Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1978-06-14
gune 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 281 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 14, 1978, at 9:00 A.M. in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia, Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr., F. Anthony Iachetta, C. Timothy Lindstrom (arrived at 9:18 A.M.) and W. S. Roudabush. Absent: None. Officers present: St. John. County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr. and County Attorney, George R. Agenda Item No. 1. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at ~:05 A.M. by the Chairman, Mr. Agenda Item No. 2. Approval of Minutes. September 21, 1977 (night) - Mr. Henley had no corrections. October 12, 1977 - Mr. Dorrier had no corrections. October 19, 1977 - Mr. Fisher noted the following correction: Page 424, change "on" to "no". He then questioned "Claims against the County" which were listed on Page 436. Discussion of this particular item was deferred awaiting arrival of the County Attorney. November 2, 1977 - Mr. Henley noted no corrections. November 9, 1977 - Mr. Roudabush had not read. November 16, 1977 (afternoon) - Dr. Iachetta noted no corrections. November 16, 1977 (night) - had not been read. November 21, 1977 - Mr. Roudabush had no corrections. December 7, 1977 - Dr. Iac_hetta noted no corrections. December 21, 1977 Mr. Dorrier noted no correections. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to approve the minutes of September 21 (night), October 12, November 2, November 16 (afternoon), November 21, December 7 and December 21, 1977 T~e motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Not Docketed: Mr. Lindstrom said that occasionally items come before the Planning Commission which he feels may be of interest to the Board, but he is reluctant to file an appeal. He asked if there is anyway to hear these matters without having a formal consider- ation before the Board. Mr. Fisher said he knew of no way. Dr. Iachetta said if the Planning Commission takes action which is against Board policy, the Board should have a formal ~ consideration. Agenda Item No. 3b. Request to abandon old county road in Howardsville. Mr. Fisher noted request from Mr. George McCallum asking that this matter again be deferred.. Motion to defer this hearing until July 12 was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item NO. 2. Minutes of October 19, 1977. Mr. St. John said he had talked to Mr. Ray Jones,~ Director of Finance, about Mr. Fisher's question concerning listing of "Claims against the County'S" Mr. Jones said the figures listed on page 436 are actually a part of the County Executive's financial report, but are a condensation of expenditures by funds for the month. These figures are listed because the State Code requires the Director of Finance to submit this information to the Board each month. The Code does not require that the Board take any action, only that the figures be submitted for information. If the Board does not want these figures listed in the minutes, a procedure should be adopted whereby the financial report is received from the Director of Finance and receipt of same is acknowledged. Mr. Roudabush recommended that the language be changed to read "Report of claims against the County, which have been examined and allowed by the Director of Finance" was received. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the minutes of October 19, 1977, with this change. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3a. Pizza Inn Site Plan (revised). (Plat showing Parcel A, 2.78 acres, near Berkeley Community on U. S. 29 North and Dominion Drive, North of Charlottesville, Albem~ County, Charlottesville Magisterial District, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Associates dated April 12, 1978.) ' Dr. Iachetta said he had this matter brought to the Board because this particular corner of Route 29 is a difficult problem and the Homeowners Association of Berkeley had asked for the Board's review. Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning, gave the staff's report: "The property containing 2.78 acres zoned B-1 is on the southwest corner of Route 29 North and Dominion Drive. The proposal is to locate a restaurant facility on a portion of the 2.78 acre site. The facility will be served by one entrance from Dominion Drive and is proposed to be served by private water and sewer. A similar restaurant facility was previously proposed on the north- west corner of Route 29 North and Dominion Drive. The previous application was approved by the Planning Commission with an entrance off of Dominion Drive and access to the Shopper's World site. This was subsequently reviewed by the Board 282 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) of Supervisors and approved subject to the site having access solely through Shopper's World. The staff feels that the question of access is of prime importance in the review of this plan of development. The staff and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation have considered various possible points of access to this site; also requiring this developer to procure access rights from an adjacent property owner. A location on Dominion Drive is preferable. (See letter which follows.) "May 1, 1978 Re: Pizza Inn Site Plan Route 29 and Route 851 County of Albemarle 414 East Market Street Charlottesville;.*¥irg±nia 22901 Attention: Mrs. Mary Joy Scala Dear Mrs. Scala: Since it appears that this corner development may raise considerable concern as to its access, I will speak to possible accesses other than that shown. 1. Access to Dominion Drive only. The advantage to this, of course, is that there are no additional curb cuts to Route 29. Northbound traffic on Route 29 wishing to enter the site can utilize the existing left turn lane and cross- over into Dominion Drive prior to the entrance. Disadvantages to this are increased congestion on Route 851. To properly accommodate the entrance traffic, the entrance should be shifted away from Route 29 approximately 50 feet further than is shown, the curb line setback an additional 12 feet from the entrance to Route 29 and tapering from the 12 foot widening to the existing gutter line at approximately 250 feet or the P.T. of the curve. This will accommodate an additional lane on Dominion Drive to be utilized for left turn vehicles into this entrance. This should eliminate backups for vehicles trying to enter the site causing traffic wishing to pass the site and enter the subdivision from backing out onto Route 29. 2. Access to Route 29 only. An engineering problem of enclosing the stream would require placement of probably a minimum of 55 feet of 78 inch pipe. The advantage to an entrance only on Route 29 would be that no additional traffic would be using Dominion Drive; however, this would place another curb cut along Route 29 and wo.u~t~ re.q~ire traffic northbound on Route 29 to "U" turn at the crossover to enter the site increasing the congestion at this point. If an entrance on Route 29 were allowed, a turn lane with curb and gutter should be constructed from the entrance~back to a minimum of the Dominion Drive inter- section. If the entrance were allowed, it should enter the site near the southern edge of the proposed parking area. 3. Access Routes 29 and 851. If an entrance were constructed both on Route 29 and on Dominion Drive, this, of course, would reduce the impact of having only one entrance. Traffic southbound on Route 29 would choose the Route 29 entrance. Traffic on Dominion Drive would use the Dominion Drive entrance. The disadvantage to this is that this would be an additional curb cut along Route 29 with an additional conflict point. To reduce the disadvantage, both on Route 29 and Dominion Drive, an additional lane would be needed to accommodate right turn and left turn traffic. Of the three alternatives, the Department sees the best alternative as that being access to Dominion Drive only. If you should have any questions, please advise. Very truly yours~ (Signed) W. B. Coburn, Jr. Assistant Resident Engineer Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation" Mr. Tucker said that on May 16, 1978, the Planning Commission gave conditional approval for this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Fire Official approval of fire fighting facilities. 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance including left turn lane. 3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of waqer and sewer plans. 4. Staff approval of landscape plan. 5. Grading permit. Dr. Iachetta said the Pizza Inn is to be built on the corner of land closest to Dominion Drive. However, there is another parcel of land of equal size to the immediate south of this parcel. That parcel will need access in the future (from Route '29) and it would appear to be better planning to try for a dual entrance to serve both properties rather than entering from Dominion Drive which is essentially a residential street. Mr. Lindstrom inquired as to the Board's power to limit access to a parcel of land. Mr. St. John said the Board can prescribe where access will be to a parcel of land and the nature of that access as long as it is reasonably adequate. This parcel of land can be held to one access for all of the development that will take place thereon. Mr. Fisher said since the Board does not know how the remainder of the parcel will be developed, there is no way to decide where the best access would be for June 1419 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 283 Mr. Fisher asked if the Highway Department had the power to require that an entrance on Dominion Drive be closed at the time the remainder of the parcel is developed. Mr. Roosevelt said this can be done, but the entrance would have to be proved unsafe and this would have to be based on records. Mr. St. John advised the Board not to take action predicated on the closing of a Dominion Drive entrance at some time in the future. Mr. David Wood, the applicant, was present. Mr. Wood said he and his brother purchased this land in 1955 and began the development of Berkeley Subdivision. A plan for the developmen was drawn and posted in the sales office. On that plan, this area was clearly marked "business development". Therefore, he saw no reason for the residents of Berkeley to complain at this time. He seeks an entrance onto Dominion Drive because he feels this section of Dominion DriYe is a business street and he has been advised that this is the best plaae for the entrance. As far as the public is concerned, their interest is in preserving the integrity of Route 29 North. Further, there is a rather large stream that runs parallel to Route 29 North and it would require a 72-inch culvert to put this stream underground. If this were done and the entrance put on Route 29, a right turn lane would also be needed at the entrance. The cost of th~se two improvements would seem to almost confiscate the property. Mr. Wood asked approval of the entrance off of Dominion Drive. Mr. Dorm Bent, a resident of Berkeley, said there are 165 families in this subdivision, plus about 400 more in Four Seasons, or about 2000 residents in the area using the Dominion Drive entrance. He felt a better solution would be to have the curb cut across from the proposed Branchland's entrance. Mr. Alan Scout~en, a resident of Berkeley, said similar problems arose during the Board's review of the site plan for Shopper's World. At that time, the Board allowed only one commercial access to that property. The Board has consistently supported keeping the entrance to Berkeley as a greenway. The culvert ditch is the developer's problem and the community should not have to pay because the land is at least partially unsHi~d for development. Mrs. Demetsky said the Berkeley community has no objection to the Pizza Inn, but do ask to have their residential rights considered. Mr. Jerry Godsey, representing Pizza Inn, said he has worked with Mr. Wood for almost a year on this project. Because of problems encountered, the Pizza Inn site was moved from the north to the south side of Dominion Drive. The Highway Department feels that the best ingress and egress for the site is from Dominion Drive. An entrance on Route 29 would require people going north on Route 29 to make a "U" turn to get to the entrance. Mr. Fisher said he would propose a condition #6 to read: "One entrance only to public roads will be permitted for this entire parcel of land. This entrance may be moved at a future date if approved by the County during review of subdivision or site plans for future development of the existing parcel of land." Mr. Roudabush did not feel this condition was flexible enough for future considerations. Mr. Lindstrom asked if there were any legal matters of which the Board should be made aware. Mr. St. John said as a result of the development of Shopper's World, there was a suit in which the owners of that development tried to obtain an entrance from Dominion Drive. The decision of the Board not to allow this entrance was defended on the ground that the County's Comprehensive Plan declared this street to be strictly a residential collector. Section 14.1-456(c) of the State Code requires that any change in use of any public facility, including streets, be sumitted for approval to the Planning Commission and Board, and it be found that this change in use is not in conflict with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. At the time of this suit, the Board decided that it would be in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan to allow a commercial entrance off of Domimion Drive. If the Board now allows such an entrance they are going in the opposite direction. Therefore, Mr. St. John felt that if it is not the intent of the Board to change this street to a commercial designation, this intent should be expressed in any motion which comes forth. was Mr. Fisher said at the time that the entrance for Shopper's World was~approved, that was only one parcel of land. It was subsequently subdivided, and the Board~requested to grant additional entrances. The Board felt there was already adequate access to that property and denied that request. Mr. Roosevel~ said unless something can be worked out which would give northbound traffic a direct left~ turn into an entrance for this property (regardless of how the property develops), an entrance from Dominion Drive will be needed. If all of the north~ traffic has to use the crossover at Dominion Drive and make a "U" turn across the traffic axiting from Dominion Drive, a giant safety problem will be set up. He did not feel the Board should tie this property to only one entrance. Dr. Iachetta said that would mean a curb cut on both Route 29 and Dominion Drive. He would not Support that approach since he feels this is what has caused the problems which presently exist on Route 29 North. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the site plan for Pizza ~nn with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and adding Condtion No. 6 to read: ~"One entrance only will be permitted to this tract of land unless an alternative plan is approved by the governing body at such time as a plan for additional uses is submitted." the motion was seconded by Mr. Henley. Mr. Lindstrom felt a curb cut on Route 29 North would be a bizzare solution to the problem, but would not support the motion if by-permitting this entrance from Dominion Drive, the classification of this street is changed from a residential collector to a commercial street. However, if there is nothing the Board can do to support the public safety except to ~ppro~e this entrance recommended by the Highway Department, and it Es clear that the Board is not violating the residential nature of the street or the Comprehensive Plan, he would ~upport the motion. He asked if such an intent is sufficient grounds to support the motion. ~r. St. John said he could not give an answer. There is a valid argument that can b~ made ~ecause the north side of this corner has access other than from Dominion Drive. Mr. St. ~ohn said he feels the nature of Dominion Drive is being changed from a purely residential ~treet to a commercial/residential street from Route 29 North to the point where this entrance ~itl be constructed. This in itself does not undercut the Board's position with respect to ~rohibiting an entrance to Shopper's World, but it lays the County open to an additional ~rgument from the applicant for an entrance which, at present, the applicant does not have. 284 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Dr. Iachetta felt this motion will guarantee additional curb cuts on Route 29 while at the same time guaranteeing access to Shopper's World from Dominion Drive. He said he would not vote for the motion. Mr. Dorrier felt there would be problems in the future by allowing a curb cut on one side of Dominion Drive and not on the other side. When the Pizza Inn Site plan was before the Board last year, the Board would not grant~ an entrance from either Dominion Drive or Route 29 North. Mr. Roudabush asked if the nature of the street is more important than safety. Mr. Dorrier said he would only support the motion if this entrance can be closed at some time in the future. He said Dr. Iachetta was right when he said this property should not be given two entrances. At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley and Roudabush. NA~S:.~Messrs. Iachetta and Lindstrom. Mr. Fisher said it is his intent that there be only the one entrance to this parcel of land. The Board is attempting to limit the number of accesses to Route 29 North and that is the reason he voted for the motion. At 10:58 A.M., the Board recessed, and reconvened at 11:00 A.M. Agenda Item No. 5. William B. Wrench - Highway Commissioner. Mr. Fisher said this was the first time a member of the Highway Commission had ever visited with the Board. Mr. D. B. Hope, District Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, was also present. Mr. Wrench said. when he accepted his position as a Highway Commissioner he set as a goal to meet with supervisors in all 13 counties in the Culpeper District. Because of the money situation and the many problems with roads, he could not tell what might happen in the next few years, but suggested that the Board set a meeting to discuss the problems as seen by Albemarle County. Agenda Item No. 3C. Clearview Knolls - Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor presented request received from three residents in clearview Knolls Subdivision, which is located east of State Route 660, requesting that this road be taken into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Clearview Knolls Subdivision: Beginning at station 10+07.5 on Clearview Circle, a point common to the centerline intersection of Clearview Circle and the edge of pavement of State Route 660; thence with Clearview Circle in a southeasterly direction 626.83 feet to station 16+33.33, the end of dedication of Clearview Circle and its intersection with Hickory Drive in Clearview Knolls. Beginning at station 10+10 on Hickory Drive, a point common to the centerline intersection of Hickory Drive and the edge of pavement of Clearview Circle; thence in a northeasterly direction 1009.15 feet to station 20+19.15, the end of Hickory Drive in Clearview Knolls. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plats in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Bood 496, page 40 and Deed Boon 648, page 400. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Rmudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3D. Logan Village - Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor noted request received from Mr. E. Lee Booker, Jr. requesting that Lawrence Road in Logan Village be accepted into the State Secondary System. Motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby requested to accept into the Sa~Ondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following road in Logan Village Subdivision: Beginning at station 0+09 on Lawrence Road, a point common to the southern edge of pavement of State Route 676 and the centerline of Lawrence Road; thence with Lawrence Road in a southwesterly and southeasterly direction 1,264.10 feet to station 12+73.10, the end of Lawrence Road in Logan Village. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 285 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easement along this requested addition as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 610, page 283 and Deed Book 638, page 233. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3E. Earlysville Heights - Take road into State Secondary System. Mr. Agnor noted receipt O~!~request received from Mr. A. P' Williams. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby mequested to accept into the Secondary System of Highways, subject to final inspection and approval by the Resident Highway Department, the following roads in Section 4, Earlysville Heights Subdivision: Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Viewmont Road and the edge of pavement (station 0+10) of Ridgemont Road (State Rout~ 1535); thence with Viewmont Road in a southeasterly direction 640 feet to station 6+50, the end of Viewmont Road in Section 4 of Earlysville Heights. Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Yorkshire Road and the edge of pavement (station 0+10) of Yorkshire Road; thence with Yorkshire Road in a northeasterly direction 774.28 feet to station 7+84.28, the end of Yorkshire Road i~ Section 4 of Earlysville Heights. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and is hereby guaranteed a 50 foot unobstructed right of way and drainage easements along these requested additions as recorded by plat in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Albemarle County in Deed Book 600, page 141. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3F. Street Sign Request. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of request from Dr. C. Cabell Bailey, a resident of Carrsbrook Subdivision, who requested street signs to identify Carrsbrook Drive and Clarke Lane. Dr. Bailey has agreed to pay the cost of the signs plus the handling charges. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution. WHEREAS request has been received for street signs to identify the following road: Carrsbrook Drive (State Route 854) and Clarke Lane (State Route 1419) at the southeast corner of~its intersection; and WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and TransportaBion. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same hereby is requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street sign. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 3G. Request to renumber a portion of Route 738. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said some years ago Route 250 was reconstructed through the Ivy area. As a result of this reconstruction, Route 678 was brought to a dead end short of Route 250 and a short section of 738 became a connection between Route 250 and Route 678. This short section of 738 has been the cause of confusion in the Ivy area for many years. It has been suggested that the routes in this area be renumbered to better serve the citizens in this area. The proposed renumbering has been reviewed by the Department and has the concurrence of all necessary divisions. Since it is the Department's policy to obtain the concurrence of the Board of Supervisors in such matters before renumbering is undertaken, Mr. Roosevelt requested the Board to review this matter and express their opinion. Motion was then offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta, to approve the request as submitted. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS' Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~ 286 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 3H. Letters accepting roads into the State Secondary System. Agnor presented for the record the following letters. June 1, 1978 As requested in resolution by your Board on February 8, 1978, the following addition to the Secondary System of Albemarle County is hereby approved, effective June 1, 1978. ADDITION LENGTH FAIRGROVE SUBDIVISION Willwood Drive - From end of state maintenance on Rte. 1541 to end of cul-de-sac. 0.18 M1. Mr. May 12, 1978 As requested in resolution.c by your Board on April 12, 197.8, the following additions to the Secondary System of Albemarle County are hereby approved, effective May 12, 1978. ADDITIONS Leslie Walton Middle School - From Rte. 708 in a loop to and in front of the school then back to Rte. 708. Hollymaad Elementary School - From Rte. 1521 in a loop to and in front of the school then back to Rte. 1521. Charlottesville-Albemarle Technical Education Center - From Rte. 631 in a loop to and in front of the school then back to Rte. 631. Greet Elementary School - From Rte. 9885 in a loop to and in front of the 'school then back to Rte. 9885. Scottsville Elementary School - From Rte. 20 to and in front of the school. Western Albemarle High School - From Rte. 250 to and in front of the school. LENGTH 0.29 Mi. 0.23 M1. 0.19 Mi. 0.16 Mi. 0.22 Mi. 0.39 Mi. Agenda Ibem No. 3I. Other Highway Matters. Mr. Roudabush noted that sometime ago the Board had discussed roads in Key West Sub- division. He then read into the record the following letter: June 13, 1978 Wm. S. Roudabush Inc. 914 Monticello Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 Re: Key West Subdivision roads Dear Mr. Roudabush, This is to confirm our conversation of June 12, 1978 in which I stated that Mr. Jack Schwab has contacted us 'concerning the repairs necessary to bring the roads to state specifications. Due to our present work load we think that we can do some of the patching in July and can complete all the work needed by the end of August. Hope that this will be satisfactory. Sincerely, A. G. Dillard, Jr. Paving Inc. (Signed) A. G. Dillard, Jr. Mr. Roudabush thanked Mr. Roosevelt for the lines put on the sides of Rio Road. Dr. Iachetta said he was happy to finally see constructio~n underway on Route 643. Agenda Item No. 4. Soil Conservation Service. Mr. Gordon Yager was present. He said the Soil Conservation Service has mapped 243,446 acres and have 230,563 acres left t© map. Normally one person maps about 20,000 acres per year.-~resently there are two people work- ing on this project in Albemarle County. In July, one a~ditional person will be added to this staff. He noted that Congress has recently passed a Resources Conservation Act which requires Soil Conservation to hold public meetings to receive public input on the develop- ment of long-range agricultural programs. Such a meeting has been scheduled for June 26, at 7:30 P.M. for this area. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 287 Agenda Item No. 6. Discussion: Proposed amendments to the Runoff Control Ordinance. Mr. Fisher noted that this matter had been brought to the Board's attention by Mr. Kenneth Youel, developer of Loftlands. (See notation in minutes of May 10, 1978.) He felt the best way to deal with this problem was to have proposals for amendments put on paper, checked by the County Attorney and the Runoff Control Official, and discussed at a Board meeting. Present were Mr. Jim Murray, Jr., Mr. Youel and Br. Max Evans. Mr. Murray noted that Mr. Youel had received final site plan approval before the runoff control ordinance was adopted. There were one or two matters which still had to be finalized, one of which were the documents for the Homeowners' Association. While waiting for these to be finished, Mr. Youel hired a road contractor and began to construct the roads. When he got the final approval from the County Attorney for the Homeowners' Association, and the bonding, etc., he submitted a plat to be signed and was told that during the interim the Runoff Control Ordinance had been adopted and he could not build his subdivision without approval from the Runoff Control Official. The plans were checked to see if he could build using the 200-foot setback from the reservoir, but because of the design and the topography of the land this was impossible. Mr. Murray said that he had worked with the County Attorney's office about ways in which this problem could be resolved. He did not feel that amend- ments to the ordinance would be a special act which would benefit solely Mr. Youel. The language for a proposed grandfather clause was chosen from Virginia Supreme Court language. He also said the Board might want to reconsider the 200-foot setback and use the lesser 100-foot setback which has been the State standard for many years. The County Engineer feels the l©0-foot setback would be adequate to protect the water supply. Mr. Max Evans then explained the layout of the site plan. Mr. St. John said it is within the Board's legislative powers to change the setback requirement in the ordinance. In reference to the grandfather clause, if the Board wants to enact same, it is legally defensible. It was drawn from a court case that sets out what is required in order to have a vested interest with respect to a zoning ordinance, but it was drawn on two statutes in the enabling legislation, which are not zoning statutes, just for the purpose of not being bound by the zoning concept of what a vested interest is. Dr. Iachetta asked if these amendments were enacted if it would turn loose all of the properties on the banks of the reservoir. Mr. Murray said he did not feel this would be an automatic release of properties since the grandfather clause puts the question to the runoff control official to determine if it will be a danger to the water supply. Dr. Iachetta said he needs to know if the 200-foot requirement is exorbitant in connection with what the Board is trying to accomplish, and if the 100-foot setback is consistent with engineering requirements of agencies that deal with such questions. He then offered motion to direct the runoff control official to study the question of what the appropriate setback should be in the ordinance and to make a written report to the Board at the earliest opportunity. The motion was seuonded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. At 12:35 P.M., at the request of the Chairman, motion was offered by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier to adjourn into executive session to discuss legal matters. motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. The Board reconvened at 1:49 P.M. The Agenda Item No. 8. Request from DAR for improvements to Courthouse lawn. Present , was-Mr~ :'~n~y · J-~whO made note of the rock placed on the' Courthouse lawn in 1976 on All- President's Day. The DAR would like to make some small plantings around the rock to make it more noticeable and Judge Berry has agreed to their plan. They ask the concurrence of the Board. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to approve the request. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Lindstrom. (Mr. Dorrier arrived at 1:52 P.M.) Agenda Item No. 7. Certificate of appreciation was presented to Mrs. Grace ?. Harris, an employee of Albemarle County since June 15, 1953, on the occasion of her twenty-fifth anniversary with the County. Agenda Item No. 9. Grace Phillips Final Subdivision Plat. (Plat showing a survey of lot 37B, being a 2.104 a=re portion of lot 37 in Ridgemont Subdivision on the Stony Point Road, Albemarle County, Virginia; said plat drawn by Thomas D. Blue and dated April 12, 1978.) Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning, was present and noted that this subdivision plat had been appealed to the Board by the applicant. He then gave the planning staff's report: "The property is located on the east side of Route 20 North on an existing 40-foo~ right-of-way. The property is zoned A-1 Agricultural. The proposal is for one two-acre lot, leaving a residue of about 19 acres. Recent divisions took place on this road in 1972 and 1974. A preliminary plat of this lot was approved by the Planning Commission on March 28, 1978, subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval. 288 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 2. Note on plat: approval." "No further division without Planning Commission 3. Show amount of residue aoreage. 4. Maintenance agreement to be approved and recorded. 5. Entrance improved to commercial standards less sight distance. Mr. Tucker said all of the above conditions have been met except the maintenance agree- ment. Since the preliminary approval, the Subdivision Ordinance has been amended to provide for private road regulations. Since this new house will be the seventh using the road, it should be improved to the standard for six to ten lots. The County Engineer has inspected this road and has found it to range in width from nine to eleven feet. Mr. Tucker said this item was deferred by the Planning Commission on May 23, 1978, in order for the applicant to investigate further the requirement of a maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement was the only item remaining in dispute. The applicant was able to get all of the adjacent owners to sign a maintenance agreement, but only if it did not place a lien on thei~? property. The Deputy County. Attorney said he would approve a maintenance agreement between Mr. Barbour, (Mrs. Phillips nephew) and Mrs. Phillips, if the Planning Commission had no objection. The staff sees the following as alternatives: Waive the requirement of a maintenance agreement (or permit the maintenance agreement as originally submitted without liens on the property). Allow Mr. Barbour and Mrs. Phillips to take full responsibility of'road maintenance. Require a maintenance agreement with liens thereby effectively denying subdivision approval. Mr. Tucker said on May 30th, the Commission voted on two separate motions to approve the plat, but both votes were tied 4-4, and therefore, it was not approved. The issue was a maintenance agreement for the existing private road, although the adjacent owners were willing to sign such an agreement they would not agree to wording that could put a lien on their properties. The Commission members who voted against the approval wanted a maintenance agreement with such a provision for liens. Therefore, since the plat was neither approved nor denied, it is before the Board today by appeal of the applicant. Mr. Roudabush said he had looked at the property with Mrs. Phillips. He believes there are several things which the Planning Commission did not understand about the property. On this road which was created in 1953 as a public outlet, platted and dedicated, there are already seven pieces of property platted. It is not a private road.~ Ne±ther Mrs. Phillips, nor the adjoining property owners, own the road. Mrs. Phillips helps~to maintain the road 'and she and other owners have improved it recently in order to meet conditions of the Planning Commission. If this were a new road being built in order to provide access to new lots, it would be a different question, but Mr. Roudabush said it does not meet the definition of private road in the Subdivision Ordinance, and he feels it is unfair to require Mrs. Phillips and others to obligate themselves under such an agreement. Mrs. Phillips did approach the adjoining property owners and they agreed to sign a maintenance agreement, but they would not sign to put liens against their property and he felt this is an unfair position in which to put Mrs. Phillips. He then read the following letter into the record: "This letter is simply to state the reasons why we are appealing to the Board of Supervisors to reverse the decision of t~Albemarle County Planning Commission concerning the proposed home to be built by Rick.Barbour on Stony Point Road three miles north on a private road. As records will show, the Barbours and other residents of said road have met three times with the Planning Commission and met the conditions at considerable expense requested by them at the first meeting. These conditions being: cut down bank for better view of highway Route 20, install drains, gravel road, have checked by Health Department. The one condition not met was that I'never divide any more of my property, nor will I and Rick Barbour assume sole responsibility for maintenance of this private road. Your office undoubtedly knows that this road is not county or state-maintained. It has been in existence for 25 years and is solely maintained by those using it. The' residents already in existence have signed a form stating they will continue to maintain the road. It is not and has never be~n my intention to create a sub- division, but simply to share what I have with my family; Ricky's wife being my niece. Further, Mr. Roudabush has met with us at the site and is in possession of all facts concerning the proposed home. As a long time taxpayer of Albemarle County, it seems to me that the County would benefit more by allowing a home to be built as opposed to idle land. Thank you. Mrs. Leo Phillips" Mr. Roudabush said a note has been put on the plat stating that there will be ~no further subdivision without Planning Commission approval and the 40-foot road shown on the plat is privately maintained by the abutting lot owners. This appeal is to waive any condition that the adjoining'property owners be required to sign a maintenance agreement or put a lien against the~ property. Mr. Fisher said the point made is that this is not a Private road; he asked for the County Attorney's opinion. Mr. St. John said the new definition of private road in the County's ordinance states that a private road is any road, street, or highway not maintained by the Virginia Department of Highways or any other public agency. Under that definition, he feels that this is a private road. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 289 Mr. Fisher said he could see the argument in this particular circumstance. He felt that where a new subdivision is being built and people are buying properties, the only way to enforce a maintenance agreement is through liens. He asked what would happen to the 19-acre residme and if additional lots could be divided. Mr. Roudabush felt someone will have to take over the maintenance of the road and upgrade same if that occurred since by going beyond this lot, a private road would be created. Mr. Rick Barbour was present and said Mrs. Phillips had agreed before the Planning Commission that if any more subdivision takes place, the road will be brought up to standards. However, this road now ends at this lot. Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush that the plat be approved with a waiver of any private road requirements as to the existing 40-foot platted road; all other conditions of the Planning Commission having been met. The motion was seconded by Dr. Iachetta and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 10. Section 8 - Rent Supplement Program Progress Report. Mr. Russell Otis was present and said the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program was approved by the Board of Supervisors in the fall of 1976 and delegated to the Housing Coordinator for administration. It is a cash transfer or welfare type program that pays a portion of the participating family's housing costs. The program is funded through HUD, and administered for the areas in the state without a local housing authority by the Virginia Housing Development Authority. The program was planned to begin on March 1, 1977. However, because of disputes within the HUD area office over the equal opportunity plan, HUD did not sign the contract with VHDA until April 29th. Therefore we were not able to actually enroll families and sign leases until after May 1, 1977. Shortly after Mr. Peter Daly, the Housing Coordinator, made a report to the Board on August 10, 1977, he left the County to continue his education. From that time until December 12, 1977, a secretary with the assistance of a housing aide from the Social Services Department, kept the Section 8 Program operating. On December 12, 1977, Mr'. Otis came to work as Housing Coordinator. The problems that Mr. Daly had reported in August quickly became obvious. Low rent limits continue to make implementation of this program difficult. Mr. Daly was able to convince HUD to raise the original rent levels once and since that time we have been authorized to raise the limit again. However, the~e increases have only enabled us to maintain the status quo, as area rental prices have gone up during this same time. Through a continuing program to inform area landlords of the mechanics of the program, some have been persuaded to lower their rents for our clients. Additionally, ~me success has been attained in locating scattered but less expensive rental units. Asa result of these efforts, we were able to increase our rate of leasing until April when we had to establish a waiting list on families needing two or three bedroom dwellings. As there was a surplus of one and four bedroom units allocated for rent, we requested that a portion of them be reassigned by HUD to the two and three bedroom categories. This has now been done and we are once again preparing new leases at a good rate. Below is a list of leasing progress since August 1, 1977. MONTH CERTIFICATES OUTSTANDING LEASED August 20 16 September 46 25 October 51 32 Novemb er 131 48 December 135 61 January 200 76 February 200 74 March 200 95 April 200 108 May 200 126 June 200 130 Currently 200 134 Including clients who have been evicted, skipped-out of their leases, or dropped out through normal attrition, we have 147 families using rental assistance. Further, approximate- ly 348 applica~ions~ have been handled and currently there is a lengthy waiting list. It is hoped that all allocated units will be under lease by September 1, 1978. 290 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) BENEFITS OF PROGRAM TO DATE: Reimbursement from Virginia Housing Development Authority for Administrative expenses having more than covered the costs of operating this program. One hundred and forty-seven low and moderate income families have been assisted in securing decent, safe, and sanitary housing. In excess of $150,000.00 has been injected into the business community of Albemarle County in the form of rent payments. Some strides are be~ng made toward meeting the "Housing Assistance Plan" goal. PROBLEMS TO DATE: Low rent limits, as set by HUD, continue to slow down progress in leasing additional units. We are now involved in renewing leases as well as writing new leases. This work, combined with arbitrating tenant-landlord disputes, requires 'a great deal of my time, leaving little opportunity to attend to other responsibilities charged to this office. This program has been funded on the Federal level for five years. We will conclude our first contract year on July 30 (a 90 day extension was granted to compensate for administra- tive delays by HUD last spring). A new contract has been sent to us for Mr. Agnor's signature and is.currently being reviewed by the County Attorney's office. Because of the favorable cost/benefit ratio, I would recommend that Albemarle County enter into this new agreement with the Virginia Housing Development Authority for another year. Mr. Agnor said this program is working well from an administrative standpoint. However, when the budget for the current year was put together, Mr. Otis had indicated there might be a need for an additional person in that office. At the time the budget was being discussed, Mr. Agnor said he did not recommend the addition~of this employee, but now feels that in order for the Housing Coordinator to get back to the business of planning, he will be coming to the Board in the near future with such a proposal. Mr. Otis will make a status report quarterly on this program. Mr. Fisher asked how things are going with the Crozet (Meadows) project. Mr. Otis said the bids have been let and are scheduled to be opened next week. The bids will be for a combination of road construction, site preparation, and dwelling units and Senior Center construction. Not Docketed: Mr. Fisher noted receipt of notice from the Appalachian Power Company for interim increases in annual rates and charges. A public hearing on this proposal has been scheduled for Octobe.r 2, 1978, at 9:45 A.M. int~he Commissioner's Court Room, Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a notice from the C & P Telephone Company to withdraw one-par~y business flat rate service, to time all message rate services and~to freeze offer- ing of multi-family business service. A hearing on this p~oposal will be held on November 6, 1978, at 10:00 A.M. in the Commissioner's Court Room, Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Agnor noted that an application had been made to LEAA for a grant for a Juvenile Officer for the Sheriff's Office for 1979. The request was denied and the Sheriff asks that this denial be appealed. The grant was for $22,000 which would pay the salaries of two officers and purchase equipment. Motion was offered by Dr. Iac~etta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to appeal this decision. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, LindStrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Richard E. Kania, Criminal Justice Planner for the Planning District Commission; said letter dated June 8, 1978, stating that the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice had acted negatively on the Jail feasibility study proposed in the Criminal Justice Plan fgr fiscal year 1979. Agenda Item No. 11. Public Hearing: 'An ordinance providing for the exemption of certain certified solar energy equipment from local real estate taxation. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and June 7, 1978.) (Dr. Iachetta abstaining from discussion on this matter because of disclosUre made at an earlier meeting.) The public hearing was opened, with no one present to speak for or against adoption of this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. After a short discussion by Board members as to how assessment of this equipment would be made and as to the date the ordinance should terminate, Mr. St. John said that the State Code does ~m~allow repeal of this ordinance in less than five years. He suggested amending Section 8-55 by the addition of a sentence stating, "This exemption shall terminate on December 31, 1985, unless sooner extended or re-enacted." With this suggestion, motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 2@1 to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN CERTIFIED SOLAR ENERGY EQUIPMENT FROM LOCAL REAL ESTATE TAXATION BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, V±rginia, that the following Article be added to Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Albemarle County Code: Article X. Real Est. ate Tax Exemption for Certified Solar Energy Equipment Sec. 8-44. Definitions. The following words and phrases when used in this article shall, for the purpose of this article, have the following respective meanings, except where the conte~clearly indicates differently; C~tified solar energy equipm~nt,~ facilities or devices. Any property, including real or personal property, equipment, facilities, or devices, certified by the state certifying authority to be designated and used primarily for the purpose of providing for the collection and use of incident solar energy for water heating, space heating or cooling or other application which would otherwise require a conventional source of energy such as petroleum products, natural gas, or electricity. State certifying authority. The State Office of Housing in conjunction with the county building inspections department. Sec. 8-45. Administration of article. The exemption from real estate taxes for certified solar energy equip- ment, facilities or devices shall be administered by the county assessing officer according to the provisions of this article. The county assessing officer is authorized and empowered to prescribe, adopt, promulgate, and enforce such rules and regulations in conformance with the provisions of this article, including the right to require answers under oath, as may be reasonably necessary to determine the value of qualifying solar energy equipment, .facilities or devices. The county assessing officer may also require the production of such documents that may be necessary to determine the value of qualifying solar energy equipment, facilities or devices. Sec. 8-46. Exemption-generally. There is hereby provided for owners of real estate in the county an exemption from taxation of such real estate for certified solar energy equipment, facilities or devices attached to such real estate, subject to the restrictions and conditions prescribed by this article and state law. Sec. 8-47. Application. AppliCation for solar energy equipment tax ememption must be made to the county building inspections department on forms provided by the State Office of Housing. Sec. 8-48. Plans and specifications. Complete plans and specifications of the solar energy equipment, facilities or devices must be submitted to the' county building inspections department for review. Sec. 8-49. Conformance. The solar energy system must conform to the provisions of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Sec. 8-50. Approval. The applicant for tax exemption must demonstrate to the county building inspections department official or to the State Office of Housing that the proposed or existing solar energy system performs its intended function. Sec. 8-51. CertiFication. If, after examination of such equipment, facility or device, the county building inspections department determines that the unit is designed and used primarily for the purpose of providing for the collection and use of incident solar energy for water heating, space heating or cooling or other application which would otherwise require a conventional source of energy, such as petroleum products, natural gas or electricity, and conforms to the criteria set forth in regulations of the State Office of Housing, the county building inspections department shall transmit the application form to the State Office of Housing, which shall certify to the county assessing officer those applicants proper~y approved by the county building inspections department as meeting all the requirements qualifying suchaequipment, facility or device for exemption from taxation. Sec. 8-52. Appeals. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the county building inspections department may appeal such decision to the state technical review board, 2@2 June ~4, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Sec. 8-53. Assessment. Upon receipt of the certificate from the State Office of Housing, the county assessing officer shall proceed to determine the value of such qualifying solar energy equipment, facilities or devices. The value of such qualifying solar energy equipment, facilities or devices shall not be less than the normal cost of purchasing and installing such equipment, facilities or devices. Sec. 8-54. Exemption. The tax exemption provided by this article shall be determined by applying the then applicable county real estate tax rate to the value of such equipment, facilities or devices, and subtracting such amount from the total real property tax due on the real property to which such equipment, facilities or devices are attached. Sec. 8-55. Effective date. vote: The exemption shall be effective for the tax year beginning January 1, 1979. For real estate assessed pursuant to Code of Virginia, section 58-811.1, the exemption shall be effective after January 1, 1979, when such real estate is first assessed, but not prior to the date of such application for exemption. This exemption shall terminate on December 31, 1985, unless sooner extended or reenacted. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSTAINING: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 12. Public Hearing: An ordinance to amend and re-enact Article IV, Chapter 9, of the Albemarle County Code, entitled, "Burning of Brush, Etc.", by the ad~±tion thereto of Section 9-23.3. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on May 31 and June 7, 1978.) Mr. Agnor noted that the ordinance was brought to the Board in an effort to centralize and simplify laws on compliance with local burning laws. The public hearing was opened. With no one present to speak for or against adoption of this ordinance, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Roudabush suggested that the words, "and the County of Albemarle" be added at the end of Section 9-23.3(a). With this correct,on, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT ARTICLE IV, CHAPTER 9, OF THE ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE, ENTITLED BURNING OF BRUSH, ETC., BY THE ADDITION THERETO OF SECTION 9-23.3. BE IT ORDA]~NED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the County Code be, and it hereby is, amended by the addition thereto of Section numbered 9-23.3 as follows: a Section 9-23.3. Open burnin$ - other provisions. (a) SUbject to the for'egoing, there are hereby adopted hy ~re~er~ce''t.~e' regulations of the State Air Pollution Control Board concerning, open burning, consisting of a portion of Section I and of Sections 2.11, 4.10, 4.11 and 4.13 of the Regulations for the Control' and Abatement of Air Pollution of' the said Board, as set forth in a pubIicat!on of the said Board entitl'ed "Regulations Concerning Open Burning," as the same may be amended by the said Board from time to time. Ail references in the said regulations to the said Board shall be construed to apply, mutatis mutandis, to the County of Albemarle hereunder. Any notification required to be made by the said regulations may be complied with by notification of the central dispatcher of the Fire Department of the City of Charlottesville and/County of Albemarle. the (b) Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished in accordance with section 1-6. The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 13. SP-78-22. (Deferred from June 7, 1978.) Great Eastern Management Company, Incorporated. Mr. Fisher said the Board had held a public hearing on June 7th and he did not intend to open the conversation to the public again. However, written statements had been presented which he would pass around to Board members to read. First he handed out a statement from Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair, dated June 13, 1978 (which was not read into the record at this time) Next was a statement from Mrs. Sally Whaley which was read into the record. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 293 "1716 Solomon Road Charlottesville, Va. 22901 June 11, 1978 Dear Mr. Fisher, You were right when you said we need the wisdom of Solomon to solve the problems caused by the development of the Mowinckel property. I don't claim to be wise, but I do live on Solomon Road, and here is a solutimn that will make everyone happy. The County got us into this dilemma by zoning this beautiful, wooded, rolling land R-3. Now if the County will buy one half (or even one third) of the Mowinckel property and leave it in an undeveloped state as a buffer zone and let Great Eastern Management Company buy the rest, everyone will be satisfied: The people who live on Bennington Road will be happy to have their road left as it is; the people on Solomon will be happy because they will have a dense buffer zone of about 300 feet between their houses and the apartments; everybody who lives in this crowded area will be glad not to have the anticipated huge increase in traffic on the narrow, winding streets that are already too congested; Great Eastern will have the land it needs for an office building and for expansion of its existing apartments; and the squirrels, birds, and other creatures who live on the Mowinckel property will still have a home. I hope you will look favorably on the above suggestion. trying to help us find a solution to this problem. Thank you for Sincerely, (signed) Sally Whaley P.S. If the county can't buy the land, then the next best solution, from our point of view, is the extention of Bennington Road with single family homes and duplexes built behind our houses as a buffer zone between us and the apartments~ This plan, however, will not help the congested roads or the squirrels." Mr. Fisher then read into the record a letter from Mr. Richard Johnsmn: "June 14, 1978 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle, Virginia Gentlemen: Mr. Rotgin has requested that he be allowed to extend Bennington Road as a buffer zone for an apartment complex. He has stated that he needs a Bennington Road address so that the lots can be easily sold. He has also requested that he not be required to build sidewalks to save on his develop- ment cSsts and to keep the proposed extension of Bennington Road similar in character to the present roadway. These appear to be not unreasonable re- quests. However, the small lots which he proposes of 70' widths are not in keeping with the enclosed instructions presently in force in Hessian Hills, Sec. III. You will note that these restrictions call for a minimum lot size of 100 feet. Therefore, we request that you withhold approval of his appli- cation unless the proposed 27 lots are reduced by 1/3 to 18 lots of at least 100 feet in width per lot. This restriction seems reasonable as the waiver of the sidewalk requirement will result in a considerable saving on develop- ment costs. Reducing his request of 7 duplexes to 5 would allow a total of 23 dwelling units, again a reduction of 1/3 in density. We suggest that if Mr. Rotgin desires to construct an extension of Bennington Road, he should not be excused from the restrictions enforced on the present residents in regard to minimum lot size and that he be specifical- ly required to design his lots with a minimum frontage of 100 feet. If he does not agree to this, then he must not be excused from sidewalk and road- way requirements. Respectfully yours, (Signed) Richard & Joan Johnson 209 Bennington Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Enc: Restrictions, Hessian Hills, Sec. III Recorded 7/26/61, valid to 7/26/78" (Note: Copy of these restrictions is on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board.) Next handed out to the Board members was a letter from Mr. Marshall Shumsky, which was not read into the record at this time. Mr. Fisher said when the meeting was adjourned last week, Mr. Lindstrom and the County Attorney were attempting to draft some revised conditions of approval. He understands that the applicant has Seen a draft of those conditions. Mr. Tucker then handed out a copy of the following: 1. Site plan approval. 294 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of access facilities and adequate dedication for a 60 foot right-of-way along Route 656 frontage, including increasing the pavement depth of the existing Bennington Road to satisfy Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications from Inglewood Drive to the end of the cul-de-sac. This site is approved for a total of 375 dwelling units; provided that if any units are to have access from Bennington Road, they shall be thirty-four (34) in number, with lots 1-12 developed as single-family detached dwelling units, and the remaining lots developed as single-family detached and 2-family dwelling units with a maximum of seven 2-family dwellings, whose location shall be approved by the County Planning Staff. In the alternative, the area proposed for subdivision (as shown on plan dated 5/30/78 and initialled "RWT") may be developed in townhouses, provided access is only through Georgetown Road. Mr. Tucker said the applicant would like to have a clarification at the end of recom- ~mended condition #3. At the end of that condition where it speaks to Virginia Department of Highways specifications from Inglewood to the end of the cul-de-sac, the cul-de-sac referred to is an existing temporary turn-around and it is really at the beginning of this street. Mr. Fisher felt it could be clarified by changing the wording to say, "existing temporary turn-around". He then asked if Mr. Lindstrom had read condition #4. Mr. Lindstrom said yes. It serves the purpose that he had in mind, however, he felt since other letters presented today had been read, the one from Mr. Shumsky should also be read. Dr. Iachetta proceeded to read same into the record. "June 14, 1978 To the Board of Supervisors: The facts of the current dispute seems to be the following: (1) The Mowinkle property should not have been zoned R3. (2) Downzoning is impermissable on a piecemeal basis. (3) The Great Eastern Management Corporation has a contract to purchase the Mowinkle property and will receive the right to access on Bennington Road with the completion of the purchase. The Board's encouragement to Great Eastern to build town h~uses on the subdivision and to access traffic on Georgetown road, and not Bennington, is a step in the right direction. But I'm afraid this suggestion is not sufficient incentive to gain Great Eastern's compliance. Throughout the entire discussion, Great Eastern has refused to negotiate with the Bennington Road home owners. There have been meetings, but Great Eastern has always claimed the privilege of the Bennington access and its use has never been open to negotiation. Their motive for the refusal has always been clear; a Bennington Road access secures the margin of profit Great Eastern desires. Great Eastern's strategy of negotiation has been textbook. First, the "scare" to the neighborhood by claiming to want to build 432 apartments with an access to Bennington Road. Second, to split the neighborhood into separate interest groups with slightly different agendas. Third, to change position in accordance with 'the interest ~f one group. Fourth, to claim to be unable to satisfy all parties but to appear negotiable. However, Great Eastern's strategy is now out in the open; they are un- willing to take under consideration the welfare of the entire neighborhood because it interferes with their desired profit. Mr. Lindstrom's proposal is entirely constructive and has been offered previously to Great Eastern by the residents of Hessian Hills. But Great Eastern has no strong incentive to take heed because it is in the position to take advantage of an inad~ertant error by county government in the past (i.e., the R3 ~oni~g). But the Board of Supervisors will do a great disservice to the Hessian Hills residents, indeed to the entire neighborhood and to the county if they do not take a firm stand in this situation. A collective body with all the facts before them can not, and should not act to deny the self-evident con- clusion; the R3 zoning is a mistake and the neighborhood should not be asked to bear the long term burden that an adverse decision will bring. The Board should act to protect the integrity of the neighborhood and this does not mean the individual interests of the parties currently involved. The neighborhood exists as a physical entity with clearly formed accesses, adjacencies, and spatial configurations. The neighborhood will continue to exist even if the current occupants leave and are replaced by others. Therefore, it seems that the Board can protect the neighborhood by taking one of two possible actions: To refuse Great Eastern's request for a special use permit on the basis that the schemata presented violates the integrity of the neighborhood. Great Eastern should be encouraged to resubmit a plan that (a) accesses Bennington Road but has only single family detached dwellings and no rental property. The number of detached dwellings should not exceed 22, but probably should be fewer, and their should be a public expression from Great Eastern to insure the sale of said property to individuals who will own and occupy the dwellings. Or June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 295 "Both plans should contain a specification of appropriate buffer to insure the integrity of both Solomon Road and Bennington Court. A less acceptable position would be: (2) To grant Great Eastern a special use permit but to admonish Great Eastern to present a site plan to the planning staff that will be in accordance with either plans la or lb or otherwise to place in jeopardy their chance of approval. The Board should shift the burden of argument from the residents of the neighborhood to Great Eastern. If Great Eastern is unable to accept the constructive suggestions by the Board, the Board should require con- crete and specific documentation of Great Eastern and should seek outside consul by financial and building specialists to 6onfirm or infirm Great Eastern's projections. The issue before the board is not insignificant and if the Board fails to protect the rights and interests of a neighborhood because of an error committed in the past, which now can be recognized, such action would be imprudent to the long term development plan of Albemarle County and capricious to both the short and long term interests of the neigh- borhood in question. Sincerely, (Signed) Marshall E. Shumsky 203 Bennington Road" Mr. Fisher then read the letter from Mrs. Gay Johnson Blair. "Georgetown Road Charlottesville, Va. June 13, 1978 Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Att: Mr. Fisher, Chairman Gentlemen: Re: Great Eastern Management Co. Request for SP-78-22 Some years ago the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors chose to rezone the Mowinckel property to R-3. The results of such zoning is something which neighbors on all sides are forced to tolerate. If Iow density is approved for a part of the Mowinckel property, the density of the remaining acres should not exceed the present zoning restrictions. With a development the size and density of the one planned by the Great Eastern Management Company it is vital that access should be available from each of its sides. In view of the above it is recommended that 1) access to the Mowinckel tract from Bennington Road be authorized 2) alternatives to SP-78-22 should not be approved with- out full public hearings 3) development of each part of the tract should not permit a density to exceed present zoning. Respectfully submitted, (Signed) Gay Johnson Blair" Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. St. John if the developer can be denied access to Bennington Road as part of site plan approval. Mr. St. John said no, it is a public road and it adjoins his property. Dr. Iachetta asked how this differs from action taken earlier on the Pizza Inn site plan. Mr. St. John said there~rb cuts, etc. on a highway such as 29. He did not feel that property could be denied access on Route 29 North. Dr. Iachetta said the Board had given him only one entrance. He asked if the property abutted on more than one public road if the Board was obliged to give entrances on every public road. Mr. St. John said no, but in this case the developer already has R-3 zoning Which will enable him to build without this special permit if he decides to do so. Dr. Iachetta asked if in the process of site plan review, the developer could be denied access to Bennington Road. Mr. St. John said no, Bennington Road is a residential road and this is a residential use. Dr. Iachetta said there is some justification to the arguments, made by the people who live on the Bennington Road side of this property, that the proposed number of individual lots is too high. Dr. Iachetta then proposed that in addition to other language changes on condition #4 that the allowable number of lots be reduced to twenty-three and the number of duplexes to five, for a total of 28 dwelling units. He felt this change would allow the developer an operating margin if the sidewalk and curb, and a 50-foot right-of-way are not required. His proposal would allow 14 units on 7 lots, and 20 units on the remaining 20 lots. He also suggested that the reduction show up in making the lots at the entry point adj~acent to the current Bennington Road turn-around a bit larger in order to be more 2:,96 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) in conformance with the present lot sizes. This would afford more transition between the current 100-foot ~lots and the ~omewhat lower density area than is presently proposed. Mr. Fisher asked if the proposal for 23 lots would cover the same area that the original 27 covered. Dr. Iachetta said yes. The current neighborhood has an argument that needs to be addressed, that of going from spacious frontage to narrow frontage. He said he would not suggest this change unless the Board were willing to give up sidewalks. He then offered motion to approve SP-78-22 with amendments to conditions #3 and #4 as stated above. Mr. Lindstrom said he felt the developer should have an opportunity to response to ~hese changes. Mr. Fisher said he had given Mr. Bracey a chance to respond by letter and he had not taken advantage of that. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board had made some dramatic changes and he felt the developer should be allowed to speak. Mr. Henley and Mr. Dorrier both agreed that the developer should be given an opportunity to speak. Mr. Chuck Rotgin said this plan is worth six months of compromises. He did not know of anything less than this that would wokk in the area. He said either his company or someone else will develop the land. He did not think they could get 432 apartments on that land but feels that they could get 400. He asked that the plan be approved, and he will continue to work for Georgetown Road access for the townhouses. Mr. Fisher then opened the floor bo public comments. Mr. Johnson said he felt the beginning lot width should be c~ntiguous with the existing lots. Mr. Pleasants said if it is this plan or one with 432 apartments, he would accept this plan. Mrs. Blair said she would prefer that the developer stay with the existing zoning rather than increasing the development more on one end~ At this time, Dr. Iachetta's motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom for purposes of discussion. Mr, Henley said he felt the conditionsas presented today are a reasonable compromise and evidently there have been a lot of compromises. Mr. Roudabush said he would support the compromise because it inserts between R-3 and R-1 uses, an R-2 use, and that is the only reasonable thing the Board can require of an owner. He did not feel it answers all the problems, but he felt the developer will have a problem getting that number of apartment units on this property. Mr. Lindstrom said he did not Support Dr.~ Iachetta's proposal because there are more people involved than just the people who live on Bennington Road. He did not feel the Board has the authority or the business to second guess the developer unless it is going to accept the risk that it might be wrong. He said the impact of having apartments in the back yard of the people on So-lomon Court is a much greater impact on that neighborhood than the trade-off between what the origi.nal proposal was and what Dr. Iachetta proposes in terms of Bennington Road. He asked that the Board cansider condition #4 as originally written. Mr. Lindstrom said the Board has gotten itself in the position of entering into active negotiations in trying to resolve a dispute between a number of parties. It has stepped out of its function as a County Board of Supervisors, and for that reason he would not support the motion. Mr. Fisher asked if he would Support the applicant. ~r. Lindstrom said he would prefer to approve this with number 4 as originally presented today. Mr. Dorrier agreed with Mr. Lindstrom. He said he had looked at the site and at ~ other side of the ~property across the stream. He envisioned the single-family along Bennington Road and he did not feel they would be objectionable. The alternative that is advocated by the residents on Bennington Road would be less preferable. He felt that Mr. Rotgin had made an effort to compromise with conflicting pressures. Mr. Fisher said the development of the property as it is presently zoned wo~ld be detrimental to some areas. This plan would reduce the impac~ on some areas and not others. The difference between t~applicant's proposal and Dr. Iachetta's proposal for four lots will not amount to a"~ill of beans!' At this time, roll was called on Dr. Iachetta's motion, and same failed by the following recorded, vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher and Iachetta. NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Henley, Lindst~om and Roudabush. At this time, Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to approve SP-78-22 with the conditions presented by the planning staff today amending condition #3 to say, "existing temporary ~urn-around", instead of, "cul-de-sac". The motion was seconded by Mr. Dorriek and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. St. John noted that when the Board restricts access to a public road it is usually done at the Highway Department's recommendation and in this case the Board did not have such a recommendation. Agenda Item No. 14. Resolution: Grant'for revision of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Agnor said the County has been offered a $15,000 grant from HUD under Section 701 to be used for the revision of the County Zoning Ordinance. In order to receive the grant, the County has prepared a detailed work program for the ordinance revision and the Board must adopt a resolution. He then noted for the record the following resolution and work program for adoption: WHEREAS ~he County of Albemarle has heretofore applied to the Department of Housing and Community Affairs for financial assistance in the revision of its Zoning Ordinance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, as follows: That the grant offered heretofore by the Department of Housing and Community Development of $15,000 is hereby accepted. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 297 That the County Executive be, and he hereby is, authorized to negotiate and enter into a contract with the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission with regard to .such grant. That the Board of Supervisors has approved a work program. That the matching funds to be paid by the County will be in cash. That the work program will be completed through consultant services. WORK PROGRAM FOR THE REVIEW AND REVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY FY 78 - 79 Jul I - September 30 I'mplemen'tation of Conceptual Approaches ($11,000.~eSt~) --Prepare an outline of the proposed revised ordinance which will include proposed revisions, as well as sections, of the existing ordinance --Identify specific portions of the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan to be incorporated and/or referenced in the revised zoning ordinance --Prepare a list of proposed zoning districts, along with density ranges --Prepare locational criteria, environmental standards, and those aspects of development standards appropriate to zoning regulations for appli- cation to the proposed districts --Define sources acceptable for use in application of criteria and standards --Prepare detailed proposed district regulations for various districts; e.g., intent, permitted uses, special uses, threshold densities, not area, density ranges, maximum densities, frontage, access and coverage --Develop procedures for establishing densities --Prepare a series of regulations for planned development districts October Rough Draft~ Review/Testing, Refinement and Coordinat'iOn ($7,000~est.) --Prepare a rough draft of proposed regulations and procedures; receive input from citizen advisory panel --Prepare historic district and scenic roadway regulations --Prepare charts/schedules to simplify application and use of height, size and parking regulations --Review existing flood plain regulations and coordinate with previously developed environmental standards as well a~ with re~uir~ements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program --Prepare a list of guidelines/considerations for use by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in arriving at decisions for rezoning applications and prepare a procedure designed to minimize the work load and reduce the amount of time spent on rezoning applications November Preliminary Draft and Draft Revisions ($4,000 est.) --Prepare a complete preliminary draft of the proposed revised zoning ordinance for review by county and citizen advisory panel --Respond to requested revisions of the preliminary draft December Public Hearings ($1,000 est.) --Hold public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors in order to present and explain the revised regulations Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Henley, to adopt the fore- going resolution and approve~the work plan. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Mr. Roudabush asked if it would be possible to obtain such a grant for study of Route 29 North. Mr. Tucker said he would investigate this question. Agenda Item No. 15. Clarification~of Intent to downzon~ properties lying in watershed areas of the County. Mr. Tucker said at the last meeting of the Board, a resolution was adopted in referance to downzoningof County owned properties lying in watershed areas of 298 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) the South Rivanna River reservoir. The staff had also suggested that properties owned by the University of Virginia, properties in the Shenandoah National Park and the George Washington National Forest, be included. There were other properties mentioned by the staff, such as school properties, which now they do not feel should be included because it would make these properties nonconforming. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, second- ed by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to rezone all properties owned by the County of Albemarle, University of Virginia, Shenandoah National Park and George Washington National Forest lying within the watershed area of the South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir from their present classifications to the CVN-Conservation District classification under the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning COmmission is hereby directed to hold public hearings on this matter and to return a recommenda- tion to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 16. Parks and Recreation: Policy on Passes. Mr. Agnor noted that the Parks and Recreation Commission had recommended that free season passes to the parks be given to the following persons: Parks and Recreation Commission members, news media, and Parks and Recreation full-time staff. Mr. Agnor said he did not concur in this recommendation, feeling that only the Parks and Recreation Commission members who spend time without compensation should be granted such passes. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the County Executive's recommendation. The motion carried by the followi, ng recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of a memo from Earl Sudduth, Director of Parks, in which he stated that he has been contacted by several organizatlons requesting reduced admission rates to the County's swimmting facilities. With the Board's approval, admission for groups composed of over 20 persons would be allow~dat a reduced rate of $.75 for adults, and $.35 for children under the age of 13. This special group rate would act as a public relations tool and allow access for groups that might not otherwise be able to participate at the current rate. The groups would have to make arrangements in advance and Mr. Agnor said he would recommend that the County allow this for one season to see if it causes any problems. After a short discussion, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, to approve special group rates to swimming facilities under the follbwing conditions: 1. Special rates shall be given only to identifiable groups. Special group rates shall be given only Monday through Friday of each week; holidays excluded from such rates. e Use of special group rates shall be for a trial period during the current s~imming season with a report to the Board later in the year as to any problems this policy might' create'. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lindstrom and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dottier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 18. Claims against-the Dog Fund. Mr. Agnor presented claim from Frances Rafferty for one ewe killed by dogs on May 3, 1978. On motion by Mr. Henley, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, Mrs. Rafferty was allowed $80.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom. None. Mr. Roudabush. Mr. Agnor presented claim from Mr. Douglas Coleman for one black angus steer killed by dogs on April 21, 1978. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, Mr. Coleman was allowed $125.00 for this claim. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, IaChetta and Lindstrom. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Roudabush. Agenda Item No. 17. Request from Bicentennial Commission. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from Mr. Donald W. Jones, Chairman of the Charlottesville/Albemarle Bicentennial Scholarship Committee, in which he had requested that any money fram the sale of the Queen's Medals or any other monies acquired by the commission be made available for scholarships. Mr. Agnor said~he had spoken to Mr. Ray Jones, Director of Finance, about this and he knew of no funds held by the County for the Bicentennial Committee. Mr. Fisher asked that Mr. Agnor respond to Mr. Jones' letter<~, and say that the County knew of no such funds. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 299 Agenda Item No. 19. Special Appropriatimns. Mr. Agnor noted that two appropriations are needed in order to balance the books for the current fiscal year. For the Ivy Landfill, as a result of billing from the City for the mmnth of May, an appropriation of $27,000 will be needed to balance the books for this year. During the past year the County did not ex- pend $24,983 in the Ivy Landfill account because the billing from the City was behind. In this fiscal year, the County will be paying 13 months towards the operation. Also, the cost of the operation of the Landfill is above the estimate in the current year's budget; the principal reason being the operation of the equipment. Mr. Agnor said the Western Albemarle turn-lane was estimated to cost $16,500. The actual cost paid to Faulkner Construction Company was $16,506. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta to adopt the following resolution: BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that $27,006 be, and the same hereby is, appropriated as follows: From the General Fund to Code 10J.1 Ivy Landfill $27,000.00 From the General Operating-Capital Outlay Fund to Code 19.15 - Western Albemarle Turn-lane $ 6.00 The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Dorrier and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 20. Discussion of Lease for the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Agnor said the Albemarle County Service Authority has found temporary quarters at the Ivy Square Shopping Center and plans to occupy these quarter-s in June and stay at that location until Lane High School is ready for their occupacy in approximately 24 months. Originally, the Jailers' House was renovated by the County but paid for by the Service Authority in return for a lease which provides for five years of use by the Service Authority in exchange for the renovations at no rent. Re~ovation costs for the project were $9,317.77, which averages out to $155.30 per month. If the premises are vacated on June 30, 1978, there will be an unused credit of $3,727.20 due the Service Authority. Disposition of this credit could be handled either by a refund of the balance or by the County retaining the credit to be used against the service Authority's occu~an~ of Lane. A separate lease arrangement was also made by the Service Authority for the second floor of the Jailer's House, this lease being paid for by a rental fee. The Service Authority has requested release from both leases. Mr. Agnor said the leases do not provide for cancellation, but he feels it is to the County's mutual benefit spacewise to agree to a mutual cancellation. He recommended that the two leases be cancelled effective June 30, 1978, and that the Authority be refunded $3,727.20 on the ground floor lease. He felt to retain the funds and credit them towards a future rental fee at Lane would prolong settlement of the cancellation and complicate the financial record of transactions. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to accept the County Executive's recommendation for cancellation of the leases. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. ~NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 21. Discussion of Suit against Water and Sewer Authority. Receipt of memorandum from the Virginia Association of Counties dated June 6, 1978, explaining the suit was noted. The Association has been advised that a suit has been filed against the Tazewell County Water and Sewer Authority in the Federal Court for the Western DiStrict of Virginia, Judge G~enn N. Williams presiding, challenging the legal authority of any water and sewer authority to require mandatory connections to water lines and/or sewer Iines when those lines are installed adjacent to a landowners property.. ~ The authority which is being challenged is contained in Section 15.1,1261 Code of Virginia, 1950. It was noted that this is a very serious suit which possesses a devastating threat for county water and sewer authorities. The Association asked if the County would be interested in joining the s~it by filing a brief amicus curiae, or if the suit should turn into a class action suit, j6±n~.ng as a defendant. Mr. St. John asked that the County Attorney's Office be authorized to take part in this suit as amicus curiae. He said they would not participate, but if it turned into a class action s~it, the County would be joined as defendant whether they wanted to or not. Such authority has already been given by the Albemarle County Service Authority to do this on their behalf. Mr. St. John said the statute which is being challenged says that any water and sewer authority has the power to require mandatory hook-ons to'water and sewer but they can not do this without an affirmative concurrence of the governing body. The County has never been involved in such a case, but to abolish this power altogether might have an effect on the county's bargaining position in certain things in the future. For example, Morton Frozen Foods is presently considering wh~ther they will hook on to the Crozet interceptor. Just because this statu~e has not been used in the County in the past does not mean that it should not be on the books. The whole financial structure of some authorities in some counties is dependent on their power to requir~ mandatory hook-ons to water and sewer lines. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, authorizing the County Attorney to file as amicus curiae in this suit; without cost to the County. The motion carried by the follow&rig recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. 3OO June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Agenda Item No. 22. Discussion of contract between Albemarle County and APCO (Appalach- ian Power Company) for new rate structure. Mr. Agnor presented the following memorandum. "June 9, 1978 To: Board of Supervisors From: Guy B. Agnor, Jr. Subject: Appalachian Power Company Public Authority Tariff Virginia Association of Counties Negotiations Electric Power Rates The Appalachian Power Company has proposed a Tariff Schedule for publicly owned facilities served by their system. Until now, their rates for these facilities were negotiated with each public facility owner. The new tariff is an effor~ to apply the same rate to all public facilities throughout their system. The County has twelve metered accounts, all of them schools in the southern part of the County except for one, Totier Creek park. An agreement between APCO and the County, and a separate one between APCO and the School Board, has been received for approval, accepting the new tariff effective July 1, 1978. At the same time, the Virginia Association of Counties has invited Albemarle to join the negotiation of electric rates for local governments by the Association and the Virginia Municipal League for a revised contract with VEPCO, and has offered to extend these negotiations to the Tariff Schedule being proferred by APCO. An estimated cost for participation in the negotiating team expenses has been calculated by t~Association a~ 5~ per capita, or $2,410 for Albemarle. It is recommended that the County participate in the negotiation with both utilities, and that APCO be advised ~h~t execution of their proposed agreement will be deferred until the negotiations are completed. It is further recommended that the School Board be requested to defer action similarly on their agreement with A?C0." Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Roudabush, to ~ccept. the County Executive's recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded Vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 23. Bookmobile: Clarification of use. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of letter from Mr. Christopher B. Devan, Director of the Jefferson/Madison Regional Library, in which he stated that the Board of Trustees had employed Municipal Advisors, Incorporated, to review job descriptions and personnel practices. One of the preliminary recommendations was that t~ebookmobile service be administratively restruc- tured and functionally reorganized. In implementating this recommendation, the removal of the restrictions placed on the Albemarle County bookmobile is vital. The rule is'that it can only be used in Albemarle County. Mr. Devan said as nearly as he-can determine, the restriction was orally impos'e'd on, the library bY a~previou's .county ~e'Cu't.i:ve',' and t~i's restriction greatly hampers flexible scheduling which is one major benefit of the bookmobile itself. Mr..~Agnor said the matter of ownership and restricted use of one of the two book- mobiles of the library system has been commented on several times before this date. He recommended that the Library Board be advised that effective July 1, 1978, the use of the vehicle shall be determined by the Library Director with proper allocation of operating costs being made as is accounted for with the other bookmobile. He further recommended that due to its age and imminent replacement, the remaining value of the vehicle as an asset be credited towards Albemarle County's share of the replacement vehicle when it is purchased rather than allocating that value to the other jurisdictions as cost on July 1. Motion ~as then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to accept the County Executive's recommendation. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 24A. Appointment: Advisory Council on Aging. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to reappoint Mr. Donn Bent as a member of the Advisory Council on Aging to a term which will expire on June 1, 1979. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Mr. Agnor noted receipt of letter from Theresa Jackson resigning as a member of this council on June 2, 1978. Agenda Item No. 24B. Appointment: Community College Board of Directors. Mr. Fisher noted receipt of a letter from ~rs. Mary Jo Ayres stating[~hat she was resigning as a member of this board since she will be moving to the City of Charlottesville. The Clerk was ordered to draft a letter of appreciation for Mrs. Ayres service. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 30i Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to appoint Dr. James R. Batten, D.D.S., as a member of the Piedmont Virginia Community College Board of Directors to fill the unexpired term of Mrs. Ayres, which expires on June 30, 1981. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roud~bush. None. Agenda Item No. 24C. Appointment: carried over to another meeting. Soil Erosion Advisory Board. This was ordered Agenda Item No. 24D. Appointment: Watershed Management Plan Committee. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to appoint Mrs. Nancy K. O'Brien to represent City water consumers on this committee. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 24E. Appointment: Welfare Board. Mr. Agnor noted the term of Mr. Edgar L. Paige as a member of this board had expired and that the Welfare Board in recognition of his service had adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS, Mr. Edgar L. Paige, Jr., has served faithfully as a member of the Albemarle County Board of Public Welfare for ten years and for the last three years as chairperson; and WHEREAS, Mr. Paige has always served and acted on behalf of the best interes~of the citizens of Albemarle County in aiding the Department of Social Services to identify the needs of the community and in providing the best and most appropriate financial and social services possible; and WHEREAS, Mr. Paige has always shown sincere interest in the concerns of professional growth, and opportunities for the staff in order to make the work meaningful, useful and beneficial, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Public Welfare of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby recognize and commend Mr. Edgar L. Paige, Jr., for his interest, dedication, and vital service to the citizens of the County and to the Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resolution become a part of the official minute ~0ok of the Board and be submitted to the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. the foregoing resolution. The motilon carried by the foll AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstr None. Agenda Item No. 24F. Appointment: Scenic Rivers Col suggested to serve as the City citizen on this committee to serve as the Planning Commission member on this commit persons was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iac] recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrc None. Agenda Item No. 24G. Voting Representative to NACO ~ · by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr'. Lindstrom, to appoint thc County~m~r-~-e~~a~s--aemmi-~t-ee~F~rr the National Asso~ from July 8th through July 12th,~ The.,~otion carrie~ AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, %~chetta, Lindstr~ NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 25. Discussion: Economic Devetopme~ the budget work sessions, the Chamber of Commerce had ask~ an economic development policy statement. The Board had ': consider doing this after the budget was adopted. Recentl again. Mr. Fisher said he felt the statements adopted in indumtry, commercial and residential development are fair[ County will try to do in those areas. However, the Cha~mb~ these statements are adequate. Mr. Fisher said he had be~ obtained from the City a copy of their resolution and ord: the newly appointed economic development group. Ail of ti trying to reverse the outflow of business from the City t. Board takes a more vigorous position in the field of econ~ bindstrom, to wholeheartedly endorse ~wing recorded vote: ~m and Roudabush. nmittee. Mr. Francis Fife was ~nd Mrs. Norma Diehl was suggested ~ee. Motion to appoint these .etta, and carried by the following m and Roudabush. ~nnual Meeting. Motion was offered Chairman to represent Albemarle ~iation. of Counties annual meeting by the following recorded vote: and Rouda~ush. ~t Policy. Mr. Fisher said during ~d the Board 8~ present in writing ~esponded by saying that they would _y, this request has come forth the new Comprehensive Plan on y clear statements of what the ~r of Commerce does oot agree that ~n doing some research and had [nance adopted in reference to ~e City's efforts are aimed at the County. He felt that if th~ ~mic development, it may hurt the City's position. He had tried to formulate some type of policy but has been unable to do so and asked for the Board's help. 302 JUne 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Mr. Henley did not feel the County should have an economic development policy. Dr. Zachetta did not feel the County needs to aggressively pursue economic development at this point. Mr. Roudabush felt that the Comprehensive Plan contains the County's policy, but he did not see anything wrong with putting it in writing. Mr. Lindstrom felt a fair statement of what the Board is~'t~yin~ to do is that the Board would be happy to consider any petition that comes before it on its merits against current County ordinances. Mr. Fisher said he would try to draft something and bring it back for the Board's approval at a later date. Mr. Fisher noted that at the time of adoption of the Fiscal Year 79 budget, the Board had reserved funds for economic development, but at the time were not sure these funds should go to the Economic Development Commission. He did not think the Chamber of Commerce was aware of this change in policy, and felt~that it would be proper for the Board to review the use of those funds in the near future. There followed a short discussion of the role of the Chamber of Commerce and whether the Board should remain a member. Dr. Iachetta then suggested that the County request a copy of the Chamber's budget, particularly in relation to the Economic Development Commission and suggested that Mr. Fisher request a copy of same. Agenda Item No. 26. Discussion: Employee Handbook. Mr. Agnor noted that the last time the employee's handbook was discussed, there were three sections which had been unresolved and he presented the following language for the Boardts review. Political Activity Every County employee is encouraged to exercise his/her right to vote. Employees are prohibited from using their employment position in any manner, directly or indirectly, to influence, persuade, coerce, or induce a fellow employee or a citizen to his/her political beliefs. County employees are not prohibited from seeking public office. However, when an employee, except an elected official, becomes a candidate for any public office, he or she shall be required to take a leave of absence without pay for the work time spent in active campaigning for office. The procedure for taking such leave of absence shall be determined by the County Executive and the employee prior to the employee filing for the office. Grievance Policy and Procedure, under Step IV Within seven work days after the date of the written request for a panel hearing, or after referral by the County Executive in Step III, a panel shall be chosen consisting of three members: one person chosen by the aggrieved employee, one by the department head, and the remaining member selected by the first two appointees. The panel members need not be county employees, and may not have been involved in any of the earlier phases of the grievance. The County Executive shall arrange an organi- zational meeting of the grievance panel within five work days from the date of selection at which time a chairman shall be chosen and a date established for a panel hearing. This date shall be within ten work days of the organizational meeting. The panel has the responsibility to interpret the application of appropriate County policies and procedures in the case. It does not have the prerogative to formulate or to change policies or procedures. The employee may have present at the hearing a representative or legal counsel at this own expense. 7) The majority decision of the panel shall be final in all its determinations. Extraordinary Sick Leave In certain circumstances such as a long period of illness or recuperation, an employee may not have a sick leave balance large enough to cover the period of absence. Zn such a case, the employee will be placed on annual leave, then on leave without pay. Employee's insurance benfits will be treated as described in the Leave of Absence regulations. With these final recommendations, motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, to adopt the employee's handbook as amended at the work sessions of May 3 and May 17, and as amended by the above wording; said handbook to be effective July 1 1978 Motion carried by the following recorded vote: ' ' AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. ' (NOTE: The Employee's Handbook, as adopted, is set out on the following pages.) June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 303 ALBEMARLE COUNTY EMPLOYEES HANDBOOK This'booklet outlines the County's employment policies. You will find general explanations of work requirements, work conditions and benefits. If you have any questions, be sure to consult with your department head. Employment policies peculiar t,o your department; situations not covered in this booklet; or situations subject to special interpretation should be referred to your department head. PERSONNEL RECORDS Your record of services with the County is very important to assure that you will be given proper consideration in matters dealing with promotion, compensation, insurance, retirement, and the like. The Personnel Department, presently administered through the County Executive's Office, keeps a file on all employees, including your original application for employment., promotions or transfers, pay changes and performance evaluations. Please keep the personnel office informed of any changes in your name, address, telephone number, life insurance beneficiary, number of dependents or any other matter affecting your employment. PERSONNEL FILE POLICY The purpose of this policy is to establish an official personnel file and to provide a procedure governing the access, dissemination and purging of information contained within this file. The official personnel file shall be defined as the employment file containing personal information relevant to the individual's employment which is maintained by the County Executive or his designee. The official personnel file shall be the only file which is to be considered official and complete in matters related to wage and salary, employee selection, employee relations and arbitration hearings. Information pertaining to any personnel related aspect of employment (e.g., letters of reprimand, letters of commendation, unemployment compensation requests, etc.) shall be contained within the file. The access, dissemination and purging of information contained within the file shall be in accordance with the Privacy Protection Act of 1976 as same may from time to time be amended. The following individuals shall be designated as having regular access to the official personnel files: a. The County Executive. b. The members of a Grievance Arbitration Board (panel). c. The Virginia Employment Commission - Unemployment Compensation Division. Federal, state or local agencies to create additional personnel records after employment, (e.g., to create Federal personnel files on CETA employees). ee Federal, state or local law enforcement agencies during the investigation of a violation or potential violation of the law. The following individuals shall be designated as having regular access to a limited number of the official personnel files. ~Individua! employees or former employees shall have regular access to their own personnel file after having satisfactorily demonstrated their identity. Department heads and immediate supervisors shall have regular access to the official files of employees under their authority only. Ail official personnel files shall be reviewed in the presence of a member of the County Executive's staff. There shall be no dissemination of any personal information contained within the official personnel file to any individual organization not having regular access unless a Voluntary Release of Information Form has been completed both by the employee and the requesting individual agency. ~OURS OF WORK the normal work week of a full-time employee is 40 hours or five eight-hour days from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., except for law enforcement personnel. One hour is allowed for lunch. fOUR COMPENSATION ~mployees are paid monthly on the last working day of each month. Ail employees are paid ~y check with their monthly deductions and accumulated totals summarized on their check stub. four compensation is determined by your classification in the position and pay classification ~lan for Albemarle County. The classification and salary of each employee will be reviewed ~nnually for the purpose of determining which employees will receive merit increases. ?he pay period for full-time employees is from the first to the last day of each month. ?he pay period for part-time and temporary employees is from the !gth of the previous lonth to the 18th of the current month. 304, June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) OVERTIME POLICY The authorization and control of all overtime work is the direct responsibility of the department head. Overtime assignments are permitted only when required by operational necessity, and without which the normal functioning of the agency concerned would be adversely affected. Employees will be compensated with compensatory time, calculated at a time and a half rate for overtime hours worked, and taken when~the employee requests, and the department head approves. Regularly scheduled overtime, funded in the annual budget, and required for the operation of a department, may be compensated with pay in lieu of compensatory time. Such pay will be calculated at a rate of one and one-half times the hourly compensation of the employees involved. OVERTIME HOURS DEFINED Overtime hours are define-d as all those hours exceeding the average rate of '40 hours in one week over a fixed work schedule (i.e., 7 days, 28 days, etc.) established by the appointing authority, or on any day observed as a County holiday. Employees separating from County employment shall use all accumulated compensatory time prior to-separation. Employees earning overtime pay under regularly scheduled overtime shall be compensated for all accumulated overtime hours in their final pay check. Child protective service workers serving on-call are entitled to compensation as approved by the County Welfare Board; described as follows For all workers covering on-call responsibilities, one hour of compensatory time will be given for each eight hour shift of stand-by-duty. When a worker is actually called out to provide direct door-to-door service, he or she will be compensated at his or her regular hourly rate of pay for each hour spent if it requires over two hours in an eight-hoUr period. Back-up workers will be compensated for direct door-to-door service as indicated by the rate stated in item (b). No compensation, however, will be given for stand-by duty. de No worker will be entitled to receive compensatory time for on-call duty if the.amount of time spent during an eight-hour period in direct door- to-door service is more than two hours. INSURANCE BENEFITS Health Insurance Employees are covered by a comprehensive health insurance program. The employees' coverage is paid by the County. The employee's family may also be covered under the plan for an additional cost paid by the employee. A more detailed brochure on the insurance plan is distributed upon employment. The County will not make a contribution in any form to an employee who is not aparticipant in the health insurance program. Life Insurance Life insurance costs under VSRS are shared by the County and the employee· Cost to the employee is 605 per month per $1000 of coverage to the next highest $1000 above his salary. The contribution of the County is 40% of the employee's cost. Employees under 65 are insured for two times the next highest $1000 of their annual salary. Thus, an employee making $5640 annually would pay $3.60 a month for $12,000 worth of insurance. This insuranc~ is mandatory. Law enforcement personnel and persons over age 65 are covered by different provisions, details of which are available in the Personnel Office. Cancer Insurance The County makes available to its employees a family policy that will assist them in the event any member should develop cancer. Cancer care may be purchased by anyone of any age, regardless of the present state of health, provided that they have no~ had cancer within the past ten years. Full coverage under this plan is available 30 days following the effective date of the policy. The policy pays in addition to any other insurance the individual may have with other companies, including Medicare. This insurance is available at the employee's option and cost. Accident Insurance The County makes available to its employees a family accident insurance plan that provides medical fees, disability income, dismemberment payments, and accidental death payments for accidents on or off the job. This insurance is available at the employee's option and cost. RETIREMENT AZbemarle County is a participant in the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System (VSRS), a pla~ which is mandatory for all County employees. The Commonwealth of Virginia supplements Federal Social Security benefits with provisions for retirement due to disability or age. The costs are shared by the employee and the County. The employee contribution is at the rate of 5% of his total salary. The County contributes an additional amount. An individual leaving government service before retirement may withdraw the total of his own contributions to the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System plus interest on his payments or he may elect to remain covered. Law enforcement personnel are covered under separate provisions of the VSRS and may take early retirement at age 55 under certain circumstances. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 305 Each of the above noted insurance and retirement plans are deducted from the employee's salary monthly. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION Ail County employees are covered .by workmen's compensation. As stated in the Code of Virginia Section 65.1-1: "The purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide compensation to a workman for loss of his opportunity to engage in work when his disability is occasioned by an injury suffered from an accident rising out of and in the course of his employment." This disability insurance is effective beginning with the eighth day of the disability. (If an employee suffers an accident, such accident should be reported immediately to the payroll department. If the employee is unable to report such accident~ it should be reported by the department head.) If the amount of compensation receivable under workmen's compensation is less than an employee's regular pay, the payment may be turned over to the County and a normal paycheck will be written. An employee may not receive payment from workmen's compensation and sick leave at the same'time. PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES The probationary period is a trial period during which an employee is given time to adjust to the County and an evaluation of performance made. The probationary period for most ~ employees shall be six months and may be extended up to an additional six months with the approval of the County Executive. For law enforcement, fire and other specialized personnel, this period shall be 12 months. Upon successful completion of the probationary period, the employee, with the recommendation of the department head, will become a permanent employee Should it become obvious'during the probationary period that the employee is unable to perform the duties of the position to which he Or she has been appointed, appropriate personnel action will be taken. Every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a position better suited to his or her talents. However, if this is not possible within a reasonable length of time, the employee's service with the County will be terminated. PERMANENT EMPLOYEE A permanent employee shall be defined as a County employee who is to be employed in a position for an indefinite time period and who has completed an initial probationary period. TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT A temporary employee shall be defined as a County employee who is employed in a position in which the length of employment is fixed. Temporary employees are not eligible for fringe benefits including holiday pay or sick leave. PART-TIME A part-time employee shall be defined as a County employee who is scheduled'to actually work less than the prescribed work week for full-time employees. Permanent part-time employees earn annual leave and sick leave at rates corresponding to the number of hours worked. They are eligible for the current health insurance plan; however, they are not eligible for life insurance or~retirement~benefits under VSRS. FULL-TIME A full-time employee shall be defined as a County employee who is scheduled to actually work a full eight-hour day and a five-day week. They are eligible for maximum fringe benefits. LEAVE Delineated in the following paragraphs are several types of leave available to those employed by the CoUnty. Holidays Ail fUll-time employees are allowed eleven:paid holidays per year: 3) 5) 7) 8) 9), 10) New Year's Day - January 1 Lee-Jackson Day - Third Monday in January President's Day (Washington's Birthday) - Third Monday in February Jefferson's Birthday - April 13 Memorial Day - Last Monday ~In May Independence Day - July 4 Labor Day - First Monday in September Thanksgiving Day -Fourth Thursday in November Friday after Thanksgiving Christmas Eve - December 24 Christmas Day - December 25 Other holidays are granted by special proclamation of the Governor and/or Board of Supervisors Permanent employees are eligible for holidays with pay as soon as they begin work[ If a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following day will be. observed as a holiday. If a holiday falls on a Saturday, the previous day will be observed as a holiday. If a holiday falls within your vacation, it is not charged to your annual leave. 30'6 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) Vacation Ail permanent employees of the County of Albemarle shall be granted annual leave by the County as follows: am One day per month for each month employed--12 days each year through the fifth year of employment. Maximum accumulationlimited to 24 days. be One and one-quarter days per month for each month employed after the fifth year of emp$oyment--15 days. Maximum accumulation limited to 30 days. One and one-half days per month employed after the tenth year of employment--- 18 days. Maximum accumulation limited to 36 days. Upon termination of employment, accrued annual leave will be paid to the employee. An individual may take annual leave at his/her discretion provided it does not conflict with the work schedule of his/ her department, in which case annual leave is granted on a first- come, first-served basis at the discretion of the department head. Leave is not granted during the first six months of an individual's employment except on an emergency basis. Sick Leave Sick leave is a form of insurance against loss of pay during illness; this benefit should not be considered an extra day off each month. Permanent employees begin to earn sick leave with pay at the rate of one day per month of employment or 12 days per year with unlimited ~ accumulation. Upon termination of employment, no compensation is due for accrued sick leave Extraordinary Sick Leave In cer~ain~:-~ircumstances such as a long period of illness or recuperation, an employee may not have a sick leave balance large enough to cover the period of absence. In such a case, the employee will be placed on annual leave, then on leave without pay. Employee's insurance benefits will be treated as described in the Leave of Absence regulations. Snow Days if road conditions becOme hazardous during the day or night due to'snow, County offices may close at the discretion of the County EXecutive. The COunty Executive, or his designated agent, will notify the radio stations of sUch closings. If snow falls during the night to the extent that driving is hazardous, and the offices are not closed by the County Executive any employee getting to work after 9:00 A.M but before 12:00 noon will make up time lost after 9:00 A.M.; arrival after 12:00 noon will be charged to annual leave or .compensatory time. Illness or Death in the Family Up to three paid working days can be charged against sick leave when necessary because of serious illness or death in the immediate family. The immediate family is defined as the employee's spouse, children, parents, siblings and grandparents. Absence in excess of three days shall be deducted from annual leave. Leaves of Absence Leaves of absence fall into two categories; those with pay and thOse without pay. When authorized by the department head and the County Executive, employees will receive leaves of absence, under the following conditions: 1) Annual Reserve or National Guard Duty not to exceed 15 days during the calendar year in addition to usual Vacation leave. ~ 2) SUbpoena~te:~court for jury duty. If the amount of compensation for duty as delineated above is less than an employee's regular pay, the fees earned for performing these services may be turned over to the County and a normal ~paycheck will be written. The County does not pay regular salary in addition to fees paid for such services. However, should an employee wish to count time spent on such duty against annual leave, additional fees earned may be kept. Certain circumstances may warrant the granting of leaves of absence without pay. All request must be agreed upon by your department head and the County Executive. These requests must be~ presented in writing. When an employee is granted a leave of absence without pay in excess of ten working days, no leave will accrue for that period.~ No contribution will be made by the County toward the employee's insurance benefits. An employee must make arrangements for a continuation of benefits during a leave of absence. ''5eave for Extended Disability As soon as an employee and his physician have determined that an employee is likely to be absent from work for more than 30 working days due to serious injury, illness or other disability, not related to the performance of duties, that fact must be made known to the employee's department head. In some situations, when the employee has notified the departme~ head of the disability before the leave commences, the department head may request a doctor'S certificate of the employee's ability to perform the work assigned. At the earliest possible date~before the commencement of.that leave, the employee Will notify the department head of the probable dates of the commencement and termination of that leave. Only that time during the employee's extended disability so certified by a physician as disabling may be charged to sick leave as accrued. Other time may be taken as annual leave, compensatory time or leave without pay. If at any time before or durin~ the disabilitv June 14, (Regular-Day Meeting) 3O7 When the employee is prepared to return to work, his ability to do the job must be certified My a physician. When a disability requires an employee to be absent without pay for more than ten working days, the department head and the County Executive, or his designee, will determine how the employee will be replaced during the absence. Every effort will be made to reinstate the employee in his former position when he returns. However, if this cannot be accommodated, the employee will be 'given every consideration for other compatible openings, when they occur. COURTESY The impression you make on people depends on the way you treat them and in this respect affects their impression of public employees in general. Since the people of Albemarle County are your employer, you should always render them polite and courteous service, no matter how trying the circumstances. PUNCTUALITY AND ATTENDANCE Regular attendance and punctuality are essential if we are to accomplish our objective of providing efficient services to the public. Since life does have its unpredictable moments, there will be times when it is impossible to either be at work on time or to be at work at all. In these situations, either notify your supervisor or make arrangements for someone else to contact him as early in the workday as possible. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT The employees of Albemarle County are prohibited from engaging in any private business or professional activity, or having a financial interest in such activity, which would be or appear to be in conflict with their public responsibilities. Employees should avoid situation in which their actions might adversely effect the confidence of the people in the integrity of their government. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Nepotism No administrator or any other person in a supervisory position shall have under his or her direct supervison any employee whose relationship is of the first or second degree, either by blood or marriage. In the event of a promotion which brings about the conditions thus describe the employee of lower rank shall be transferred to another position for which he or she is qualified when a vacancy occurs. Relationship of the first or second degree shall mean father, brother, sister, spouse, son, daughter, son-in-law or daughter-in-law, sister-in-law or brother-in-law. Acceptance of Gifts No County employee, or member of a Board or Commission, shall offer or accept any personal gift, favor, service, money or anything of proprietary or pecuniary value from the public which might reasonably tend to influence such employee in the discharge of his or her official duties. Items given to a group shall be permitted if used or consumed on the premises and not used in contravention of the above policy. This policy is not intended to abolish the exchange of gifts between employees for birthdays, Christmas, or retirement events, or the offering or acceptance of social invitations, providin that such exchange or invitation is understood not to-influence employees in the discharge of their official duties. POLITICAL ACTIVITY Every County employee is encouraged to exercise his/her right to vote. Employees are prohibite from using their employment position in any manner, directly or indirectly, to influence, persuade, coerce, or induce a fellow employee or a citizen to his/her political beliefs. County employees are not prohibited from seeking public office. However, when an employee, except an elected official, becomes a candidate for any public office, he or she shall be required to take a leave of absence without pay for the work time spent in active campaigning for office. The procedure for taking such leave of absence shall be determined by the County Executive and the employee prior to the employee filing for the office. RESIGNATION A resignation shall be defined as a voluntary separation from employment through written notification to the employing authority initiated by the employee. Ail permanent employees desiring to resign their employment with the County shall submit written notification of such intent to their employing authority. This notification shall include the reason for resignation, the actual date and hour the resignation is to become effective and shall be signed by the employee. A copy of the notification shall be forwarded to the County Executive for its inclusion in the official personnel file. 308 \ June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) It is requested that all employees give at least fourteen calendar days notice prior to the effective date of resignation, except where specific circumstances prohibit such advance notification. Such resignation may be withdrawn by the emPloyee at any time prior to the effective date with the approval of the department head.~ Employees who resign shall receive payment for all annual leave for which they are eligible according to the annual leave policy For thQ~e employees who fail to submit the written notification prior to their termination date, the employing authority shall forward a letter by certified mail (return receipt reques stating it is his/her understanding the employee has voluntarily resigned employment. An employee's failure to respond immediately regarding any errors contained within this certifie letter shall constitute a valid resignation. If you are a permanent employee in good standing and resign giving adequate notice, you will be entitled to receive full terminal vacation pay as previously explained. Terminal vacation pay starts after your final working day, but'will not include pay for:holidays occurring after your final day of work. Final pay checks are processed in the routine manner and will be paid on the next regular pay day. DISMISSAL Under ordinary circumstances, if an employee is dismissed, he or she will be given two weeks notice. Vacation leave accumulated to date will be granted. Should an employee be dismissed for extraordinary misconduct, no notice will be given, but leave accumulated will be paid. Any employee who is dismissed, suspended or demoted may appeal through established grievance procedures. INDEBTEDNESS TO THE COUNTY The Director of Finance is prohibited by law from issuing County checks to anyone owing monel to the County. County employees are therefore expected to pay taxes, licenses, and fees owned to the County on or before their due dates. In the event of delinquency, the Director of Finance will follow procedures of collection required in the State law, which provides for deductions from salaries and liens on estates. (Sections 58-922 and 58-1010, Code of Virgini GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURE Policy It is the policy of the Board of Supervisors to provide fair, equitable and satisfactory working arrangements for its employees. Every effort will be made to resolve employee grievances informally with the least amount of worry and delay. However, in some cases it becomes necessary to proceed through a formal appeal and panel review to handle thoroughly a given grievance. Accordingly, the following procedures and regulations are established. ' Matters Deemed Not Grievable Employees are advised that conditions of employment and law and policy established by the Board of Supervisors are-not grievable. In addition~ merit, wages, salaries and fringe benefits are likewise not grievable. In addition, it is to be understood that the establish~ of this procedure shall in no way remove the right of the County to do the following, provide~ however, that none of these rights may be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner: 1) Direct the work of its employees 2) Hire, promote, transfer and assign employees 3) Demote or dismiss employees for cause 4) Maintain the efficiency of governmental operations 5) Relieve employees from duty because of a lack of work or for other legitimate reasons 6) Take actions necessary to carry out duties of an agency in emergencies 7) Determine the methods, means and personnel necessary to carry out operations 8) Control and manage the County's property and maintain the County's function and operations Determination of Grievability If some question should exist concerning the grievability of a specific problem and if the question cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of both the employee and his/her supervisor at the departmental level, the employee may make a request, and the County Executive will forward such request, for a ruling of grievability from the Charlottesville City Attorney, who shall respond within £ive days. In any case, no complaint may be addressed beyond the top management level before grievabilit has been determined. Only after grievability has been determined shall a grievance be pro- cessed through the grievance panel stage. ed) ,) ~nt June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 309 Grievance Procedure Any employee wishing to file a grievance shall have the right to follow all the steps of this procedure as listed below with complete freedom from reprisal. This does not, however, confer~the right upon anyone to make slanderous or libelous statements. Step I An employee who' has a grievance as defined herein, shall within five work days of the occurrence of the action or event causing the grievance or of the date when the employee could have reasonably been expected to have learned of the act or event, contact his/her immediate supervisor for a discussion of the grievance. The supervisor shall immediately discuss the grievance with the employee and make a careful inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the complaint. The supervia~shall give the employee a reply within seven work days following receipt of the complaint. Step II If the grievance is not resolved as a result of STEP I, the employee may within five work days thereafter file a written grievance with his/her department head. The employee must be sure that the grievance is complete in all detail at this stage of the procedure. No addition, deletions or adjustments to the o~iginal grievance will be allowed or accepted at a later point within the procedure. The department head will then make a separate inquiry into the complaint and inform the employee of his/her decision and the reasons therefore within seven ca!endar days following receipt of the written grievance. Step III If the department head's response does not resolve the grievance, the employee may within five work days thereafter file a written request for a hearing with the County Executive containing the employee's explanation of what has occurred. A copy shall also be sent to the employee's department head. Upon receipt of the written request for a hearing, and verification that STEPS I and II have been exhausted, the County Executive shall within five work days schedule the hearing requested, or decline to act and pass the request on to STEP IV. If the County Executive grants the hearing, he may request the presence of the department head or any other County official at the hearing, and the employee may also have a representa- tive of his/her choice present. The County Executive shall give the employee a written reply within five days after the conclusion of the hearing. A coPy of the reply shall be sent to the employee's department head. Step IV If the County Executive's reply does not resolve the grievance, the employee may within seven work days thereafter request in writing to the County Executive that his/her grievance be submitted to a panel hearing. In submitting this written request, it is not necessary that the employee again provide a written explanation of what has occurred as this was contained in his/her written request submitted at STEP II and STEP III and as part of the record will be made available to the grievance panel. Within seven work days after the date of the written request for a panel hearing, or after referral~by the County Executive in STEP III, a panel shall be chosen consisting of three members: one person chosen by the aggrieved employee, one .bya~hetda~artment head, and the remaining member selected by the first two appointees. The panel members need not be county employees, and may not have been involved in any of the earlier phases of the grievance. The County Executive shall arrange an organizational meeting of the grievance panel within five work days from the date of selection at which time a chairman shall be chosen and a date established for a panel hearing. This date shall be within ten work days of the organizational meeting. The panel has the responsibility to interpret the application of appropriate County policies and procedures in the case. It does not have the prerogative to formulate or to change policies or procedures. The employee may have present at the hearing a representative or legal counsel at his/ her own expense. Copies of the written record in the case from STEPS II and iii shall be provided the panel members by the County. The conduct of the hearing shall be as follows: 1) The panel shall limit attendance at the hearings to persons having a direct interest in the case. The panel may at the beginning of the hearing ask for statements clarifying the issues involved. Exhibits, when offered, may be received in evidence by the panel, and when so received shall be marked and made part of the record. 4) The employee and supervisors, or his/her representative, shall then present their claims and proofs and witnesses who shall submit to questions or other examination. The panel may, at its discretion, vary this procedure, but shall afford full and equal opportunity to all parties and witnesses for presentation of any material or relevant proofs. 3!0 June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 5) 6) 7) The parties may offer evidence and shall provide such additional evidence as the panel may deem necessary to an understanding and determination of the dispute. The panel shall be the judge of relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered. Ail evidence shall be taken in the presence of the panel and of the parties. Ail evidence taken by the panel shall be under oath. The majority decision of the panel shall be final in all its determinations. Agenda Item No. 27. ReceiPt of Revenue Sharing Trust Fund Audit and Anti-Recession Fiscal Assistance Fund Audit for the yaar ending June 30, 1977 was noted as being received. Agenda Item No. 28. received as information. Report of County Executive For the month of May, 1978 was ~'~-- Agenda Item No. 29. Report of the Department of Social Services for the month of April,-1978 was received iA accordance with the Virginia Code Section 63.~1-52. Agenda Item No. 30. Statements of expenses of the Director of Finance, Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff's Office were received for the month of May, 1978. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Henley, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, LindStrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 31. Statement of expenses for the Regional Jail for the month of May, 1978 was received. On motion by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, the statement was approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Messrs. DOrrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 32. Statement of expenses incurred in the maintenance and operation of the Regional Jail for the month of May, 19~8 along with summary statement of prisoner days, statement of jail physician and statement of salaries of' the paramedics and the classification officer were received. On motion by Mr. Dorrier, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, these statements were approved as read. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT~- Dr. Iachetta. Agenda Item No. 33. Sewer and Water Easement - District Home. Mr. ~Agnor said this easement was requested by the August~ County Service Authority ~and the~ ~Boa~d of' the 'District Home has approved same, but it requires the approval of all participating jurisdictions. He requested that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the easement on behalf o~f Albemarle County as soon as the County Attorney's Office has checked it for form. Motion to this effect was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. (The easement, as signed, is set out below.) THIS AGREEMENT, made this 14th day of July, 1978, by and between the Counties of Albemarle, Allegheny, Augusta, Bath, and Rockbridge and the Cities of Charlottesville, Covington, Lexington and Waynesboro, Virginia, parties of the first part, and the Augusta County Service Authority, and the City of Waynesboro, parties of the second part: * *WI TNE S SE TH* * That for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00), cash in hand paid, the parties of the first part do hereby grant and convey with GENERAL WARRANTY OF TITLE unto the parties of the second part, a perpetual easement over, across and under a portion of their property situated in Wayne Magisterial District of Augusta County, Virginia, and more particularly described according to a plat titled, "Plat Showing a Proposed 15 foot Water Line and 20 foot Sanitary Sewer Easement Across Property Belonging to District Board of Albemarle, Allegheny, Augusta, Bath and Rockbridge Counties" as prepared by the Augusta County Service Authority and dated March 1978, which plat is to be attached to and made a part of this agreement, and being located on the same real estate which was conveyed to the parties of the first part by deed of Fred Driver and Daisy E. Driver, dated the 1st day of March, 1927, and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the Circu~t~)Court of Augusta County, Virginia, in Deed Book 229, Page 187. June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 311 A reference to the aforementioned plat and deed and the references therein contained is here made for a more particular description of the easement hereby conveyed and for derivation of title. The said easement is for the purpose of constructing and installing water and sewage transmission lines over and under the properties of the parties of the first part, and there is granted the parties of the second part, or its contractors, the right of constructing, maintaining and operating the same with the right of ingress and egress from and over said property of the parties of the first part in order to construct, repair and efficiently maintain said lines, with the further right to inspect, repair, rebuild and improve the same on and along the easement herein mentioned, together with convenient and full enjoyment and use of the rights and privileges hereby granted. The parties of the first part do hereby convenant with the parties of the second part, that they are l~wfully seized and possessed of the real estate above described, that they have a good and lawful right to convey it or any part thereof and that it is free from~all encumbrances. The parties of the second part will require their construction contractors to perform such work in accordance with the terms of their contracts. As a part of this consideration for this deed, the parties of the second part agree to require the construction contractors to reasonably restore the property of the parties of the first part to the condition found, when possible, without interference with the efficient use of the facilities installed. Upon request to the parties of the first part, said lines will be relocated without expense to the parties of the first part to another usable easement granted by the parties of the first part in the event ~he easement granted herewith interferes with the efficient and need~use of the rea~ estate of the parties of the first part in the economic operation of the District Home or its associated uses. Agenda Item No. 34. Resolution: Compensation Board for Sheriff. Mr. Agnor noted that the Compensation Board had not granted the Sheriff additional personnel as requested and the Sheriff has asked the Board to appeal this decision. Motion was offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Mr. Lindstrom, to adopt the following resolution: WHEREAS, the Compensation Board of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by communication dated June 9, 1978, notified this Board of the salaries, expenses and other~allowances tentatively fixed by the Compensation Board for the office of Sheriff for Albemarle County for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1979; and WHEREAS, the number of personnel fixed by the Co~ensati~n Board is less than the number requested by the Sheriff of Albemarle County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board, pursuant to the provisions of Section 14.1-51 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended, hereby objects to the allowance tentatively fixed by the Compensation Board as aforesaid upon the ground that the allowance is inadequate, AND, this Board further requests that a hearing be held by the Compensation Board on this objection after notice as provided by law, AND, this Board designates Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher and F. Anthony Iachetta, two of its members, to serv~ as additional members of the Compensation Board with eamh of them having one vote as provided by law. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 35. Leases: Lane High School. Mr. Agnor noted that he has corres- ponded with occupants of the Lane High School building, notifying them that the County will take possession on June 30, 1978. Leases are being drafted to give these occupants the same arrangements as they had with the City. He requested approval-to exercise such leases when same are ready for signature. Motion was then offered by Dr. Iachetta, second- ed by Mr. Dorrier, authorizing the County Executive to execute leases as set out below: For the School Board of the City of Charlottesville, a lease for that portion of the Lane High School building described as follows: Main office, rooms 215, 216, ~17, 218, 221, the Guidance Office, and rooms 305 through 315, including the Library on the third floor. The term of the lease for a period commencing on the first day of July ~ 1978 and continuing on a month to month basis until December 31, 1978, un- less soaner terminated. For the Municipal BanR of Charlottesville, Incorporated. That portion of the Lane High School building described as follows: Second floor: rear of building; the space formerly known as the band room. First floor: entranceway and room formerly known as Band Boys' Dressing Room and the adjoining toilet. The term of this lease shall be for a period commencing on the first day of July, 1978, and continuing on a month to month basis, unless sooner terminated. For the Alcohol Safety Action Program, Region X, Community Mental Health and Retardation Service Board· That portion of the Lane High School building described as follows: Second floor: Room 208 on Monday and Wednesda~ of each week. from ?:OD ~o ~00 p~ ~ ~ 312 June 14'~ 1978' (Regular-Day Meeting) AYES: NAYS: to provide a classroom for adult students receiving instruction on alcoho! education and alcoholism as part of the court-appointed Program of rehabili- tation for drunken drivers. The term of this lease shall be for a period commencing on the first day of July, 1978 and cont'inuing on a month-to-month basis through December 31, 1978, unless sooner terminated. For the Central Virginia O.I.C., Incorporated. That portion of the Lane High School building described as follows: First ~loor: ro~oms 101 through 117, excluding cafeteria and including Boy~s'and Girl's rooms. Parking lot: spaces and parking lot adjacent to building for~parking for Tenant's, ~em- ployees and clients. The term of this lease shall ~e?f~r a period commencing on the first day of July, 1978 and continuing on a month-to-month basis through December 31, 1978, unless sooner terminated. For the Charlottesville-Albemarle Young Men's Christain Association. That portion of the Lane High School building described as follows: First ~Ioor: Gymmasium Facilities, Office Area. The~term of this lease shall be for a period of 24 months commencing on thef~irst day of July, 1978 and expiring on the 30th day of June 1980, unless sooner terminated. For the Outreach COunseling Services, Incorporated. That portion of the Lane High School b. uilding described as Room 202. The term of this lease shall be for a period commencing on the 1st day of July, 1978 and continuing on a month-to-month basis through December 31, 1978, unless sooner terminated. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. Agenda Item No. 36. OtherJmatters not on the agenda~ Mr. Fisher said that on June 1, 1978,the State Water Control Board staff had a meeting with Morton Frozen Foods in relation to Morton upgrading their sewage facilities. The State Water Control Board recommended that Morton's discharge permit be changed to reduce the phosphorus loading from 30 pounds average over a month to two pounds per d~y, but ~ave them six months in which to do a study to either upgrade their present facilities or plan to connect to the Crozet interceptor line when same is available. The State Water Control Board has not said that Mor~on must connect to the interceptor line. This would have an effect on the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority because the system has been designed to take MortOn's discharge and the financing of the interceptor line has been based on that sewage. Mr. Fishe~ said he was concerned that Morton's will spend money to upgrade their plant since there are probably taxincentives for them to use in upgrading for pollution, but no s~ch tax consideration would be given if they connect to the Crozet interceptor. Mr. St. John said the State Water Control Board cannot force Morton's to connect to the public sewer line. They do not have that s~atutory power. That power lies with the Albe- marle County Service Authority and that is the reason the County is filg~g'] an~'amicus cnriae brief in the suit discussed earlier in the day. Mr. Agnor said the staff of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority is presently in the process of accumulating all correspondence on this matter in order to put together a file t'o show the concern of the community in this matter. The State Department of Health is the agency that prohibited point source discharges above the watershed. The State Water Control Board is administrating the NPDES permit program. Mr. Fisher said he was not suggesting that the Board take any action on this matter but he wanted to express his concern about the economics of the interceptor line and the financing of same since he felt the State Water Control Board h~d forced the community into doing these things over a number of years. Mr. Lindstrom said at the Planning Commission meeting last night, they saw an amendment to the G. E. Site Plan~ At the time the site plan was before the Board, there was a joint access aasement that went into the property that was not on the G. E. property, but on property being acquired by G. E. so they could say they had given up all of their access rights along Route 29 North. The Planning Commission approved this plan for an entrance for some unspecified use in the future at that point. It was agreed that Mr. Roudabush would look at the site plan to see if it were at variance with what the B~ard had recently approved Mr. 'Roudabush then read into the record the following letter: ,,June 14, 1978 Board of Supervisors County Office Building Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Gentlemen: In December of 1976, my brother and I, trading as Berkeley Partners, made a gift to the County of Albemarle of 8/10ths of an acre on Berkmar Drive for the construction of a fire house for the Seminole' Trail Volunteer Fire Depart- ment. Since that time, representatives of the fire company have, on numerous occasions, made it known to us that they did not have sufficient land to con- struct the fire house and have requested us to give additional land. We propose to make a gift of approximately .63 acres adjoining the 8/10ths of an acre and lying north of the same as shown on a S:ketch of the property hereto attached. James Nunnally has appraised this property at $2.25 per square foot." June 14, 1978 (Regular-Day Meeting) 313 If you find the gift acceptable, let us know and we will have the property surveyed and present to you a deed of gift. Yours very truly, (Signed) David J. Wood, Jr." Motion was then offered by Mr. Roudabush, seconded by Dr. Iachetta,to adopt the follow- ing resolution. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. None. WHEREAS, David J. Wood, Jr. and Joseph M. Wood, II, trading as Berkeley Partners, have offered to the County a gift of land containing approximately · 63 acres on Berkmar Drive, said parcel shown on map drawn by Frank ~.~ Gregg, Certified Land Surveyor, attached hereto; and WHEREAS, in letter of David J. Wood, Jr. dated June 14, 1978, Mr. Wood has stated that he will have the property surveyed and present a deed of gift to the County. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, finds this gift acceptable and does hereby authorize the Chairman of the Board, When the property ha~ been surveyed and the deed presented to the County, to accept the deed conveying the property to the County on the face of the deed and to see to the recordation of same on behalf of the County. (Mr. Dorrier left at 5:48 P.M.) Mr. Roudabush said Mr. Jack Camblos had asked him some time ago if there were~any possibility of his acquiring a piece of land off of the Ivy Landfill site. The Highway Department is getting ready to negotiate with him on widening the road in that area and it will cause him problems with access. It was the consensus of the Board that this would not be discussed until a formal request was received in writing. Dr. Iachetta said the Resource Recovery Study Commission had been expecting a final report from the consultants; instead they received an alternative that suggested the paying of more money. The Commission took action to say they wanted the report by a certain date and hopefully a report will be forthcoming that will set out the best way to obtain energy recovery. M~. Roudabush said several months ago his firm was engaged by the Calvary Baptist Church to prepare plans to extend the waterline from jmst in front of the National Guard Armory on Avon S~t out to their property so they could have public water at the Church and meet buildingZr~quirements concerning public assembly. The Church was about to engage a contractor to install the waterline (their responsibility was only to put in an eight-inch waterline), but the Albemarle County Servi~e:~uthority decided it would be wise to extend a 12-inch waterline instead. While this was being discussed, the Albemarle County Service Authority adopted a policy of sharing the cost of extension on off-site waterlines with developers. The policy requires that the developer, at his own expense, prepare the plans for specifications and pay all costs of advertising, etc.. The Service Authority will then put the project out for bid so they can control the ~proj'ect and when the bids are taken, the developer makes available to the Service Authority the money for his share of the project. Mr. Roudabush said his firm had already prepared the plans and the Church did not want to go to the expense of getting another company to prepare the~same plans. Therefore, the plans were advertised for bids using the name of William'S. Roudabush, Incorporated as desig~] engineers. Mr. Roudabush said he did not want anyone to think that he was doing work for the Albemarle County Service Authority. His firm would not. have done the work if they had known in the beginning that it would be advertised by the' Service Authority. Mr. Roudabush said he was not engaged by the Albemarle County Service Authority, they are not paying his bills, and the Church is paying the total cost of the Whole project except for the extra four inchs of pipeline. Agenda Item No. 37. At 5:55 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. IachettR~ii~to adjourn this meeting until June 21, 1978, at 3:00 P.M. in the Board R~om. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Messrs. Dorrier and Henley. - - ~(~Hairman