Loading...
1987-11-11November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 344 Page 1 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on November 11, 1987, at 9:00 A.M., Meeting Room #7, County Office Building, 401McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke, Messrs. J. T. Henley, Jr., C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:06 A.M.) and Peter T. Way (arrived at 9:06 A.M.). BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. George R. St. John, County Attorney; and Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Way. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Bowie, to approve items 4.1 and 4.2 and to accept the remain- ing item on the consent agenda as information with the exception of item 4.5. Mr. Lindstrom requested that this item be taken up later in the day. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Item 4.1. Letter dated October zg, 1987, from Mr. Mark Reisler, Chairman of the Jefferson Area Board on Aging, to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., requesting support of resolution to the Governor and General Assembly to fund budget request by the Virginia Department for the Aging for FY 1988-90, was received. The Board adopted the following resolution by the vote shown above: WHEREAS, the elderly population of Virginia continues to grow at a more rapid rate than the general population with the very oldest end of the age spectrum growing the most rapidly of all; and WHEREAS, a substantial proportionOf the elderly are poor, frail and disabled in need of special services; and WHEREAS, there is documented evidence of substantial unmet need in services to the aging in the areas of housing, transportation, day support, respite, client care assessments, nutrition, and other community-based support services; and WHEREAS, the Jefferson Area Board for Aging has been established to administer a comprehensive, coordinated system of services to older Virginians; and WHEREAS, an increase in state funds for services for the elderly will help local government better respond to its human services needs; and WHEREAS, the Code of Virginia (2.1~373.4) states, "The General Assembly declares that it is the policyof the Commonwealth to support the development of community-based resources to avoid inappropriate institutionalization of the impaired elderly". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle, County, Virginia, does hereby urge the Governor of Virginia to request in his budget and the Virginia General Assembly to appropriate the $13.2 million requested by the Virginia Department for the Aging for FY 1988-90 to maintain a range of locally 345 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 2 determined life sustaining services to frail and disadvantaged older Virginians. Item 4.2. Street sign request - Fieldbrook Subdivision. The request wag received from Mr. Claude W. Cotten, President of Phoenix Investment, Ltd. Board adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following roads: Old Brook Road (State Route 652) at its intersection with Westmoreland Road (State Route 1441); Old Brook Road (State Route 652) at its intersection with Bixham Lane (State Route 1330); Old Brook Road (State Route 652) at its intersection with Redington Lane (State Route ~% %~5{EP-,EAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs +~ ~ ~,rvugh the Office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board oflSupervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Item 4.3. The following letter dated October 30, 1987, from Mr. Oscar K Mabry, Deputy Commissioner, Highway Department, re: Addition of Dunromin to the Secondary System, was received: "As requested in your resolution dated August 12, 1987, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective October 30, 1987. ADDITION LENGTH CLEARVIEWMEADOWS Route 1040 (Dunromin Road) ~o South cul-de-sac From Route 676 O. 17 Mi." Item 4.4. Memorandum dated November 2, 1987, from ~s. Judy S. Gough, Administrative Assistant, Finance Department, re: Refunds on business and professional licenses, real estate and personal property itaxes made from July 1 to October 31, 1987, was received. Item 4.5. Memorandum dated October 30, 1987, from Mr. John T. P. Horne, to Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., re: Septic systems setbacks from lot lines. Mr. Lindstrom requested that this item be discussed later on the agenda. Item 4.6. Notice from Mr. Stephen H. Watts, II, McG~ire, Woods, Battle Boothe noting that an application has been filed with theiState Corporation Commission by Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc., to revise its tariffs, was received. ~ Item 4.7. The following letter dated October 27, 1987, from Mr. Dan S. Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, to Mr. and Mrs. William P. Moore, re: ditch and pipe under Route 809 near the Moore's property,~was received: "Reference is made to our meeting at your home on October 5, 1987, concerning the ditch along and pipe under Route 809 near your home. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 3Z16 Page 3 I have determined that the 18 inch pipe under Route 809 is undersized for a ten year storm occurrence. The more proper size should be a 24 inch pipe. This situation, however, is one which exists at many locations along the secondary system in Albemarle County. I cannot recommend this pipe be replaced at thiS time based on the other needs which now exist in the secondary system. The Board of Supervisors may see priorities differently, however, and you may wish to bring this need to their attention when they~revise the six year secondary improvement plan this winter. I am fo=warding a copy of this letter to the Board and the County Director of Planning for their informa- tion and consideration. If the pipe were designated for replacement, I believe a drainage easement on the outlet end of the pipe would be needed since none is now recorded and enlarging the pipe would increase the flow. While we visited I reviewed the storm drains in your basement. Closing of the floor drains in your basement and use of the sump pump as modified should eliminate the storm water backup such as you experienced in the Labor Day storm. This being the case, future storms should result only in a backup of water at the roadway pipe and some short term flooding on your front lawn, but no backup of water in your basement." Item 4.8. Letter dated October Z1, 198i7, from the State Department of Education, to Mr. N. Andrew Overstreet, Divi!sion Superintendent, on approval of grant award under ECIA Chapter 1, Migrant!Education for fiscal year 1988 in the amount of $26,000, was received as information. Item 4.9. Arbor Crest Apartments Monthly Bond Report for the Month of September, 1987, was received as information. Item 4.10. Copy of the Albemarle County Service Authority's Compre- hensive Annual Financial Report for fiscal year ended June 30, 1987, was received. Item 4.11. Copy of the Comparative Report of Local Revenues and Expendi- tures for fiscal year ended June 30, 1986, pursuant to Section 15.1-166, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, as prepared bY the Auditor of Public Accounts, was received. Item 4.12. Copy of County of Albemarle~Report on Audit of Commonwealth Revenues for the year ended June 30, 1987, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Accounts, was received. Item 4.13. Copy of County of Albemarle~Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Report on Audit for year ended June 30, 1987, was received. Agenda Item No. 5. Approval of Minutes: January 14, February 11, March 18 (Night), April 8, July 8, August 5 and October 7, 1987. Mr. Lindstrom had read the minutes of August 5, 1987, pages 14 (beginning with Item #6) to the end and found them to be correct. Mr. Bowie read the minutes of January 1~, 1987, pages 9 (beginning with Item #7) to page 19 and found some conversation missing and requested that the minutes be rescheduled for approval. Mrs. Cooke had read the minutes of January 14, pages 20 to the end and found them to be correct. Mr. Bowie offered motion to approve the~minutes read, with the exception of his minutes. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: 347 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 4 AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ABSTAIN: Mr. Bain. Agenda Item No. 6a. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the Highway Department look at the intersection of Routes 606 and 649 near the Airport. There is one direction in which traffic is unrestricted by any signs and conflicts with other travel patterns. The area is a three-cornered intersection and when traveling north, there is no yield sign or stop sign, and someone keeping straight through could con- flict with crossing or turning traffic. Mr. Roosevelt said he recently asked one of his traffic engineers to look at that whole intersection, with the intent of rearranging some of the stop signs. Mr. Lindstrom asked about the status of lining on Owensville Road and if new development is required to install decelerating lanes so as to distinguish the main road from the decelerating road. Mr. Horne said decelerating lanes are required as part of the development. Mr. Roosevelt said he has instructed his sign foreman to install delineators at the ends of turn lanes as a routine requirement. He also has requested the traffic engineer to review Route 678 and Route 676 to see whether they qualify for a center line. If the traffic engineer feels the roadways are eligible for center lining, the edge lines would be put in at the turn lanes as part of that operation. Mr. Bowie referenced a letter addressed to Board members from Mrs. Helen Stevens concerning Route 734. He said Route 734 needs improvement, but one or two landowners are refusing to dedicate the necessary right-of-way for widen- ing. This problem affects several roads in the County and is something the Board needs to address. After talking with Mr. Roosevelt~ he intends to respond to Mrs. Stevens' letter. He feels that the situation is ludicrous. He agrees that the land should not be condemned, but as the County grows the Board must find a way to get these "wash-board gravel roads" improved. Mr. Bain commented that Route 682 is in a similar situation t~ Route 734. The road is not only narrow, but is heavily used by schOol buses. Mr. Lindstrem asked if a road must be a specific length before the Highway Department will pave it. Mr. Roosevelt said there is no specific length. It is more or less someone's judgement that the section to be widened and hard-surfaced serves a public purpose. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Depart- ment will pave a section of road at either end and leave a. section in the center unpaved. Mr. Roosevelt said as long as the road will tie into a paved section, the Department will pave it, but policy does prohibit paving a section of road that is graveled on both ends. Mr. Lindstrom said, for example, Route 610 does not tie into any other paved State~ road, but State maintenance ends at the end of the road. The other end go~s toward Route 20 and he asked if that section could be paved. Mr. Roosevelt replied not unless the road ties into Route 20. Mr. Bowie asked if tieing Route 610 and Route 612 into a single entrance is part of a safety study. Mr. Roosevelt said he has asked the traffic engineer to include that section of road on his list of projects when he makes recommendations for safety improvements. Mr. Lindstrom said, for the record, he owns a farm at the end of that road and is not interested in getting it paved because he thinks there are some benefits to being at the end of an unpaved road. He then asked why th~ Highway Department will not pave any road where it would proVide a substantiai service to a lot of residents, even if there is a small unpaved segment betWeen two paved segments. Mr. Roosevelt said the Department wants the paving to be continuous and feels there would be major problems if roads were paved wherever right-of-way is available. Mr. Bowie said he would like t8 see some other options pursued. Mr. Bain asked how many property owners on Route 682 ~ave not dedicated right-of-way. Mr. Roosevelt said there are several along {he length of the project. Most of the property owners are opposed to donating 50 feet right-of-way. Some of the property owners are willing to donate 40 feet and some are totally opposed to donating any right-of-way. He,has worked with at least four different people in that area in the last ten years trying to get November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 348 Page 5 right-of-way. He now is working with a Mr. Johnson. Mr. Bain asked if 40 feet is acceptable. Mr. Roosevelt said the road can be built within the 40 feet, but 40 feet is in opposition to the Highway Department's policy and the County's policy concerning right-of-way. Mr. Way asked about the road situation in Lakeside Subdivision. Mr. Roosevelt said the road .Lakeside (Brookhill Avenue) is to be added as a rural addition. The citizens have put up a large percentage of the money. At the same time the citizens in Lakeside entered into an agreement with the develop- ers of Willow Lake to allow them to use part of Lakeside's roadway for access to Willow Lake. In return, the developers of Willow Lake would build part of the roadway and bear part of the citizen costs to improve Brookhill Avenue. The developers of Willow Lake have not completed their work. Until that work is finished, the Department cannot take steps to add the road or even begin construction. The developers are trying to finish construction on Willow Lake and have that road added to the system, but they face some major reconstruc- tion problems. Mr. Roosevelt said he understands that Willow Lake has built the section of Brookhill Avenue that was part of its agreement. The County's Engineering Department is aware of the reconstruction problems. The work will not be done before winter. Hopefully the Highway Department will be able to do its part of the construction in the spring. Mrs. Jane Wood addressed the Board and ~resented the following petition from parents concerning improvements to Route 678: "We, the undersigned parents and neighbgrs of school children who ride Murray/Meriwether Lewis bus #89 on!a daily basis, respectfully request improvements to Route 678 between Route 614 and Route 676, because it is unsafe for bus travel dueito the following: unpaved rough roadway; blind narrow curves; sections too narrow for safe two-way traffic; steep grades; no guardrails despite dangerous drepoffs; flooding due to no drainage; and recorded accounts of accidents involving school buses." Mrs. Wood said on September 29 there was a head-on collision involving a school bus because of a blind curve. Two years ago a bus went into the ditch to avoid a head-on collision. She feels that. this matter should be addressed at this time. Mr. Agnor co~nented that the petition would be passed on to the Planning Commission for review during the update of the Six-Year Highway Plan. Mrs. Wood added that the road is the one that= falls behind the new Meriwether Lewis SchoolConstruction which is also one of the reasons for bad flooding. Mr. Bowie asked if the signatures on the petitions are from parents who live on the road. Mrs. Wood responded not that she knows of; the persons who signed the petitions have children who ride buses that travel the road. Mr. Bain commented that most of the signatures on the petitions are from persons who live in Waverly Subdivision. Mr. Home said the Planning Commission held a public hearing last night to solicit comments on the Six Year Secondary Highway Improvement Plan. There 349 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 6 were several people at the meeting who made con~nents. If Board members have any roads they would like the Commission to review, please let him know. Mr. Bowie asked that the Planning Commission consider safety improvements where Route 610 and Route 612 intersect with Route 20 North. Agenda Item No. 7. Presentation: Task Force on Children and Youth. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated November 5, 1987: "Attached for your review and consideration is a request from Mayor Frank Buck to join with the City in sponsoring a Community Task Force on Children and Youth. This request is accompanied by a copy of the Task Force charge that was approved by City Council last month. Formation of the Task Force requires three appointments by the Board: An elected or appointed official; An executive from a county business or industry; A recognized professional in child development. The City has decided to fill their appointments through public advertisement, and it is recommended that the County do likewise, sharing the space and cost of the advertisements with the City. Two members of the Children and Youth Steering Committee, Dr. Tom DeMaio and Mr. Bruce Williamson, will be present at the November 11 meeting to outline the program and answer any questions you may have." Mr. Bruce Williamson introduced himself as Chairman of the Steering Committee and Dr. Tom DeMaio as Co-Chairman. Mr. Williamson commented that City Council has endorsed the proposal and that there are County and City residents on the Steering Committee. Several agencies and governmental agencies were concerned about the services provided to children and youth in Charlottesville, the coordination of those services, and if those services met theneeds of the family. The Steering Committee met and, with some help from the City Manager's staff, collated the reports received and identified several areas of concern which the Task Force is to address. Dr. Tom DeMaio said community agencies and citizens were concerned that the services for children and youth are expanding, but were not being coordinated or!planned in the best way possible, and that there are gaps in the services. Mr~ Williamson and Dr. DeMaio then summarized the following report: ~ TASK FORCE ON CHILDREN AND YOUTH CHARGE BACKGROUND: Response to the November, 1986 Forum on Children & Youth was enthusiastic. It suggested widespread interest in coming to- gether to help the local government(s) develop policy idirected at providing for the nurturance and support of children, youth, and families in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area. The r.easons for this interest are two: Resources have diminished and the family has ckAnged. Thus, within the community, there is a feeling that we may not be meeting the needs of today's families and that we must look for new and creative ways to bridge the gap on one hand and, on the other, work together to insure that the Charlottesville/Albemarle area is a good place for families and children. ~ Addressing these two broad factors and the many smalle~ issues contained within them and, more importantly, developing realistic approaches for their resolution, will require systematic study and cooperative action by many segments of the community. ~To that end, the steering committee of the Forum on Children and YoUth is asking the Charlottesville City Council to invite the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to join with Council in establishing a Community Task Force on Children and Youth. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day 'Meeting) Page 7 350 PURPOSE: The purposes of the Task Force shall be: e To use the best information available on child development to help make our community a good place for children and youth; To take a holistic, family-systems approach to services and programs for children and youth~ To facilitate coordination among and between service providers; To serve all families - troubled as well as healthy~ To develop cost estimates for improved services and/or expanded programs or facilities. CHARGE: The Community Task Force on Children and Youth shall develop a policy statement regarding the status of children and youth in Charlottesville/Albemarle with specific recommendations designed to support sound individual development, enhance the quality of life for the area's children and youth, and encourage healthy families. These recommendations shall be based on the Task Force review Of the Forum recommendations and shall incorporate realistic implementation strategies. COMPOSITION: The Judge of Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, one representative from the University of Virginia Administration, five City and five County appointees. The steering committee recommends the following categorical selections: one representative from the Charlottesville Social Development Commission, one County appointment (elected or appointed official), two executives from business or industry, two recognized professionals ~n child development, one appointee designated by the Charlottesville School Board, one ap- pointee designated by the Albemarle County School Board. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION: The task force would be open to volunteers at the subcommittee level. The steerin§ committee hopes to recruit volunteers from agencies serving children and youth, the schools, the courts and police, recreation departments, the Social Development Commission, community youth, government ~officials, business and industry, service users, interested parents, university professionals who conduct research in the areas of ch%ldren, youth, families, or related policy fields. SUBCOMMITTEES: Coordination, Planning, ~Intervention, Child Develop- ment/Resources for Growth, Child Care and Family Support, approxi- mately 12-15 members each. (Subcommittee charges listed separately.) ORGANIZATION AND WORKPLAN: The steering committee proposes the following course of action. ~ The City Council and the Boardl of Supervisors approve a joint resolution establishing a Community Task Force on Children and Youth. ~ The Task Force consist of twelve voting members and two non-voting staff, as follows: One representative from the University of Virginia administration, the Judge of Juve- nile and Domestic Relations Court, five members appointed by the Charlottesville City Council, five members appointed by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, one City staff, and one County staff. The representatives from each jurisdiction would be selected by Council or the Board from a slate of candidates submitted by the steering committee or through position advertisement; the manner of selection will be determined by the governing body. Once appointed, the Task Force,will meet in a working session with the steering committee to review the organiza- tional chart and to be briefed~on the effort to date. The steering committee will then disband. 351 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 8 The Task Force will convene a kick-off meeting to invite co~unity participation. Work will be done by subcommit- tees organized under the direction of the Task Force. Participants will be invited to sign up for a subcommittee and work programs established with the help of facilitators selected by the Task Force. The subcommittees shall be based on the general issues which emerged in the forum, as modified. Coordination Planning Child Development/Resources for Growth Intervention Child Care/Family Support The work of the Task Force shall be directed by an execu- tive committee who will consult with the five subcommittee chairs and report back to the Task Force as appropriate. The chairman of the executive committee will be the chair- man of the Task Force and will be responsible for facili- tating the project and for advising and consulting with the jurisdictions. The Task Force will receive its mandate from the Charlottesville City Council and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and will present its report to those bodies. SUBCOMMITTEE CHARGES: Subcommittee on Coordination The Subcommittee on Coordination shall assess and pripritize Forum recommendations on the coordination of services provision; including but not limited to how information is disseminated and referrals made, suggestions for ways to make information available, and sugges- tions for ways to strengthen linkages among service providers. Membership should include but would not necessarily be limited to representatives from the Youth Commission, Information and Referral, City and County Social Services, service providers and service receivers. Subcommittee on Planning The Subcommittee on Planning shall assess and prioritize Forum recommendations with respect to the planning for services to Children and Youth. These would include looking at the planni6g process; coordinating short and long-range planning; and coordinating the planning which is done within agencies with community,wide planning for children and youth. Membership should include but would not necessarily b~ limited to representatives from the Youth Commission, the SocialiDevelopment Commission, the University, County administration, the Thomas Jeffer- son Planning District Commission, service providers, qommunity people, Region Ten, the Health Department, League of Women Voters, Junior League, University administration, City and County planners and planning staff. Subcommittee on Child Development/Resources for GrowtH The Subcommittee on Child Development/Resources for G~owth shall assess and prioritize Forum recommendations with respect to child development and primary prevention (e.g. pre-natal clinics, screen- ing, etc). The subcommittee would focus on the developing child and assess those services designed to promote healthy development. It would include looking at a broad range of the developihg child's needs, including but not limited to educational, socia~l, and recrea- tional needs. It would focus on the needs of specific groups (e.g. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 352 Page 9 preschoolers, single-parent children) as well as on specific issues such as summer needs. Membership should include but would not necessarily be limited to representatives from the Charlottesville and Albemarle County school divisions, preschools, the library, the Discovery Museum, McGuffey Art Center, the Health Department, child care providers, CVCDA, Recreation Department, Curry School of Education, Infant Development Project, the Prevention Council, and Family Services. The Subcommittee on Intervention The Subcommittee on Intervention shall assess and prioritize Forum recommendations with respect to planning for intervention strategies for children and youth. These would include crisis intervention services, residential care, counseling and treatment, the role of the police and the courts, alternative education programs and community service systems. The programs and services considered by this Subcommittee are those categorized as secondary or tertiary preven- tive programs. Membership should include but would not'be limited to representatives from the various treatment programs currently operating in the Charlottesville/Albemarle area, the ChaClottesville and Albemarle Departments of Social Services, service, users, educators, University researchers in child psychology and counseling, Region Ten, the police and the courts, MACAA. The Subcommittee on Child Care and Family Support The Subcommittee on Child Care and Family Support shall assess and prioritize Forum recommendations with respect to child care and family support systems. It would look at the changing needs of families in Charlottesville and examine the roles played by govern- ment, business, and the family as institutions with shared responsi- bility for family or children's well-being. Emphasis should be on provision of adequate child care services. Membership should include, but would not be limited to representa- tives from MACAA, JAUNT, CVCDA, Family Services, private day care providers, local businesses, the University administration, Univer- sity Day Care Committee, service users,~League of Women Voters, FOCUS, United Way. Mr. Williamson said he is not present today to request any funds, although a request will be made later. The request does include some assis- tance from the County and City staff. Mr. Lindstrom said he is impressed with ~his idea after having been through numerous budget sessions and the confusion that rages around youth- oriented programs. There have been many programs set up to deal with youth problems with no contact between the groups and no overall perspective. He hopes that Task Force would result in a more efficient use of the funds now spent rather than spending more money. He also hopes that the Task Force would have the cooperation of all the other agencies to determine whether an agency should remain independent or would benefit by being absorbed into another existing program. Dr. DeMaio commented that this is one of the goals of the Task Force. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the Task Force determine if there is a need for a board to review all these activities, look at the funding requests each year and determine if the agencies could be better coordinated and better at allocating funds. Dr. DeMaio said he has been working on that problem with the City. Mr. Williamson commented although the Steering Commit- tee will pass the Board's suggestions and comments to the Task Force, the Committee would not govern the actions of the Task Force. Mr. Bain asked why only one representative on the Task Force is from the University. With the resources the University has, more involvment by the University might benefit the overall program. Mr. Williamson said he did not know. 353 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 10 Mrs. Cooke said she applauds the efforts and thinks the Task Force is acting in good faith. In looking over the chart, she does not see any provi- sion for the demise of the family or the advocation of parental responsibility which is at the basis of this program and the reason for the Task Force. She is concerned that the report states "examining the needs of the changing family," instead of examining why there is this changing family structure. She feels that this is important and is a step in the right direction. An emphasis should also be placed on the breakup of the family. Unless the Task Force can get to the root of the problem she cannot see that this will be meaningful in finding a long term solution. Dr. DeMaio said what Mrs. Cooke has described is the whole problem. Some past research indicates that part of the problem is the way our cultures change and the fact that more women are working outside of the home. Mrs. Cooke said the more the state assumes the responsibilities of the family, the more it contributes tO the breakup of the family. She also does not see mention of a representative from the clergy on the Task Force. Mr. Williamson said although no specific reference to the clergy is made, he would assume that someone from that profession would want to participate. One of the objectives of the Planning Subcommittee is to develop strategies to enhance family life. A member fromm!the clergy could be the Board's appointee if it so desire. Mrs. Cooke said she does not think that person should be an appointee, but approached by the~Task Force as a separate entity. Mr. Bowie said he has no problamwith the concept, b~t there are agencies now who are supposed to coordinate this type of thing. A~parently, these agencies are not doing their job. He agrees with statements made by Mr. Lindstrom concerning whether all these agencies are necessary and that the Task Force could provide a meaningful role. He noticed o~ the organizational chart that every subcommittee must develop long term and ~hort term costs. To him that means requests for funds~ He does not want to s~e recommendations for starting more agencies. Mr. Williamson said he will qonvey that to the Task Force. - Mr. Williamson said the request before the Board is ~o accept the charge and to advertise jointly with the City for appointees. Mm. Agnor commented staff is in favor of this request. ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the charge is important ~nd before he is willing to adopt it, it should reflect some of the comments made earlier. Mr. Bowie said he agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom s~id there is no language in the "Purpose" section to indicate whether the ~xisting extension of services is most efficient using the resources now available. He has no problem allowing the Task Force to recommend areas of improvement even if it means requesting additional funds, but as stated the prima~y focus would be to -use what is now available more efficiently. He requests the staff to consider the comments made by the Board, see if those comments can be incorporated in the "Charge" and change the emphasis to working within the!structure now available and trying to improve inter-coordination with use of funds more efficiently~ He is unwilling to spend more money until he, is convinced that current funding is being properly used. The Task Force has the primary opportunity to make that determination. Mr. Bowie said Mr! Lindstrom's comments about whether all the agencies should be coordinated as one should be included, as well as rewording the "Charge" to incorporateisome of Mrs. Cooke's comments. ~ Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board may be charging toolmuch to the Task Force and it may not be able to come to grips with everything. He is in agreement with the consolidation, but thinks it may all bettoo much. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the first duty of the Task Force ~ould be to look at existing programs, and evaluate them what they are doing and how they might improve. (Mr. Henley and Mr. St. John left the meeting at 10:23 A.M.) Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion that staff: work on the charge to emphasize in the "Purpose"~and "Charge" sections the evaluation of current programs in terms of how effi- ciently they use local resources, how effectively they are coordina- ted and whether there is any duplication of present services. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 11 354 2. draft a letter to Mayor Frank Buck indicating that the Board sup- ports the Task Force, but believes that part of the charge needs to be strengthened. 3. place charge to the Task Force on the December 9 agenda. 4. look at the underlying problem and the extent to which local pro- grams should address the fractionalizing of the family. (Mr. Henley and Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:26 A.M.). Mr. Way said he is in agreement with Mr. Lindstrom. Mr. Lindstrom then added to the motion that a member to represent the clergy be added on the Task Force, but that person not to be one of the County's appointees. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. At 10:29 A.M., the Chairman called a recess. The Board reconvened at 10:39 A.M., with Mr. St. John absent. Agenda Item No. 8. Request for Dog Leash Ordinance in Whipporwill Hollow. Mr. Agnor said the request is that the dog leash ordinance be extended to Whipporwill Hollow. The signatures on the petition will be verified before the public hearing. (Mr. St. John returned to the meeting at 10:41 A.M.) Mrs. Candy Pugh, who first made the request, said the reason for this request is the growing number of dogs running loose in Whipporwill. For example, one particular dog has bitten three ~.people and another one kills cats. Mr. Bowie offered motion to set a public'hearing on a dog leash ordinance for Whipporwill Hollow Subdivision for December 16, subject to verification of signatures on the petitions. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 9. Request for Dog Leash Ordinance in Waverly. Mr. Agnor said this request came from the residents of Waverly Subdivi- sion. There are 32 signatures on the petitions, which will be verified. Mr. Bain offered motion to set a public hearing on a dog leash ordinance for Waverly Subdivision for December 16, subject to verification of ~ignatures on the petitions. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion.· Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote~ AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. ~' Agenda Item No. 10. Request to ban leaf~burning in Waverly. Mr. Agnor said Section 9-23.1 of the County Code provides that majority of the residents/occupants of a designated subdivision or area may petition the Board to ban leaf burning in that area. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to set a public hearing to ban le in Waverly Subdivision for December 16, subjedt to verification of tures on the petitions. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was the motion carried by the following recorded vote: the ~fined burning he signa- .alled and AYES: NAYS: 355 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 12 Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs, Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. None. Agenda Item No. 10a. Request for Dog Leash Ordinance in Jefferson Village. Mr. Agnor stated the staff has discovered that no action is needed on this request, since Jefferson Village is covered by an ordinance adopted at the November 4, 1987 Board meeting. Agenda Item No. 10b. Request to ban leaf burning in Jefferson Village. The request was brought before the Board by a petition with 56 signatures. Mrs. Cooke offered motion to set a public hearing to ban leaf burning in Jefferson Village for December 16, subject to verification of signatures on the petitions. Mr. Bain seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. lla. Discussion, Agricultural/Forestal District Amend- ments. Set a public hearing to emend the County Code Section 2.1-2(b). Agenda Item No. llb. Approve policy amendment to withdrawal procedure. Mr. Agnor summarized the following memorandum dated October 14, 1987: "In order to reflect the current language of the State Code and in an effort to reduce the expense and inconvenience of persons voluntarily offering their land for inclusion in an agricultural/forestal dis- trict, staff recommends the following amendment to Section 2.1-2(b) of the Albemarle County Code: Each application for the creation of or addition to an agricul- tural and forestal district shall consist of the complete application form as set forth hereinabove, together with att two required maps, and shall be submitted to the Ptann~ng-~omm~ss~n governinK body, at the ~f~¢e Department of ~he~B~rea~r-~f Planning and Community Development~ ~n-RS-¢~p~es. This past session of the General Assembly has also amended the procedure for withdrawal of land within an agricultu~al/forestal district. This change will necessitate the amendment of our current withdrawal criteria, as it relates to the inheritance of land within an existing district: BY-RIGHT WITHDRAWAL t~-w~hdrawat-~s-songht-~-an upon the death of.~ property owner, any heir at law or devisee of an owner of land lying within a district~ sneh-lan~ may ~e withdrawn such land from the district ~m~ed~abely upon inheritance, provided written notice of withdrawal has been filed with the local Board of Supervisors within two years of the date of death of the owner. ~ Staff requests that you authorize the advertisement and public hearing for amendment to County Code Section 2.1-2(b)~ and that you approve the policy amendment to the withdrawal procedure. The policy amendment does not require any public hearing or adveMtisement." Mr. Bowie asked if the County has a procedure for notkfying heirs, upon the death of the landowner, that the property is in the ag~icultural/forestal district. Mr. Agnor replied no, the County is not always aware of the death. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 356 Page 13 Mr. Bain offered motion to re-adopt the following policy amended as to the procedure for withdrawing land from an agriculturai/forestal district: POLICY FOR THE WITHDRAWAL OF LANDS FROM AN AGRICULTURAL/FORESTAL DISTRICT WITHDRAWAL CRITERIA The Code of Virginia provides that any landowner may file written notice of termination with the Board of Supervisors. After a hearing before the Board of Supervisors, the Board may allow a landowner to withdraw property from the district "for good and reasonable cause shown". Withdrawal by an heir to property in an Agricultural and Forestal District is a matter of right. BY-RIGHT WITHDRAWAL: Upon the death of a property owner, any heir at law or devise, of an owner of land lying within a district may withdraw such land from the district upon inheritance, provided written notice of withdrawal has been filed with the local Board of Supervisors within two years of the date of death of the owner. WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURE: The inheritor of property in the Agricultural/ Forestal District who wishes to withdraw property shall furnish the following information: Proof of the death of the owner of the property; Proof that the person requesting the withdrawal is, in fact, the heir or designee of the deceased property owner; A statement by the heir or designee that he/she intends to have property withdrawn from the district. PETITION FOR WITHDRAWAL: In order to establish "good and reasonable cause shown", any request by a landowner to withdraw proPerty from a district must meet the following criteria: The proposed new land use will not have a significant adverse effect upon farming and/or forestry operations in the remaining balance of the .district; The proposed new land use is~in compliance with the most recent approved Comprehensive Plan; The proposed land use is consistent with the public interest of the County (i.e.~promotes the health, safety or general welfare of the public) and not solely to serve the proprietary interests of ithe landowner requesting withdrawal; The proposed land use was no~ anticipated by the land- owner at the time the property was placed in the district, and there has been a change in conditions or circumstance since that time.~ WITHDRAWAL PROCEDURE: The owner of property (not an heir or desig- nee) who wishes to have land withdrawn~from an Agricultural/Forestal District must use the following procedure: Owner of the property requesting withdrawal submits application with fee of fifty dollars ($50.00) to the Department of Planning and Community Development; Planning Department refers application to the Agricul- tural District Advisory Committee for review of with- drawal criteria and recommendation to the Planning Commission; Planning Commission notifies ~property owners within the district, advertises and holds public hearing and forwards application with findings and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors; 357 November 11, 1987 (Regular 'Day Meeting) Page 14 Board of Supervisors notifies property owners within the district, advertises and holds public hearing and makes final determination; The applicant, if denied favorable action by the Board of Supervisors shall have an immediate right to appeal to the Circuit Court wherein the applicant's land is located. Mr. Bowie seconded the foregoing motion. Roll was called and the mot carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstromand Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Bain then offered motion to set a public hearing for December 16, 1987 to amend Section 2.1-2(b) of the County Code. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 12. Report on Gypsy Moth Program and Appropriation request. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum dated Ngvember 5, 1987: "Attached to this appropriation request for $2260 to the Virginia Cooperative Extension Service is a brief report (on file) from the Gypsy Moth Committee, which was appointed by the Board of Supervisors last January. This report provides an update on the status of the Gypsy Moth in Albemarle County, and proposes the initial phase of a Gypsy Moth Control Program for FY 1987-88. The proposed program for FY 1987-88 includes the following compo- nents: A public educational program on the Gypsy Moth, its habits, and suppression techniques; A detection and monitoring program that includes the purchase and distribution of 2000 burlap bands and 750 male moth traps; A set-aside fund for ground spray application, should a major infestation occur in the spring. The cost of the burlap bands and the male moth traps Will be shared on a 50/50 cost share basis with the State. Participation in this program requires that an application be submitted by November 16, 1987." Mr. Agnor briefly summarized the Gypsy Moth Committee Report (a copy of the report is on file in the Clerk's office) as previously presented to the Board. Mr. Charlie Goodman, Extension Services, showed Board members the gypsy moth trap and burlap band that will be used. Packages of information have been put together to inform homeowners what to do if they discover gypsy moths. Mr. Bain asked how much Fairfax County is spendingon the gypsy moth program. Mr. Goodman said Fairfax County's proposed budget for 1988-89 is $430,000. Fairfax is nationally recognized for its Integrated Pest Management Program on gypsy moths, and is an urban county with a staff of five to six people. Mr. Bain asked what is involved in setting up an Integrated Pest Management Program. Mr. Goodman said the Program combinesibiological and chemical controls. Mr. Lindstrom asked that the Board be kept informed on how to apply for available funds for gypsy moth management. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 358 Page 15 Mr. Bain asked if the counties in northern¥irginia are appropriating any significant funds for controlling the gypsy moth. Mr. Goodman said most of the counties in Virginia are taking the reactionary approach, whereby they wait until the area is heavily infested and then spray. He proposes to spray at low level infestation so there would be no need to use chemicals. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowie and seconded by Mrs. Cooke to approve the following resolution to appropriate $2,260 to fund the Gypsy Moth Control Program: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $2,260.00 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated from the General Fund and coded to 1-1000-83000-301200 entitled Contracted Services, Gypsy Moth Control Program; AND, FURTHER, that this appropriation is effective this date. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. Mr. Lindstrom commented that in parts of Pennsylvania there are mountain-ranges of infested areas. He asked if the problem is that no correc- tive action has been taken or that once an infestation starts there is nothing that can be done. Mr. Goodman said in the NAtional Park, the State will just let it go. There is a point where the State cannot spray every acre. The spray schedule is set up on how many people are living in a certain area. The State does not spray open forestland. For example, if there are 100 acres of forestland with no houses, the State will not spray that area, but would spray forestland that has a subdivision. Also, the State does not have the funds available to provide protection for the total forestland. Part of the Appala- chian Pest Management Program is primarily concerned with that. Agenda Item No. 13. ZTA-87-07 - CRITICAL SLOPES - as revised (deferred from October 21, 1987.) Mr. Horne presented the following memorandum dated November 2, 1987, and staff report: "Enclosed you will find the revised language for ZTA-87-07 that was reviewed by the Board of Supervisors iniOctober. As you can see, I have made the changes in the text to clarify those portions of the site that are eligible for the installation of septic systems. I believe these revisions are in line with the instructions given to me by the Board of Supervisors. ~ Another matter has come to the attentio~ of this Department that I believe is important for the Board to address. Several plans have been submitted to this Department and have been actively under review which would be effected by the proposed provisions of this ordinance. I would recommendthat all those plans officially submitted to the Department of Planning & Community Development prior to the official adoption date of this ordinance, be considered under the previous ordinance provisions. This would appear to be the most fair and equitable method of implementation of thais ordinance.~' "ZTA-87-07: Amendments to 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES of the Zonin~ Ordi- nance (Revised) 359 Or in in: staff. November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 16 WatershedManagement Official, County Engineer, Planning Public Purpose to be Served: To clarify ordinance language and redefine building site in accordance with other regulations. Staff Comment: The Planning Commission held work sessions in June and August, 1987 to discuss regulating location of septic systems in relation to property lines. In preparing that report staff identified other issues which need to be addressed in the Critical Slopes provisions. Staff recommends that the attached revisions be adopted separately. This would correct/improve current ordinance language while the Commission continues to deliberate issues of septic system locationJ~ Mr. Lindstrom said he has read the revision and thinks it responds to the Board's concerns about tieing the septic requirements with the building site definition. He thinks it is appropriate that building the septic systems be controlled in its location as this proposes. Mr. Lindstrom then offered motion to adopt the following ordinance approving ZTA-87-Q7 and to accept the staff's recommendations contained in a memorandum dated Ndvember 2, 1987, from John T. P. Home to Guy B. Agnor, Jr. (set out in full above). Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, L~ndstrom and Way. NAYS: None. (The ordinance as adopted is set out below: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT SECTION 4.2, CRITICAL SLOPES OF TH~ ALBEMARLE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE BE IT ORDAINED that the Board of Supervisors of :Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby emend and reenact Section 4.2, Critical Slopes, of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, to read as follows: 4.2 CRITICAL SLOPES 4.2.1 BUILDING SITE REQUIRED - Add the following ~anguage: such area as may be located within two'hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public drinking water impoundment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to such impoundment. Amend 4.2.2.1 to read as follows: 4.2.2.1 4.2.4 For a use served by other than a central sewerage system, the building site shall have an area of thitty thousand (30,000) square feet or greater and shall bA of such dimension that no one dimension shall exceed,any other by a ratio of more than five (5) to one (1) as d~scribed by a rectangle inscribed within the building site. Such build- ing site shall have adequate area for location of two (2) septic drain fields as approved by the VirgSnia Department of Health. Amend 4.2.4 and add a new section 4.2.4.1 aS follows: LOCATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS 4.2.4.1 No septic system nor any portion thereof sh~ll be located in any of the following: ~ November ll, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 17 360 any area with slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater as determined by reference to either topographic quadrangle maps of the Geological Survey - U. S. Department of Interior (contour interval twenty [20] feet) or a source determined by the county engineer to be of superior accura- cy, or; any area as may be located in the flood hazard overlay district or which is located under water, or; any area as may be located within two hundred (200) horizontal feet of the one hundred year flood plain of any public drinking water impound- ment or within one hundred (100) horizontal feet of the edge of any tributary stream to such impoundment. Renumber existing section 4.2.4 as section 4.2.4.2 which follows: 4.2.4.2 In the review for and issuance of a permit for the instal- lation of a septic system, the Virginia Department of Health shall be mindful of the intent of this section, and particularly mindful of the lntent to discourage location of septic tanks and/or drainlfields on slopes of twenty (20) percent or greater. ~ Agenda Item No. 13b. Annual Report - Thomas Jefferson Planning District Cox~ission. Mrs. Nancy O'Brien, Executive Director; said at the beginning of the last fiscal year the Planning District Commission was in a state of disrepair, but there was a commitment to keep the Commission afloat. She began working with the Commission in July. There were no other staff members, so it took some time to get reorganized and in operation. In the early Fall, the Commission held a regional meeting where persons throughout the district participated in identifying topics for the Commission to study. Out of that meeting the following items were identified: economic development, transportation and housing. Mrs. O'Brien then summarized the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission's Annual Report for Fiscal Year 1986-1987. She highlighted the following areas of the report: a region-wiRe mobile home study; homelessness study; region-wide needs assessment; regional economic development network and foreign trade zones. Also listed in the report are services the Commission provided directly to individual counties. She concluded by saying the Commis- sion is open to any suggestions Board members may have. Mr. Bowie said the Commission is more involved in coordinating and assisting counties than it has been in the past. He then asked if the Commis- sion has been involved in the Task Force om Children and Youth. Mrs. O'Brien said the extent of her participation was an invitation to participate in the original forum. She was not asked to participate in coordinating the agen- cies. Mr. Bowie said he thinks it would be appropriate for the Commission to participate in the Task Force. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the Commission 'has discussed the gypsy moth issue. Mrs. O'Brien replied no. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that it might be appropriate for Mr. Goodman to speak to the Commission concerning the issue. It seems to be an appropriate project for involvement by the Commission. Mr. Way asked that the Board take up Agenda Item No. 16 at this time as there was someone from the public who wished to speak. Agenda Item No. 16. Board and Public. Other Matters no~ listed on the Agenda from the 361 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 18 Mr. Frank Kessler, Partner and Project Manager of Forest Lakes addressed the Board. The Planning Commission at its meeting last evening approved the site plan for Fores~ Lakes. For the Board's information, there is a road (Powell Creek Road) that runs through this project and which has been used by the public for some time. The developer of Forest Lakes intends to totally rebuild the road in accordance with State standards. This road does not belong to the County or been accepted by the State into the Secondary System. Although the road is private property, school buses use it daily as do persons from Jefferson Village. Mr. Kessler said he does not feel that he or his partner can accept the liability created by the public's use of this road. Although neighboring property owners do not want the road closed, he notified Mr. Horne that he would proceed with closing it to public use. Provided the final site plan is approved, work is scheduled to begin on the road at the end of January, 1988. He is before the Board today to see if the County wants to accept responsibility for the road. If the County accepts the liability, he would not have the road barricaded. (Mrs. Cooke said because of one of the parties involved in the project, she has a possible conflict of interest and therefore abstains. She left the room at 10:40 A.M.) Mr. Horne said the project is a large housing development north of the Hollymead Lake. The road in question is Powell Creek Drive which connects to Proffitt Road, crosses over the dam, and runs into Hollymead Subdivision. There is also a connection that runs into Jefferson Village. The road is not necessary for public use. He has spoken with Mr. Harold Grimes in the Trans- portation Department of the School Division. Although he~,would prefer not to, Mr. Grimes is now actively in the process of rerouting school bus traffic. Mr. St. John said Dr. Mutt, who first ~owned the property, offered the road to the State for dedication several years ago. The State would not accept the road because it had not been built to grade and the road crossed a dam. The Highway Department refuses to maintain the dam even if the road is taken into the Secondary Highway System. In addition, th~ Highway Department will not accept the road into the Systemuntil the County~agrees to accept responsibility for the maintenance of the dam. There are~some options avail- able to the County, such as exacting a submaintenance agreement with the homeowners' association to accept maintenance. As previo~ly stated, the road has never been dedicated to public use. He agrees that M~. Kessler has total liability and does not enjoy sovereign immunity as the CoUnty does. If someone is injured as a result of the road or on the road~ Mr. Kessler is responsible. Another angle to examine is that the alignment of the road is shown in the Comprehensive Plan and will eventually be a ~ortion of the Meadow Creek Parkway, and thus is an important piece of the roadisystem. Before the Board today is whether it wants to accept dedication of the road now. If the Board decides to accept it, the fee simple to the land ve~ts in the County and the County would become owners of the dam. If the Board ~akes no action, Mr. Kessler has a legal right to barricade the road. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked what the County's liability would be beyond accep- tance to maintain. Mr. St. John said the County has a responsibility toward the dam, but is immune from a liability suit. If for some reason the road washed out, the County would then be responsible for rebuilding and bringing the road up to State standards. Also, the County has absolute sovereign immunity against negligence, but does not have immunity Under the Burns case for takings. Mr. Lindstrom asked the purpose of the road iother than as a link for the Meadow Creek Parkway. He thinks that maybe the Bpard should just let the developer do as he wishes with the road. Mr. Kesslerlsaid he is not trying to evade the issue. He does not want the dam or n~ed it, and he does not intend to accept maintenance of it. Mr. Lindstrom said the ultimate question is whether the County needs the road. If it doe~, then he thinks the Board should consider the overall plan for the Hollymead Qommunity before making a decision. The Board then must decide what to do ~about the road while Mr. Kessler brings it up to State standards. If the County does not want the road, then possibly the Hollymead PUD plan should be emended and set the road up as a cul-de-sac or whatever alternative to avoid the short and long term responsibility. Mr. Home suggested that the staff work ~ith the County Attorney and the Highway Department to try to understand ~he physical possi- bilities. ~ Mr. Lindstrom suggested the Board schedule this on its agenda for next week in order to have time to consider the whole plan. If the Board is November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 362 Page 19 leaning toward accepting dedication, then he would suggest it review the plan Hollymead after lunch. Mr. Bowie said he has no objection to meeting this afternoon but he is not sure what will be resolved. He would like to resolve the temporary liability without deciding about the dam. Mr. Lindstrom said his first inclination is to tell Mr. Kessler to do whatever he wants with his road. If the County accepts the road it will be after the road has been upgraded. Mr. St. John said he does not think it is realistic to entertain the idea of accepting dedication of the road today. Mr. Home said he can show Board members a map to impress upon them the importance of the road. He also agrees that there %~ not enough information available today to make a decision whether to accep{ that responsibility. As information, Mr. Grimes has already completed a contingency plan for rerouting buses effective November 20. Mr. Bain said he would like to look at the plans. Mr. Home commented that the information is visual. After agreeing to reconvene after lunch, there was no further discussion at this time. (Mrs. Cooke returned to the meeting at 12:21 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 14. Appointments. Mr. Way said there is a meeting scheduled next week for the Charlottes- ville/Albemarle/University Planning and Coordination Council and he feels that the Chairman should serve on that committee. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to appoint.iMf. Way to serve on the Char- lottesville/Albemarle/University of ¥irginia~Planning and Coordination Coun- cil. Mrs. Cooke seconded the motion. Roll Vas called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Mess~s. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. : Mr. Agnor said Highway Department officials will request a meeting with the Route 29 North Corridor Transportation Committee later this month for an update on the Committee's work. The former Ghairman served on that committee. Mr. Way commented that Mr. Lindstrom has regularly attended the meetings of the Committee and has indicated that he is willing to serve. He does not feel that the Chairman must serve on the committee. Mr. Henley offered motion to appoint Mr.~ Lindstrom to serve on the City/County/UVA Highway Transportation Subcommittee. Mr. Bowie seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carri!ed by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messris. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters not listed on the Agenda from the Board and Public. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not wish to discuss Mr. Horne's memorandum (Item 4.5 on the Consent Agenda) septic system setbacks from lot lines today, but requests that the matter be put on another agenda for further discussion. He does not agree with the Planning Commission that setbacks of 50 feet or more from property boundary lines would diminish the building area on a lot. In fact the setback should enhance the usable area on adjoining lots where it might have been forced to offset 90 feet from a boundary line. Mr. Agnor said this memorandum was provided to the Board for information only and is not a final recommendation from the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinksit would be appropriate for the Board to adopt a resolution of intent to give the Planning Comm~ission some direction. Mr. Henley said he could not support this amendment unless there was some provi- sion for a waiver, as long as all parties agreed to the waiver. Mr. Bowie asked if the Health Department had been requested to comment. He does not intend to support this as written. Mr. Bain said he could support an amend- ment if it provided for a waiver. Mr. Lindstrom said given the gist of the 363 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 20 conversation, the legal staff needs to incorporate into the report a waiver provision. Mrs. Cooke said she received a letter from Hardee's outlining a minimum wage proposal made by Senator Kennedy. As a member of the business con~nunity she sees this proposal as a real problem to the work force. Raising minimum wage to $4.65 means that a number of employees and positions would have to be eliminated simply because employers cannot support an increase for unskilled labor, particularly high school students. The letter from Hardees suggeats contacting legislators and-stating the Board's opinion. She does not know if this is something the Board may wish to address, but would urge each Board member to read the letter and put the matter back on the agenda for discus- sion. Mr. Henley said he agrees with Mrs. Cooke. - Mrs. Cooke offered motion to discuss at the Decemberi9 meeting a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $4.65. Mr. Henley seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Lindstrom and Way. NAYS: None. ~ Mr. Lindstrom asked staff for a report on the status of the section road off of Cox~onwealth Drive that is not in the State System~ Mr. Agnor said the road in question is Peyton Drive. The staff asked proper~y owners to partici- pate in the cost, but they refused. Back in the late summer, the road was temporarily patched. The total cost for repairing the road is estimated at $ 4o,ooo. Mr. St. John said he has been compiling a list of State Code sections that are the enabling legislation for local governments to deal with dogs. Vicious dogs are in one category and dogs running at-large are in another category. He asked if~the Board would like to receive this information now or hold it until the information is needed. Mr. Bowie said he would like to see whatever information is available now. Mr. Way suggestedlthat the information be~disseminated to the staff and to members of the Board. Agenda Item No. 15. Executive Session: Personnel. At 12:38 P.M., Mr. Bowie offered motion to adjourn ilnto executive session for discussion of personnel. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Henley, Limdstrom and Way. NAYS: None. The Board reconvened into open session at' 1:48 P.M., with Mrs. Cooke absent. Roll Agenda Item No. 16. Other Matters (continued). Mr. Horne presented a map of the Hollymead Community ~nd indicated on the map the road which the Board discussed before the lunch break. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the road ties into the whole development. Mr. HOme said the road ties into the Hollymead Subdivision as a residential road for the community. The alternative for residential traffic is Route 29. This~is actually the only through north-south residential street planned in Hol%ymead Subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said it has not been his interpretation from past discus- sions that the Meadow Creak Parkway would be the prlm~ry access for this area which is what is being implied. Mr. Home said this map presented is the adopted Comprehensive Plan map. Mr. Lindstrom said he thought there would be a connection so Hollymead traffic could collect and get onto the Parkway. Mr. Home said it does go behind the existing Hollymead Subdivision. Mr. Lindstrom said this if the first time he has seen this concept. Mr. Home said this road is shown in locations where houses are now being built. A limited access expressway cannot be built. Mr. Lindstrom said he thinks the November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) 36Zl Page 51 Board should find out exactly what is going on because it sounds like things are evolving away from original plans. Mr. Bowie said he also is not familiar with these plans. One committee on which he served produced an alignment which took the road all the way north of the~ 84 L~mber Company. Mr. Lindstrom said he was on that committee with Mr. Bowie. Mr. Lindstrom said the notion was that all of the neighborhood roads were going to have their own separate small intersections. Mr. Home said the adopted Comprehensive Plan has been significantly misunderstood as to this roadway. The road is shown right below the dam as it hooks into the existing Powelli Creek Road and there would be separate intersections all along the adopted alignment. To get to "Powell Creek" there is a T-intersection showing residential streets on both sides right through a major residential area. Mr. Lindstrom said it was not his understanding that the road would be accesSible by all of those residential streets. Mr. Horne said obviously all of these issues must be resolved. He said this project is shown in areas that are rapidly developing. Developers are being asked to contribute certain services, but in his opinion he does not feel the County will get much help in building a limited access expressway through residential neighborhoods. As stated previously, Mr. Kessler is voluntarily dedicating 150 feet. There is absolutely no legal power to require him to do that. He personally feels~that that plan is different than what has been discussed in the past, but if this road is ever to be built it will have to leave from some type of major limited access expressway. Mr. Lindstrom asked how that can now be the plan without having discussions and a new decision. Furthermore this has implications for both the County and City, and is certainly different from the last polmcy he understood the Board was trying to follow. His feeling is that the Meadow Creek Parkway does not necessarily have to cross the dam. Mr. Home said the dam cannot accept the Parkway, nor has it ever been proposed to go'across the dam and there is not enough room to do that. The Board then discussed at length the ~plications of cul-de-sacing the road, if any State funding would be available and the affect this road has on the proposed Meadow Creek Parkway and the Ho!lymead Community. Mr. Lindstrom said the issue is whether~the Board wants to accept the dam. He feels that the dam benefits the developer, so the developer should maintain it. Mr. Way said he thinks the best approach is to let Mr. Kessler cul-de-sac the road. Mr. Bain concurred with Mr. Way. Mr. Henley said he thinks it is up to the developer to decide what to do about the road and the dam and the County should not take the responsibility. Mr. Home said he would inform Mr. Kessler that the general consensus of the Board is that the County will not accept maintenance of the dam. Mr. Lindstrom said he would like to have a presentation on the current concept or'the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Bo~ie replied he also would like that information. Mr. Lindstrom said that presentation should include a report on Rio Road down to Melbourne Road inlthe City, and asked if this information could be presented at the December day meeting. Mr. Bowie said he has a problem with someone, with no disrespect to Mr. Kessler who rightly came forward, who comes in under other matters and drops a heavy issue such as this on the Board. It does not allow the Board sufficient time to consider the issue. Mr. Bowie then dffered motion to defer until November 18 taking any action on a position 6n the barricading of Powell Creek Drive by Frank Kessler. Mr. Lindstrom seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowie, Henley, Lindstro~ and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mrs. Cooke. { Mr. Way said the Region Ten Community Services Board is holding a lun- cheon on Friday, December 11 for area state legislators and all elected and appointed officials from the jurisdictions in Region Ten. If anyone wishes to attend the luncheon, please let him know. 365 November 11, 1987 (Regular Day Meeting) Page 22 Mr. Agnor noted that a small presentation ceremony of the plaque for former Board member, Mr. Gerald Fisher, is set for 4:00 P~M. in the Lobby on the Second Floor of the County Office Building. Agenda Item No. 17. Adjourn. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 3:07 P.M.