how the Board wants to proceed with its review of the Land Use Plan. Mr. Brent of the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) suggested the Board may want to discuss utilities as they affect land use and planning for overall utilities in the future. Utilities were major considerations in developing the Land Use Plan. Mr. Tucker said staff is interested in knowing where the Board would like to go from here. When staff has the draft recommendations in a finalized form from the Planning Commission, an initial work session will be scheduled with the Board. He asked if the Board would like to go out into the rural areas and hold some public hearings or would it like to hold a public hearing in the County Office Building. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board will receive the recommendations staff made to the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the Board will receive the Commission's recommendation and all the staff reports that were given to the Commission during the process. Mrs. Thomas asked if the Utilities Master Plan will be included in this material. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "yes". Mrs. Thomas said she thinks meeting j January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 15) oooo a with ACSA and possibly the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA), to discuss capacity would be a good idea. Mr. Cilimberg commented that in the later part of January, the Commis- sion will be discussing the remaining sections of the Comprehensive Plan -- Human Services, Social Services and Rural Areas. Mr. Martin said he has heard from people that the Board may want to limit the number of public hearings. Mrs. Humphris agreed that it would be a good idea to have the RWSA and ACSA give the Board a presentation to show how its long term plans overlay with the Comprehensive Plan. Agenda Item No. 14. Dr. Deborah DiCroce. Annual Report of Piedmont Community College. Dr. DiCroce, President of PVCC, handed Board members a Fact Card which outlined some of the financial facts about the college. She thanked the Board for allowing her the time to provide her annual update on PVCC, particularly its service to Albemarle. Before proceeding Dr. DiCroce acknowledged the four College Board representatives from Albemarle County: Grace Carpenter, Joe Henley, William Finley and Clarke Jackson. All four of these members serve the County and College Board well. Dr. DiCroce said last year PVCC served 6,599 students. From 1988 to 1992, the enrollment increased about 14 percent. PVCC leveled off in enrollment since then, with a slight decline last year due to tuition in- creases and the economy. This year they expect to see about a two percent enrollment increase. During the summer they saw about a five percent in- crease; this past Fall there was about a three percent increase in enrollment. Overall last year 81 percent of the students were part time, 61 percent were women, 15 percent were minorities and of that ten percent were African Americans, and 69 percent were returning students. Last year PVCC continued with the thrust of its strategic plan. Those four thrusts are partnership, technology, community outreach and multi- cultural diversity. PVCC has also begun to put a special emphasis on restruc- turing which they are calling "agenda for change". PVCC is billing that as a restructuring addendum to its strategic plan. Essentially PVCC's agenda for change is reinterpreting the mission of the college for the Twenty-First Century through a two-prong mission core of work force development and preparation for college transfers. PVCC is beginning to implement this agenda and the results have been good. This year PVCC began to implement its joint respiratory therapy program with J. Sargent Reynolds Community College, the University of Virginia and Martha Jefferson Hospitals. This brings a respiratory therapy program back to this area. Several years ago PVCC had to discontinue its program in the midst of budget cuts because it was the least productive program. PVCC and J. Sargent are now exploring bringing opticianry and a medical lab technician program to the area. Mr. Marshall asked if these persons will be certified. Dr. DiCroce replied, "yes" It is a two-year program. PVCC is providing the general education piece of the program; J. Sargent is providing the technical courses and the hospitals are providing the clinical experiences. All three entities are funding and educational partners. The General Assembly gave them a special appropriation to test the program out to see how it would work. Some of the highlights and ongoing programs at PVCC are Piedmont Works; weekend college program; partnership with Old Dominion University; Center for Training and Workforce Development; honors link program with the University of Virginia; high school relations model; new student/parent orientation; and general course outreach. Dr. DiCroce said PVCC is scheduled to officially open its College Neighborhood Center in March, 1996. PVCC is also almost ready to pilot telephone registration. The Alumni Association is ready to be launched. The goal of PVCC's Endowment Program is $1.0 million of unre- stricted moneys for the college. Recently PVCC was one of ten community colleges selected in the nation to have its general education program show cased as a model in a publication. Dr. DiCroce said in 1981 PVCC's received 80 percent of its funding from the state and 20 percent from the students. In 1995, PVCC receive 62 percent January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 16) funding from the state and 38 percent from the students. Tuition has in- creased approximately 75 percent. PVCC's budget has increased an average of one and one-half percent a year, one-half the annual three percent inflation rate. In the next session of the General Assembly, Virginia community colleges will ask for $40.0 million in the 1996-98 biennium to support CORE operating costs, technology infrastructure and workforce development initia- tives. PVCC specifically will ask the General Assembly for an additional appropriation to cover some of the overage of the cost of constructing the Humanities and Social Sciences Building. Overall it has been a full and challenging year. So far, last year was PVCC's best. To highlight Albemarle County, in 1994-95 2,435 County residents attended PVCC, which accounted for 36.9 percent of all PVCC students enrolled from the college's serve area and 3.3 percent of the County's total popula- tion. Of Albemarle students, 80.9 percent were part-time, 61.3 percent were women, 7.4 percent were African-American and 74.0 percent were returning students. Compared to the entire PVCC student body, more County students were returning, fewer were African-American and about the same percentage were women and part-time students. Albemarle students enrolled at PVCC accounted for 49.7 percent of all County residents attending a college or university in the fall of 1994. Within its service region, PVCC enrolled 44.8 percent of all students attending institutions of higher education during that semester. That percentage speaks to the impact of PVCC. Among the Albemarle County students who attended PVCC in 1994-95, 58 (25.7 percent) were from the 1994 graduating class of Western Albemarle High School and 79 (23.1 percent) were from the 1994 graduating class of Albemarle High School. PVCC continues to maintain a strong relationship with County public schools. PVCC continues to work with the business community, continues to be committed to the economic vitality of the area, works closely with the Chamber of Commerce, and is part of the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development. In terms of raw economic impact, PVCC has a $24.0 million annual economic impact upon this area. For every local dollar that is put into the college, it realizes a return of $1,629. For every state dollar put into the college, it realizes a return of $6.13. That is a powerful return on investment. Overall, PVCC remains committed to meeting the needs of Albemarle County. These are exciting and challenging times for the college. PVCC looks forward to continuing a partnership with Albemarle County in meeting the needs, education and training of the Twenty-First Century. She again thanked the Board for allowing her this time. Mr. Bowerman asked the percentage of Charlottesville High School students who attend PVCC. Dr. DiCroce said it is approximately 40 percent. Mr. Martin asked about the remedial programs PVCC offers. Dr. DiCroce said PVCC has strong developmental programs in English, Reading, Writing, Mathematics, Sciences, Biology and Chemistry. The purpose of those programs are to meet the needs of those students who are not quite to the point of where they are assured opportunities for success in collegiate level work. At this stage, approximately 12 percent of the students who start at PVCC begin in a developmental program and then move on. That is a low percentage for a community college. Mrs. Thomas expressed appreciation for the cooperative spirit in which Dr. DiCroce has worked with the high school development group in trying to work out a partnership with Monticello High School and PVCC. Mr. Bowerman asked if Dr. DiCroce anticipates the number of classes at AHS will decrease when Monticello is opened. Dr. DiCroce said she does not believe so because AHS serves a different segment of the County. The off campus sites draw from targeted areas of the County. Dr. DiCroce added that PVCC does have in its long range plan, a plan to address t~e lighting situation. Mrs. Humphris asked if Grace Carpenter received an award. Dr. DiCroce said Ms. Carpenter was recognized by the State Board for Community Colleges as an exemplary outstanding board member. Not Docketed. Mr. Tucker referred to the ISTEA resolution adopted by the Board earlier. He said Mr. Ciiimberg has suggested a change in two words to mirror the resolution adopted by the City. He recommended changing the 000 5 January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 17) wording in the fifth paragraph beginning with "construction of bike lanes along Ivy Road from the City limits .... "to "construction of the bike lanes along Ivy Road from Emmet Street to the Route 250/Route 29 Bypass." That language will show that this is a joint project with the City. Mr. Martin offered motion, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt the resolution supporting the application for ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Program Funds, as amended. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and RESOLUTION SUPPORTING APPLICATION FOR ISTEA TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS WHEREAS, in accordance with Commonwealth Transportation Board construction allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local government or state agency in order that the Virginia Department of Transporta- tion program an enhancement project in Albemarle County; and WHEREAS, Albemarle County wishes to integrate transportation facilities into the surrounding community and the natural environ- ment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, wishes to utilize Intermodal Surface Transporta- tion Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Transportation Enhancement Program funds for two high priority programs identified by the County, the beautification of entrance corridors and bikeway facilities; and WHEREAS, the Board held a duly advertised public hearing on January 3, 1996, to receive public comment on the application and local commitment to these projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, hereby supports the County's application for ISTEA funding for construction of a bridge over Route 53 at the Monticello entrance and a tunnel under Route 53 for pedestrians and bicyclists and construction of bike lanes along Ivy Road from Emmet Street to the Route 250/Route 29 Bypass; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of County Supervisors agrees to pay twenty percent of the total cost for planning and design, right of way, and construction of this project, and that if Albemarle County subsequently elects to cancel this project, Albemarle County hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Depart- ment of Transportation for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of such cancellation. (Not Docketed. At 10:28 a.m., the Board recessed and reconvened at 10:48 a.m.) (Since the Board was ahead of the scheduled agenda, it decided to take up Item No. 19 at this time.) Agenda Item No. 19. Authorize County Executive to execute agreements for permanent pump and haul for Randolph and Catherine Lange (formerly Captain's Table). Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred from the Board's December 6, 1995, agenda. There are three drafted contracts the Board would have to adopt, if it chose to allow the pump and haul. In addition, staff has drafted a policy for future permanent pump and haul and requests. The three contracts are: (1) a County agreement between the owner and the County to outline the January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 18) owner's responsibilities, (2) a hauler agreement between the owner, the County and the septic hauler to guarantee that waste will be removed from the property in a timely fashion, and (3) a Department of Health agreement between the owner, the County and the State Health Commissioner to satisfy the state requirements for this type of permit. Mr. Bowerman asked if all the wastewater go to one place. Mr. Wood, representing, the owners, said there is a grease separator. Mr. Wood said in working with the Health Department, the applicant was asked to look for alternative methods for a sewage system. An engineering firm ran some tests and since the closest stream was about a mile away, they could not purify the sewage and run it off to the stream. Secondly, the applicant found that the closest utility company that had sewage lines going through the area was a mile away. The only feasible alternative is a pump and haul permit to keep the business open. Mr. Martin asked if the business is open at this time. Mr. Wood responded, "no"; this permit is needed to reopen the business. Mrs. Thomas asked how was the sewage previously been disposed. Mr. Wood said even though the sewage system works good, it does not meet state specifi- cations. The owner is required to bring it up-to-date which means it has to be either purified or hooked onto a local sewage system. Mrs. Thomas asked if there was enough room for a septic field. Mr. Wood replied, "yes". Mrs. Humphris asked what cost is there to the County, as the responsible party. It seems that if something goes awry then somebody on the County staff will have to spend time taking care of the situation. Mr. Tucker said the only expense from a regulatory standpoint is to insure the sewage is disposed. The State Health Department is responsible for enforcement. If it does not work, they would have to shut down the operation. The purpose of the agreements are to insure they are in compliance. Mr. Tucker said he does not anticipate a lot of staff work involvement. Mrs. Humphris asked if staff has confirmed that the restaurant closed on November 30, 1994. Mr. Davis said, to his knowledge, that has not been confirmed. He spoke to Mr. Wood this morning and he is supposed to provide documentation on that non-conforming date. Mr. Davis said it was his under- standing that before the County proceeded to send these agreements to the State, it had to have that information in hand. He does not think it should prevent the Board from taking action today, but there have been some conflict- ing reports on when the restaurant closed. He has asked Mr. Wood to provide actual documentation indicating the last day the business was opened. There would be no reason to take this to the state if the owners have lost their nonconforming status, because then they would have no right under the Zoning Ordinance to reopen the business. Mrs. Thomas said she thinks before the Board decides whether it likes the wording and the proposals, it would be good to discuss whether it actually wants to have this type of pump and haul operation, whether the Board wants to make it more restrictive than the state regulations, or whether the Board has reasons for not wanting to encourage pump and haul operations in the County. (Mr. Bowerman left the room at 10:57 a.m.) Mr. Martin said he thought the Board instructed staff to make sure there was a policy so that this whole process would be tightened and if the Board had to do this again, it would be limited to specific reasons for allowing the permit. Mr. Perkins said nobody wants a pump and haul, if they can put in a drain field or connect to a sewer line. He does not think this Board should be trying to put somebody out of business or to say it cannot operate a restaurant. If they cannot operate a restaurant, they also cannot have a home. It will be a piece of property that the Board in effect will be taking off the tax rolls. It s important to him to keep the business in operation so that it is a tax paying parcel in the County. Mr. Marshall agreed. Mrs. Thomas said it is obvious the Board needs to draw the lines somewhere. Mr. Perkins said the Board has asked everybody to explore all the alternatives. Mr. Tucker said the only thing the Board has approved is for temporary pump and haul until the sewer connection can be made. This is the only January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 19) 000287 permanent pump and haul permit that he is aware of in the County. He thinks staff is trying to provide a policy that the Board can utilize in the future, if there are any subsequent requests. It is not the purpose or intent of staff's policy to encourage this type of permanent pump and haul solution to sewage needs. Mr. Davis said from his experience these permits are disfavored by the state for health reasons because there is an opportunity for spills to occur which can spread disease and cause other health problems. He does not know if anyone has explored whether there is an existing drain field that is adequate to provide sewage disposal for uses other than a restaurant. He suspects the property could be put to use for some less intensive sewage operation than a restaurant. He does not know if it would constitute a taking of the property if the Board did not approve this request, but it would not make the restau- rant feasible. Mrs° Humphris said it was her understanding that the Board had asked the staff to find a way that would allow the restaurant to stay in business, and it seems to her that if that is the pleasure of the Board and it approves the agreements, and then approves the policy, that it would have done the best it could. The policy lists a set of circumstances that have to be satisfied for the Board to approve a request. It seems the circumstances covers all the bases. If the Board adopts the policy, she would like for (a) of the policy to state "the request is not for the purpose of establishing a new use or expanding in any way an existing use". She would like "any way" to be there because of the problems the Board has had in the past from applicants saying they are just expanding their numbers of customers and not the square footage. This language would avoid misinterpretations. (Mr. Bowerman returned at 11:03 a.m.) Motion was then offered by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt the policy for considering future pump and haul requests and that the policy be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE POLICY GOVERNING PERMANENT PUMP AND MAUL REQUESTS It shall be the policy of the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that requests for permanent pump and haul permits will be considered by the Board of Supervisors only in cases which satisfy all of the following circumstances: (a) the request is not for the purpose of establishing a new use or expanding an existing use; (b) there are no other reasonable options for sewage treatment and disposal; and (c) the request is for the purpose oB sustaining an exist- ing use that would otherwise be required to be aban- doned by governmental regulations. For the purposes of this policy, "expanding an existing use" under (a) above shall be deemed to be any action which would result in increased sewage discharge or disposal. "Sustaining an existing use" under © above shall not be deemed to preclude actions that do not result in increased sewage discharge or disposal. In the event that the use in question is abandoned and the property loses its nonconforming status under the Zoning Ordi- nance, approval for permanent pump and haul shall terminate. The system shall be properly closed out in accordance with Health Department regulations. 000288 January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 20) Motion was then made by Mr. Perkins, seconded by Mr. Marshall to authorize the County Executive to sign the necessary agreements, after the owners have verified to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator that the restaurant's nonconforming status in the RA district will not expire within 90 days from the date of Board approval. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. (Note: The agreements are not set out because the applicants did not provide documentation of the restaurant's nonconforming status and the agreements were not executed by the County Executive.) (The next two items were head concurrently.) Agenda Item No. 15. ZTA-95-7. Mandatory Connection to Public Water and Sewer. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of Albemarle, to require connection to public utilities when public utilities are available. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 25, 1995.) Agenda Item No. 16. STA-95-1. Mandatory Connection to Public Water and Sewer. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, Article III, Design Standards, and Article IV, Platting, of the Code of Albemarle, to require connection tO public utilities when public utilities are available. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 25, 1995.) Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said the public purposes to be served by these amendments are to promote recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan regarding urban development and public utilities; to provide for uniform and consistent regulatory provisions regarding mandatory connection to public water and/or sewer service; to provide more objective criteria as to circum- stances under which connection to pubic utilities will be required; and to discourage unwise development of urbanizing land. Mr. Keeler then summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's office and a part of the permanent record. At its meeting on December 5, 1995, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of ZTA-95-07 and STA-95-01. As part of the action, the Board also needs to address the Albemarle County Service Authority's mandatory connection policy. The public hearing was opened. Seeing that there were no comments from the public on either request, the Chairman closed the public hearing. Mr. Davis said there are three actions required by the Board. If it is the pleasure of the Board, the Board needs to adopt a motion to concur with the ACSA's mandatory connection policy; and adopt ordinances to amend the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance which would take care of building permits, site plans and subdivision plat approvals to implement this policy. Mrs. Thomas said she understands the public purpose for doing this, but will this be a major cost increase to the homeowner. Mr. Bill Brent, Execu- tive Director of the ACSA, said the initial cost is probably compatible to a well and septic system. If the well has good water and no problems, it is probably less costly over time to be on a well as opposed to paying a monthly water fee. If the pump goes bad, it costs $660 to replace. Mr. Martin said he does not have a problem with it, as long as this is for new dwelling units and not existing dwelling units. Mr. Marshall said he is concerned about the connection costs because there are people who cannot afford to connect to the service. He thinks the payments may need to be spread out. Motion was then made by Mrs, Thomas, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to concur with the Albemarle County Service Authority's mandatory connection policy (set out below), adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 20, Zoning, Art- January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 21) 000, 89 icle II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, of the Code of Albe- marle, to require connection to public utilities when public utilities are available (set out below) and adopt an Ordinance to amend and reordain Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, Article III, Design Standards, and Article IV, Platting, of the Code of Albemarle, to require connection to public utilities when public utilities are available (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins, and Mrs. Thomas. MANDATORY CONNECTION POLICY OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY The owner of any mobile home or building to be installed or constructed for residential, commercial or industrial use upon a lot or parcel of land lying within a jurisdictional area of the Albemarle County Service Authority and which abuts upon a street or other public way containing a potable water main or sanitary sewer main operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority or the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority shall connect such building to such potable water main and/or sanitary sewer main in accor- dance with these Rules and Regulations. This requirement may be waived by the Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority if one or more of the following conditions exists: (1) The building or the mobile home replaces a building or mobile home destroyed by fire or natural disaster. (2) The capacity of the public water and/or sewer system is inadequate to serve the building or mobile home. (3) The cost of connecting the mobile home or building to the public water and/or sewer system exclusive of connection fees exceeds the cost of installing on-site well and/or septic systems. ORDINANCE NO. 96-20(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 20, ZONING, ARTICLE II, BASIC REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 20, Zoning, Article II, Basic Regulations, and Article IV, Procedure, are hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 4.0, General Regulations, and Section 32.0, Site Development Plan, as follows: 4.0 ARTICLE II. BASIC REGULATIONS GENERAL REGULATIONS 4.1 AREA AND HEALTH REGULATIONS RELATED TO UTILITIES The following regulations shall apply to all dis- tricts: It is specifically intended that the public water supply and public sewerage system be utilized within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Within such service areas, provisions of section 6.0 and other provisions of section 4.1 not- withstanding, no building permit shall be issued for any building or structure, including mobile homes, the use of which requires increased water consumption and/or sewage disposal, unless the building or struc- ture shall be provided with public water and/or public 000290 January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 22) sewerage system service. This requirement, however, shall not apply to the following situations and cir- cumstances: Whenever a structure is damaged as a result of factors beyond the control of the owner and/or occupant thereof, such structure may be repaired and/or reconstructed provided that such repair and/or reconstruction shall be commenced within twelve (12) months and completed within twenty- four (24) months from the date of such damage; and provided further that such structure shall not be repaired and/or reconstructed in such manner as to reasonably cause an increase in water usage and/or sewage disposal demand; or bo The director of planning and community develop- ment in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of con- necting the proposed development to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of con- nection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or septic system; or The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albe- marle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadequate to serve the proposed development. Except for (a) above, the foregoing provisions shall not provide relief from §§ 4.1.1 through 4.1.7. ARTICLE IV. PROCEDURE 32.0 32.7.5.1 Within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority, where public water and/or sewerage service is reasonably available, such service shall be extended by the developer. All such facilities shall be constructed to Albemarle County Service Authority specification and dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise provided by Albemarle County Service Authority policy, all costs shall be borne by the developer. For the purposes of this section, service shall not be deemed to be "reasonably available" in a particular case in which: The director of planning and community develop- ment in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inade- quate to serve the proposed development; or bo The director of planning and community develop- ment in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of con- necting the proposed development to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of con- nection fees, exceeds the cost of installing an on-site well and/or septic system. January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 23) ORDINANCE NO. 96-18 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE III, DESIGN STANDARDS, AND ARTICLE V, SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN DIVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, Article III, Design Standards, and Article V, Special Provisions Applica- ble to Certain Divisions, are hereby amended and reordained by amending section 18-22, Flood Control and Drainage Structures, section 18-25, Public water and sewer, and section 18-57, Exemp- tion of Certain Divisions: Qualifications, as follows: ARTICLE III. Design Standards Division 3 Drainaqe, Water and Sewer. Sec. 18-22. FlOod Control And Drainage Structures. (a) The subdivider shall provide all information needed to determine what improvements are necessary to provide adequate drainage, including contour maps, drainage plans and flood control devices. Contour intervals shall be not greater than five (5) feet and shall be at such lesser intervals as specified by the agent. Provisions shall be made for the disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including such on-site and off-site drainage facilities as the commission, upon the recommendation of the county engineer, may deem adequate. Except as the commission may otherwise require in a particular case, or as expressly provided herein, such facilities shall be so designed and in- stalled that the rate of surface water runoff from the site due to a rainfall of a ten- year return period intensity as shown on the frequency analysis curve for Charlottesville, Virginia, shall be no greater after the proposed development than before; provided that the same may be accomplished without unreasonable adverse impact on the environment of the site. The fourth sentence of this section shall apply only within the geographic limits as hereinafter described: the drainage basins of Moores Creek, Meadow Creek, Powell Creek, Redbud Creek, Town Branch and those unnamed branches, whether perennial or intermittent, which flow directly into the Rivanna River from either Fork of the Rivanna and thence downstream with the Rivanna River to its confluence with Moores Creek; all as shown on maps published by the United States Geolog- ical Survey entitled "Charlottesville East, Virginia," "Char- lottesville West, Virginia," "Earlysville, Virginia," "Simeon, Virginia," and "Alberene, Virginia." Within the geographic area hereinabove described, the fourth sentence of this section shall not apply to the following: (1) Lands which are designated as lying within the flood plain of any stream in accordance with section 30.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; (Amended 2/4/81) (2) The development of any lot or parcel which results in a total impervious surface coverage of not greater than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet; (3) Any development, the final site plan and/or subdivision plat of which has been approved by the commission prior to the adoption of this section, as amended; and (4) In any case where the subdivider shall demon- strate to the reasonable satisfaction of the county engineer and the commission that off-site improvements or other provisions for the disposition of surface water runoff would equally or better serve the public interest and safety; and that such method of disposition would not adversely affect downstream properties. In addition, provision shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water runoff. The subdivider shall also provide any other information 000292 January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 24) required by the board of supervisors, its agent or the highway engineer. (Amended 12-20-78) (b) Payment of sewer and drainage costs: (1) Each subdivider or developer of land in the county shall pay to the board of supervisors his pro rata share of the cost of providing reasonable and necessary drainage facili- ties, located outside the property limits of the land owner or controlled by him but necessitated or required, at least in part, by the construction or improvement of his subdivision or develop- ment. (2) No such payment for drainage cost shall be required until such time as Albemarle County, as required by the Code of Virginia section 15.1-466, as amended, shall have estab- lished a general drainage improvement program for an area having related and common drainage conditions and within which the land owned or controlled by the developer or subdivider is located. Albemarle County shall as a part of said program establish regulations setting forth standards to determine the proportionate share of total estimated cost of ultimate drainage facilities required to adequately serve a related and common area, when and if fully developed in accord with the adopted comprehensive plan, that shall be borne by each subdivider or developer within the area. (3) Such proportionate share of the total estimated cost of ultimate drainage facilities shall be limited to the proportion of such total estimated cost which the increased volume and velocity of storm water runoff to be actually caused by his subdivision or development bears to the total estimated volume and velocity of runoff from such area in its fully developed stage. (4) Each such payment received from each subdivider or developer shall be expended only for the construction of those facilities for which the payment was required, and until so expended shall be held in an interest bearing account for the benefit of the subdivider or developer, provided, however, that in lieu of such payment the board of supervisors may provide for the posting of a bond with surety satisfactory to it conditioned on payment at commencement of such construction. [8-28-74, § 18- 22(b) was previously numbered § 18-25(b)] Sec. 18-25. Public water and sewer. Within the service areas of the Albemarle County Service Authority, where public water and/or sewerage service is reason- ably available, such service shall be extended by the developer to all lots within the subdivision. All such facilities shall be constructed to Albemarle County Service Authority specifications and dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise provided by Albemarle County Service Authority policy, all costs shall be borne by the developer. For the purposes of this section, service shall not be deemed to be "reasonably available" in a particular case in which: (a) The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the capacity of the public water and/or sewerage system is inadequate to serve the proposed development; or (b) The director of planning and community development in consultation with the Albemarle County Service Authority finds that the cost of connecting to the public water and/or sewerage system, exclusive of connection fees, exceeds the cost of install- ing an on-site well and/or septic system. [§ 18-25 (b) relocated and renumbered as § 18-22 (b) ] ARTICLE V. Special Provisions Applicable to Certain Divisions. January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 25) 000293 Sec. 18-57. Exemption of certain divisions; qualifications. (h) Any lot created within the service areas of the Albe- marle County Service Authority shall comply with section 18-25. Any lot created, including any lot not required to connect to public sewer service pursuant to section 18-25, which is less than five (5) acres, shall comply with section 18-23 of this chapter. Agenda Item No. 17. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2, Administration, of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing Article VII entitled "Regional Jail Board." This section is no longer appro- priate because of the establishment of the jail authority. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 25, 1995.) The Chairman opened the public hearing. Since no one came forward to speak and the public hearing was closed. There was no discussion by the Board. Motion was immediately made by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to adopt an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2, Administration, of the Code of Albemarle, by repealing Article VII entitled "Regional Jail Board," (set out below). Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. ORDINANCE NO. 96-2(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE VII, REGIONAL JAIL BOARD, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA. BE iT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, is hereby amended and reordained by repealing Article VII, Regional Jail Board, as follows: ARTICLE VII. (Repealed by Ordinance Adopted January 3, 1996) Sec. 2-41. (Repealed by ordinance adopted January 3, 1996). Sec. 2-42. (Repealed by ordinance adopted January 3, 1996.) (Note: Since the Board was running ahead of schedule, it decided to go to "Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda," at this time.) Agenda Item No. 23. Other Matters not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker commented on the recent bid process PVCC went through for its new addition and how the bids came in over budget. Staff is anticipating the same thing for the new high school. Staff believes there are a number of reasons for this, but hopefully the market will improve by the time the County goes out to bid in late spring or early summer. Mrs. Thomas asked that the sound system be repaired so that it works properly. It is frustrating to read the Planning Commission minutes and then there is a statement in the middle which says the minutes cannot be tran- scribed because the tape is inaudible. It is also frustrating for the citizens. Mrs. Humphris said she is still not comfortable with the sound system in the Auditorium. Mrs. Humphris said the Board received notice that the Government Finance Officers' Association voted to award the County's current fiscal year's budget document the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. Mrs. Humphris said this January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 26) 000294 was a high honor and thanked everyone involved with the budget documents, especially Roxanne White and Anne Gulati. Mrs. Humphris said she received a letter from Mr. J. A. Hutchinson, Manager of the Piedmont Region for Virginia Power. Mr. Hutchinson provided her with some information about electric and magnetic fields. The pamphlets and documents are available for anyone who wants to see them. Also, Mr. Hutchinson is willing to give a presentation to Board members. No one expressed interest. Agenda Item No. 18. Public Hearing to consider the sale of property owned by the County of Albemarle consisting of six acres, more or less, and the improvements thereon, known as the Greenwood School property located on Route 690 in Albemarle County and designated as Tax Map 54, Parcel 54. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on December 18 and December 25, 1995.) Mr. Tucker said in 1987, the School Board deeded the Greenwood School property, containing approximately six acres, including improvements, to the Board of Supervisors. This property has been of interest to several purchas- ers since that time and a number of proposals to purchase the property have been received by the County although none have been consummated for various reasons. The property is known to contain asbestos in a number of areas, as many schools did that were built of this vintage, and it is this issue that has made development and/or sale of the property difficult. The property is in poor condition and continues to be vandalized in its dormant state. Mr. Jamie Parsons has entered into an agreement with the County to purchase the property for $43,500. Mr. Parsons has agreed to provide parking on the site for the Greenwood Arts and Crafts Festival for a period of five years and is purchasing the property in an "as is" condition. State law requires that a public hearing must be held prior to the disposal of real estate by a public body whether it is a public or private sale. The Building Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommends the sale of the property to Mr. Parsons. Staff recommends that following the public hearing, the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the necessary documents for the sale of the Greenwood School property per the purchase agreement. Mr. Tucker said when the Board was deeded the property, it did attempt to have a public bid of the property, but no responses were received. In 1990, the Board held a similar public hearing because there was an interest in the property by a Catholic School. That process was moving along well, but unfortunately it fell through. The main reason has been the asbestos. It is expensive to remove the asbestos and reconstruction is extensive. The County has received four serious offers since 1991, but all have fallen through until this offer. Staff feels it finally has a signed agreement by someone who is willing to take the property. It is his understanding that Mr. Parsons intends to renovate the property for single family dwellings. Mr. Perkins asked what zoning is on the property. Mr. Tucker replied that the property is currently zoned rural areas which would allow a two acre development or a single family development. If there is a more intensive use proposed, it would have to go through the zoning/special use permit process. Any use on the property would require the proper Health Department approvals, setbacks, etc., that are required with all zoning regulations. The Chairman opened the public hearing. Mr. Scott Peyton, a resident of Greenwood,' said he lives approximately one mile from the Greenwood School site. He first asked the Board to consider the manner in which this public hearing was advertised. He heard about this meeting from a neighbor who advised him that she had seen this notice in the legal classified section of The Daily Progress. There are a number of people who do not read The Daily Progress. He felt it was a fairly obscure manner in which to notify the public of this meeting. Additionally, to have a public hearing at a day time meeting renders it difficult for many people who might have an interest and want to convey their feelings. He suggested the Board post a notice in the local post office and on the property which would give better public exposure. The notice should be given at least 30 days in advance of such a public hearing. January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 27) 000295 Mr. Peyton said he thinks Mr. Parsons will find himself welcome in the Greenwood community if his intent is to renovate the property as a single family dwelling. He is personally concerned because of the interest over the years that fell through primarily for financial reasons. He does not know how Mr. Parsons could overcome those issues. He asked if the Board could provide some guidelines to assure the local community and residents that in fact something appropriate will be done with that building. He understands the County sees that property as a considerable liability that it wants to wash its hands of, but he is concerned about the use of the property. He feels there is some responsibility the County has to the residents and community to try to establish some guidelines in dialogue with the purchaser to give the community some sense of Mr. Parsons' intentions. Mr. Tucker said the Building Committee and staff's feeling was that the zoning regulations would be the guidelines they would have to rely on for the property rather than attempting to require something more stringent. It is unknown if the purchaser can do the things with the property that he has indicated which is renovation for a single family dwelling. Mr. Parsons is aware of the costs involved regarding the asbestos and what might need to be done to remove part of it and encapsulate other parts. Mr. Parsons feels it can be done and renovated into a single family dwelling. Mr. Steven Meeks said, historically, the building has been a prominent feature of the landscape and Greenwood since 1921. He encouraged the Board to do whatever it can to encourage the preservation of the building. A single family residence sounds fine to him. He said there are some artifacts inside the building that should be maintained and preserved by the County. He encouraged the County to retrieve those artifacts and consider displaying them in this building as a lasting memorial to the contributors and the community. There being no other comments from the public, the public hearing was closed. Mrs. Humphris suggested staff get the necessary expertise to determine what items are of historical significance in the building. Mr. Tucker said he thought all the items had been removed. Motion was made by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Perkins to authorize the Chair to execute the necessary documents for the sale of the Greenwood School per the purchase agreement. Staff is also to involve all necessary expertise to make sure that all historically important items are removed from the property before it is transferred to Mr. Parsons. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. None. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL ESTATE THIS AGREEMENT made this 7th day of December 1995, by and between the COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA (hereinafter re- ferred to as "Seller"), and JAMIE PARSONS, of 103 Viewmont Court, Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901 (hereinafter referred to as "Buyer"). 1. Sale and Description of Property. In consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, Seller agrees to sell and Buyer agrees to buy certain real estate with all improvements thereon and appurtenances thereto belonging, located in the County of Albemarle, Virginia (the "Property"), and described as all that certain lot or parcel of land, shown on Tax Map 54, Parcel 54, known as Greenwood School property, containing 6 acres, more or less, including improvements, conveyed to Seller by the County School Board of Albemarle County (the "School Board") by resolu- tion adopted at a regularly scheduled meeting of the School Board on March 24, 1987 and dated April 3, 1987, the Property having been previously conveyed to the School Board of Samuel Miller District of the County of Albemarle by deed of Wills Johnson, dated January 17, 1920 and recorded in the Clerk's Office of Albemarle Circuit Court in Deed Book 172, page 459. Reference is 000296 January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 28) made to said deed and the plats referred to therein for the exact location, dimensions and description of the Property. 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price for the Property is Forty Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($43,500.00), to be paid by Buyer to Seller by cash, in the form of a certified or local cashier's check, at closing. 3. Earnest Money Deposit. Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00) will be paid to Seller by Buyer as Earnest Money Deposit upon execution of this Agreement, and said amount will be applied as a credit against the purchase price to be paid at closing. 4. Conveyance. The Seller agrees to convey the Property by good and marketable title, free and clear of all encumbrances, and subject only to such easements, covenants and restrictions of record which do not adversely affect marketability of title. Full possession of the Property will be available to Buyer at date of closing. 5. Reservation of Parking Area. Buyer agrees to grant to Seller, its employees, agents, representatives, without charge, a nonrevocable license for a five (5) year term to utilize a portion of the Property for parking of vehicles in connection with the annual Crafts Fair held at the Greenwood Community Center. The portion of the Property to be utilized for this purpose is de- scribed as all that property behind the School Building (east side of the building) that is between the driveway (west border) and the woodline (east border) and running from State Route 691 (north border) to the adjoining property currently owned by Mr. Walter Young (south border). Access and egress for parking shall be by way of the existing driveway which runs from State Route 690 and around the rear of the school building to State Route 691. In the event that this description is inaccurate in any way, or if the location of the portion ofthe Property to be utilized for parking changes during the five-year term, Buyer agrees to provide alter- native parking arrangements at the Property acceptable to the County's Parks and Recreation Department or other County designees. 6. Personal Property. Seller shall have the discretion, but not the duty, to remove any furniture and other personal property located on the Property, including but not limited to property located inside the old school building, prior to closing. Should Seller decide not to remove such property, Seller shall have no further responsibility or liability for the presence or removal of any personal property remaining on the Property at closing, and shall have no responsibility or liability for any costs associated with removal or disposal of such property. At Seller's option, Buyer will assume full responsibility over and ownership of such property, and Buyer shall be free to dispose of such property as he sees fit. 7. Costs and Expenses. Buyer shall pay its own attorney's fees, its prorate share of the current year's real estate taxes when due and payable, cost of title insurance, and all recording costs other than the Seller's deed tax. Seller agrees to pay the expense of preparing the deed and the recordation tax applicable to grantors. Except as otherwise agreed herein, all other expenses incurred by Buyer in connection with this purchase, including without limitation title examination, insurance premiums, record- ing costs and fees of Buyer's attorney, shall be borne by Buyer. Buyer expressly agrees that he shall be solely responsible for all costs and expenses associated with the removal of asbestos, lead and other hazardous or nonhazardous materials and substances found within the improvements on the Property and/or located on the Property. 8. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. Buyer agrees to release, indemnify, protect, defend and hold Seller harmless from January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 29) ~ all liability, obligations, l~Sses, claims, demands, damages, actions, suits, proceedings, icosts and expenses, including attor- ..... ' fees of any kind or nature whatSoever, whether suffered, ~, instituted ir asserted ~y any entity, party or person for any personal injury to or dee any loss, damage or destructi the County or not, arising ou directly or indirectly from t toe, lead, and other hazardou Property, including the schoo ments. The foregoing agreemen force and effect and shall su 9. Approval by County Seller's obligations under tb th of any person or persons and for Dn of any property, whether owned by of, connected with, or resulting he presence and/or removal of asbes- s or nonhazardous substances on the building and all other improve- t to indemnify shall continue in full rvive closing. Board of Supervisors. Buyer's and is Agreement shall be subject to and contingent upon approval by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle ("Board of Supervisors"), at a public hearing to be held pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.1-262. 10. Closing. Closing~shall take place at the Albemarle County Attorney's Office on Or before February 15, 1996 (or earlier if Buyer and Seller agree), or as soon thereafter as title can be examined, and papers ~repared. 11. Condition of Property. Buyer agrees to purchase the Property, including improvements, in an "as is" condition, and agrees that Seller has no obligation to improve, remove or other- wise assume liability or responsibility for the Property, includ- ing improvements, above or b~low ground, after closing. 12. Construction. Ben~fit and Effect. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance w~th the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, shall be binding u~on and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of th~ parties, constitutes the entire Agreement between the partie~ and may not be modified or changed except by written instrument executed by all the parties. 13. Aqreement Survive~ Closing. It is expressly understood and agreed by Buyer and Seller that time is of the essence of this Agreement, and that all agreements, promises, stipulations and representations contained herein shall survive closing and shall bind the heirs, executors, a~ministrators, agents, successors and assigns of the parties heretO. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, th9 parties have signed this Agreement as of the day first above written: SELLER: BUYER: JA BY Agenda Item No. 20. Executi At 11:43 a.m., motion was of Thomas, to adjourn into executive of Virginia, under subsection (1), boards and commissions and the ass under subsection (7) to consult wi specific legal matters relating to COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE B~~ ROBERT W. TUCKER, JR. COUNTY EXECUTIVE liE PARSONS JAMIE PARSONS Session: Personnel. [ered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. ~ession under Section 2.1-344(A) of the Code to discuss candidates for appointment to ~gnment of a specific county employee, and ~h legal counsel and staff regarding reversion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded zOte: January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) 000~98 (Page 30) AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Certify Executive Session. At 1:18 p.m., the Board reconvened into open session. Motion was immediately offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to certify by a recorded vote that to the best of each Board member's knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the Executive Session were heard, discussed or considered in the Executive Session. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 22. Appointments. Mr. Martin recommended the reappointment of Mr. William H. Bolton as the Rivanna District representative to the Albemarle County Service Authority with term to expire April 16, 2000; the appointment of Mr. Steven Runkle to the Architectural Review Board, to fill out the unexpired term of Frank Kessler, with term to expire November 14, 1998; the appointment of Mr. Craig Van de Castle to the Public Recreational Facilities Authority with term to expire December 31, 1998; and the reappointment of Ms. Patricia Ewers as the Rivanna District representative to the Board of Social Services with term to expire December 31, 1999). Mr. Marshall recommended the reappointment of Mr. Michael Brown as the Scottsville District representatives to the Board of Social Services with term to expire December 31, 1999; the reappolntment of Mr. Hollis Lumpkin as the Rivanna District representative to the Albemarle County Service Authority with term to expire April 16, 2000; and the reappointment of Mr. James E. Clarke, Jr., as the Scottsville representative to the Equalization Board with term to expire December 31, 1996. Mrs. Thomas recommended the appointment of Mr. Edwin L. Strange to the Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Citizens Advisory Committee, to replace David Booth, with term to expire December 31, 1997. Mr. Bowerman recommended the appointment of Mr. David Tice as the Rio District representative to the Albemarle County Planning Commission with term to expire December 31, 1999. Mr. Perkins recommended the reappointment of Mr. Donald A. Moyer as the White Hall District representative to the Albemarle County Service Authority with term to expire April 16, 2000; the appointment of Mr. Vernon Jones as the White Hall District representative to the Industrial Development Authority, to fill the unexpired term of Arthur Baker, with term to expire January 19, 1997; and the appointment of Mr. William Finley as the White Hall District represen- tative on the Albemarle County Planning Commission with term to expire December 31, 1999. Mr. Bowerman then seconded the appointments. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mr. Bowerman then recommended that Mrs. Thomas serve on the Sustain- ability Council of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission and that she Chair the Governmental Committee in the absence of Emily Couric. The motion was seconded by Mr. Martin. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 000299 January 3, 1996 (Regular Day Meeting) (Page 31) AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Martin, Mr. Perkins and Mrs. Thomas. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 24. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 1:22 p.m.