Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-06-14June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 00008'0 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on June 14, 1995, at 7:00 P.M., Room 241, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. PRESENT: Mr. David P. Bowerman (arrived at 7:07 p.m.), Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr. (arrived at 7:06 p.m.), Charles S. Martin (arrived at 7:11 p.m.), Walter F. Perkins (arrived at 7:05 p.m.) and Mrs. Sally H. Thomas (arrived at 7:05 p.m.). ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Attorney, Larry W. Davis, and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:12 p.m., by the Chairman, Mr. Perkins. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Not Docketed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, at 7:14 p.m., that the Board certify that to the best of each Board members's knowledge only public business matters lawfully exempted from the open meeting requirements of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and identified in the motion authorizing the executive session held this afternoon were heard, discussed or considered in the executive session. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item NO. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public. Mr. Tom Muncaster appeared to request that the Board hear as soon as possible a time extension of SP-93-13, United Land Corporation, granted for the Airport Trailer Park. The special use permit will expire on July 14, 1995. He indicated that he had to wait approximately a year for land use approval from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA), and he had to wait six months for the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to clarify the speed limit on Route 606. He said circumstances beyond his control caused delays in requesting this extension. Motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mr. Marshall, that the Planning Commission hear the request on July 11, and that the Board hear the request on July 12, 1995. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve Items 5.la through 5.4a on the consent agenda, and to accept the remaining items as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Item 5.la. Appropriation: Community Resources Coordinator - $30,125, (Form 940064). It was noted in the staff's report that the Community Resourc- es Coordinator position was transferred in October, 1994, from the Police Department to the County Executive's Office. Since that time, payroll expenditures and other miscellaneous overhead expenses have been charged to the Community Resources cost center within the County Executive's Office. In order to cover these expenses and not exceed the original appropriation, it is necessary to transfer funds in the amount of $30,125 to the County Executive's Office. The following resolution of appropriation approving the request was adopted by the vote set out above. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NLIMBER: 940064 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR COMMUNITY RE- SOURCE COORDINATOR EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOUNT June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 1100012013110000 1100012013210000 1100012013221000 1100012013241000 1100012013520300 1100012013600100 1100012013800701 1100012013800710 FICA VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM VRS LIFE INSURANCE TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES DP EQUIP-REPLACEMENT DP-SOFTWARE 1100031012110000 1100031012210000 1100031012221000 1100031012241000 1100031012520300 1100031012600100 1100031012800701 1100031012800710 SALARIES-REGULAR FICA VIRGINIA RETIREMENT SYSTEM VRS LIFE INSURANCE TELECOMPUJNICATIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES DP EQUIP-REPLACEMENT DP-SOFTWARE TOTAL oooosm $25,520 00 1,800 00 2,050 00 50 00 200 00 100 00 255 00 150 00 (25,520.00) (1,s00.00) (2,050.00) (50.00) (200.00) (100.00) (255.00) (150.00) $o.oo REVENUE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT TOTAL $0.00 Item 5.lb. Appropriation: Courthouse Maintenance Funds - $10,986, (Form #940065). It was noted in the staff's report that several years ago court fees were increased by the State, and the additional fee was to be reserved for improvement and maintenance to the Court House. The County has $108,275 in reserve for this purpose. Expenses have been incurred at the Court House this year which are eligible for use of these funds. In addition, the Commonwealth's Attorney has requested additional office space for his operation, and the installation of new carpet in his office. Eligible expenses include replacement of doors/handles for the Sheriff's Department and corridors, installation of heating coils in holding cells, and renovations in the Commonwealth Attorney's office space in the amount of $10,986. The following resolution of appropriation approving the request was adopted by the vote set out above. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940065 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING FOR COURT HOUSE MAINTENANCE PROJECTS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100043002331200 STAFF SERVICES-REPAIRS & MAINT TOTAL AMOUNT $10,986.00 $10,986.00 REVENUE 2100051000510107 DESCRIPTION COURT HOUSE MAINT RESERVE TOTAL AMOUNT $10,986.00 $10,986.00 Item 5.1c. Appropriation: Rescue Squads - $2,443, (Form #940066). It was noted in the staff's report that the County receives funds each year from the State Office of Emergency Medical Services which are restricted for emergency medical services. In FY 1994-95, $2,443 more was received than appropriated to the three rescue squads. This request is to adjust the FY 1994-95 appropriation to pass the additional funds to the rescue squads. The following resolution of appropriation approving the request was adopted by the vote set out above. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940066 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: APPROPRIATION OF ADDITIONAL TWO-FOR-LIFE FUNDS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1100032030565002 CH'VILLE/ALB RESCUE SQUAD-EMS 1100032030565102 WESTERN ALB RESCUE SQUAD-EMS 1100032030565202 SCOTTSVILLE RESCUE SQUAD-EMS TOTAL AMOUNT $814.33 814.33 814.34 $2,443.00 REVENUE 2100024000240415 DESCRIPTION EMS FUNDS TOTAL AMOUNT $2,443.00 $2,443.00 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 3) 0000 2 Item 5.1d. Appropriatiofl~ ~Ai[h Screening - $5,237, Form #940067). It was noted in the staff's report that health screenings for employees were initially approved by both the Board ~f Supervisors and the School Board for FY 1994-95. In March, at the staff's recommendation, the Boards decided not to implement the mandatory health screenings. The health screenings were budgeted at $70.00 per screening for members of the County's employee health insurance plan, and the funds were generated by applying a $6.00 per month increase to the health insurance premium. Even though the Boards elected not to implement the program, Martha Jefferson Health Works incurred expenses in the amount of $5237.00 in preparation for the screenings. Funds need to be transferred from the Health Fund to Human Resources in order to pay this bill. (Mrs. Thomas asked what has happened to the $6.00 per month being charged each employee on their health insurance premium for the health screening program now that it has been canceled. Mr. Tucker said it will become part of the reserve for the health program in the next fiscal year.) The following resolution of appropriation approving the request was adopted by the vote set out above. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NLTMBER: 940067 FUND: GENERAL PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HEALTH INSUP_ANCE FUND TO SCHOOL FUND TO COVER COST OF HEALTH SCREENINGS EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION AMOLTNT 1242062140311000 HEALTH SCREENINGS $5,237.00 1102093010930002 TRANSFER TO SCHOOL FUND-PERSONNEL 5,237.00 TOTAL $10,474.00 REVEATUE 2200051000512013 2102018000189914 DESCRIPTION TRANSFER FROM HEALTH FI/ND TRIGON REFUND TOTAL AMOUNT $5,237.00 5r237.00 $10,474.00 Item 5.1e. Appropriation: Emergency Operations Center - $6000, (Form #940068). It was noted in the staff's report that on May 16, 1995, the Emergency Operations Center Management Board approved the use of $6000 from their fund balance for costs incurred in the acquisition of additional radio frequencies (preparation, application, coordination and payment of fees for twenty, 800 MHZ frequencies through the Federal Communications Commission). The following resolution of appropriation approving the request was adopted by the vote set out above. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 AKIMBER: 940068 FUND: EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF ONE-TIME PURCHASES FROM FUND BALANCE EXPENDITURE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1410031040310000 PROF. SERVICES/FEES TOTAL AMOUNT $6,000 . 00 $6,000.00 REVENLTE 2410051000510100 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT E0C FUND BALANCE $6,000.00 TOTAL $6,000.00 Item 5.1f. Appropriation: FY 1993-94 Section 8 Housing Fund Balance - $4044.73 (Form #940069). It was noted in the staff's report that the Section 8 Housing Program is an on-going rental assistance program offered by the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) through three separate programs that are tracked in a separate fund. The Section 8-001 program provides housing assistance with 178 subsidies and is funded through June, 2002. The Section 8-002 program provides 34 housing vouchers. The Section 8-003 program provides housing assistance for 35 units. A fund balance of $4044.73 exists from prior year administrative funds received from HUD. The Housing Office wants to complete computerization of the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program by purchasing software, a computer and a printer, and requests use of $4044.73 of these funds. The following resolution of appropriation approving the request was adopted by the vote set out above. APPROPRIATION REQUEST FISCAL YEAR: 1994-95 NUMBER: 940069 FUND: HUD GRANTS PURPOSE OF APPROPRIATION: FUNDING OF ONE-TIME PURCHASES FROM FUND 000083 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night M~eting) (Page 4) EXPENDITURE BAL~CE COST CENTER/CATEGORY DESCRIPTION 1122781900800100 MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT TOTAL REVENUE 2122751000510100 AMOUNT 044 . 73 044.73 DESCRIPTION AMOUNT FUND BALANCE $4,044.73 TOTAL $4,044.73 Item 5.2. Revised proffer for ZMA-94-09 Jayel Industries, Inc., and John E. Campbell. It was noted in the staff's report that the applicant originally proposed to amend the proffers of ZMA-88-11 to delete the require- ment for two points of access and to have no connection between the Mill Creek and Lake Reynovia developments. At the Board's meeting on February 15, 1995, the Board deferred action to allow the applicant to submit a revised proffer which would provide for emergency access between Lake Reynovia and Mill Creek with surety of construction and maintenance. A proffer has been submitted and has been reviewed by Planning staff, Engineering staff and the County Attor- ney. Ail found the proffer acceptable. Staff recommended approval of ZMA-94-09 with acceptance of the applicant's proffer dated June 9, 1995. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board approved ZF~A-94-09 with the revised proffer which is set out in a letter dated June 9, 1995, addressed to Wayne Cilimberg, and signed by Mark N. Farmer, re: Lake Reynovia - Mill Creek Emergency Access Road, and reads as follows: "June 9, 1995 Mr. Wayne Cilimberg Albemarle County Engineering Department Albemarle County Office Building 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 RE: Lake Reynovia - Mill Creek Emerqenc¥ Access Road Dear Mr. Cilimberg: In connection with our telephone conversation of yesterday morn- ing, please find enclosed an executed proffer document (the "Proffer") drafted and signed in connection with the above-refer- enced matter. This Proffer has been transmitted to me by facsimi- le. As we discussed, I will immediately submit the originally- executed Proffer to you when I receive it from Mr. Nichols on Monday morning. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Very truly yours, (Signed) Mark N. Farmer" PROFFE% Date: June 8, 1995 Tax Map ~: 90 ZMA #s: 88-11; 94-09 Parcel # 36 Substitution of Conditions Relating to Rezoning of 100 Acres from RA to R-4 Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Jayel Industries, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California and John E. Campbell (Jayel Industries, Inc. and John E. Campbell being hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Developers"), by their duly-authorized agent, hereby voluntarily proffer the conditions listed below (the "Conditions") which shall be applied to the property, as substituted conditions to ZMA # 88-11 (the "Original Rezoning") in lieu of proffer item number 3, described in that certain letter dated October 10, 1988, from John T.P. Home of the Department of Planning & Community Development of the County of Albemarle to Heavenly Holding Corporation, which the letter is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A (on file). The Conditions are proffered to amend the Original Rezon- ing, and it is agreed that: (1) the Original Rezoning itself gives rise to the need for the Conditions; and (2) the Conditions have a reasonable relation to the Original Rezoning previously requested and granted. (a) The emergency vehicle access road (the "Access Road") shall be built in accordance with the specifications set out in that certain McKee/Carson design of the Access Road, dated March 27, 1995, which design is June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) 000084 attached he~L~ ~d,made a part hereof as Exhibit B (on file). (b) The Developers and their successors and assigns shall maintain the Access Road, in a manner reasonably satisfactory to the County of Albemarle (the "Mainte- nance''), such that the Access Road is accessible to emergency vehicles at all times. (c) The Developers shall post a cash bond in the amount of Five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($5,000.00) (the "Bond") to insure that the Maintenance continues, in accordance with the terms and conditions of that certain Road/Subdivision Performance Bond for Mainte- nance by and between the Developers and the County of Albemarle (the "Bond Agreement"), which Bond Agreement is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C (on file). The Bond shall be secured by a certificate of deposit with a bank of the Developers' choosing. The Developers shall assign the certificate of deposit to the County of Albemarle, in accordance with the terms and conditions of that certain Collateral As- signment of Certificate of Deposit by and between the Developers and the County of Albemarle (the "Assign- ment Agreement"), which Assignment Agreement is at- tached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit D (on file). The interest which accrues on the Bond each year shall be paid to the Developers on the 31st day of December of that year, beginning in the year 1995. The security for the Bond may be substituted with equal security different from that set out above if such substitution is approved by the County of Albemarle's attorney. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developers have caused this Proffer to be executed this 8th day of June, 1995, by their undersigned attorney-in-fact. JAYEL INDUSTRIES, INC., a California corporation By: Anthony M. Nichols, attorney-in-fact for Jayel Industries, Inc. JOHN E. CAMPBELL By: Anthony M. Nichols, his attorney-in-fact Item 5.3. Adopt revised resolution and proposed appointment of Albe- marle's representative to the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) . It was noted in the staff's report that at the March 1, 1995, meeting of the Board, a resolution was approved establishing and joining the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board (CCJB) which was enacted by the Legisla- ture in 1994. Under the Act, the role of the CCJB will be to purchase, develop and operate community programs, services and facilities for use by the courts in diverting offenders from local jails, evaluate and monitor the programs, and develop and amend the community corrections plan. The March resolution approved a regional CCJB consisting of Albemarle, Greene, Louisa, Nelson and Orange counties, and the City of Charlottesville. It was agreed that Albemarle County would be the fiscal agent, and that the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission would staff the newly formed CCJB. Because the representative categories for the Board had not been determined by the State at that time, staff was to bring back a recommendation for the County appoint- ment to the CCJB. Staff recommends approval of the revised resolution adding Madison and Goochland counties to the regional Community Criminal Justice Board, and the appointment of Mr. Michael McMahan to serve as Albemarle County's representa- tive to the regional board. After all members have been appointed by the individual jurisdictions and the mandated participants selected, each juris- diction will need to approve the full slate of CCJB members. By the recorded vote set out above, the Board adopted the revised resolution (follows) adding Madison and Goochland to the regional Community Criminal Justice Board, and approved the appointment of Michael McMahan to serve as Albemarle County's representative on this board. RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Virginia General Assembly enacted the Community Diversion Incentive Act of 1980 to establish community corrections programs for nonviolent offenders in an effort to reduce prison and jail overcrowding, and June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 6) 000085 W~EREAS, the Jeff~S0n A~a Community Corrections Resources Board was formed under the authority of the Code of Virqinia Section 53.1-183 to establish community corrections programs for nonviolent offenders in the localities of Albemarle, Charlottes- ville, Fluvanna, Goochland, Greene, Louisa, Madison, Nelson, and Orange, and W~EREAS, the Virginia Assembly revised the Community Diver- sion Incentive Act on September 30, 1994, and enacted the Compre- hensive Community Corrections Resources Boards with the new Community Criminal Justice Boards, and WHEREAS, the aforementioned communities continue to believe that working together on community corrections is in the best interest of the citizens of their jurisdiction, and WHEREAS, the County of Albemarle has offered to continue the role of fiscal agent, and W~EREAS, the Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission is agreeable to staffing the Community Criminal Justice Board, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Albemarle agrees to: 1. join in creating the Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board, 2. appoint members to serve on Jefferson Area Community Criminal Justice Board, 3. participate in appointing the remaining members as required under the law, 4. request the Thomas Jefferson Planning District to provide staff assistance, and 5. continue the role of fiscal agent. Item 5.4. Statements of Expenses for the Department of Finance, Sheriff, Commonwealth's Attorney, Regional Jail and Clerk, Circuit Court, for the month of May, 1995, were approved as presented by the recorded vote set out above. Item 5.4a. Adopt Resolution of Intent to amend Section 22.0, Commer- cial, C-i, and Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' markets by right, and to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, to permit farmers' markets by special use permit. It was noted in the staff's report that "farmer's market" is not currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. In recent years, this type of direct marketing has gained popularity in urban areas. Staff has received a specific request to locate a farmer's market in Crozet. The Board at its meeting on June 7, 1995, directed staff to proceed with a zoning text amend- ment for this use. Staff has prepared a resolution of intent for the Board's adoption. By the recorded vote set out above, the following resolution of intent was adopted: RESOLUTION OF INTENT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice, the Albemarle Board of County Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to ~mend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit the sale of merchandise directly related and accessory to agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the owner or his family on their farm; and FURTHER RESOLVED TIIAT the Planning Commission is requested to hold a public hearing on this resolution of intent, and to return its recommendations to this Board at the earliest possible date. Item 5.5. Copies of Planning Commission minutes for May 16 and May 30, 1995, received as information. Item 5.6. Copy of letter dated June 13, 1995 from Mr. Robert E. Martinez, Secretary of Transportation, to Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., County Executive, re: Meadow Creek Parkway, received for information, as follows: "June 13, 1995 Thank you for your letter of June 9 in which you requested that a representative of Albemarle County be allowed to address the 000086 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) Commonwealth Transportati6n B6ard regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway at its June 22 meeting. As you know, the meetings of the Commonwealth Transportation Board are open for public attendance, but they should not be confused with public hearings. The issue of the Meadow Creek Parkway is not scheduled to be on the Board's agenda at this time, and I am unable to grant your request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me." Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing on an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, by adding a parcel to Section 2.1.4(1), Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District. Proposed addition consists of 42.4 ac located on W sd of Rt 743 (Earlysville Rd) in Clover Hill & Ardwood Subd. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 30, 1995, unanimously recom- mended approval of this addition to the Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District. Mrs. Humphris read from Mrs. Fran Martin's letter (letter was presented to the Board prior to the meeting) who lives in Ardwood Subdivision. She said, "It is to our understanding that the 3.76 acre section of the Caplin property composed of Lot #14 will remain subject to the provisions of the deed covenant of the Ardwood Subdivision, as revised April 21, 1992. The other Ardwood residents have no objection to this designation as long as the restrictions in the deed are respected by the owners." Mrs. Humphris asked if Lot number 14 is included in the proposal. Mr. Cilimberg responded that Lot number 14 is not one of the lots included in the combination of lots that created the 42.4 acres according to the tax map. He pointed out that there were two tax maps attached to the staff's report showing all lots. It appears that Lot number 14 is closer to Hydraulic Road and Route 743. He said there is another Lot number 14 on the map, and it is located in the 42.4 acres as well. He cannot distinguish between the two Lot number 14's. There are two sections. Section one has a Lot number 14 that is part of the combination of lots. He assumes this is not the lot being referred to, and the lot being referred to is in section two which is closer to Route 743. With no further questions from the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m. Mrs. Frances Martin said she is the author of the letter that Mrs. Humphris quoted from. She said her subdivision has been led to believe that Lot number 14 in the Ardwood Subdivision is part of the tract in the proposal. Mrs. Thomas suggested that everyone look at the maps. She said both maps reflect a Lot number 14. She asked Mrs. Martin which Lot number 14 is the relevant lot. Mrs. Martin said it is the Lot number 14 that is located at Willowbrook Road. She said her concern is that there may be an effort to build a road across Lot number 14 leading to the other properties. This is contrary to the deed restrictions of Ardwood Subdivision which say that no lot may be used to build a road to any property outside of Ardwood. At the homeowner's meeting, it was mentioned that the County Attorney said this land would still be subject to the deed restriction. If this is the case, then there is no objection. However, if this is not the case, this project could be detrimental to the Ardwood subdivision if a road is built through the subdivision to the property outside of Ardwood especially if that property is developed in the future. Mr. Davis said Board action will not supersede the deed restriction. Whatever the private rights under the deed restriction are, they will remain regardless of the action taken pertaining to the Agricultural and Forestal District. Mrs. Thomas asked if an easement or Agricultural and Forestal District supersedes a deed restriction. Mr. Davis said "no", it does not. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:28 p.m. Motion was offered by Mrs. Thomas, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt an ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestal District, by adding a parcel to Section 2.1.4(1), Panorama Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below. ORDINANCE NO. 95-2.1(5) 000087 June 14, 1995 (Regular N±ght Meet±rig) (Page 8) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDA~N CHAPTER 2.1, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS, SECTION 2.1.4, DISTRICTS DESCRIBED, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 2.1, Agricultural and Forestat Districts, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2.1.4(1), Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District, as follows: Sec. 2.1-4. Districts described. (1) The district known as the "Panorama Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described properties: Tax map 31, parcel 23A; tax map 44, par- cels 9A, 9C, 12, 12Q; tax map 45, parcel 1; tax map 45A, parcel 27, section 1. Agenda Item No. 7. SP-95-09. Darton Greist, III. Public Hearing on a request for stream crossing in flood plain on approx 36.3 ac zoned RA located on E sd of Rt 722 approx 1.25 mi S of Rt 723. TM133,P3 (part of). Scott- sville Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 16, 1995, by a vote of 6:0:1 recommended approval of this special use permit, subject to five conditions. Mr. Perkins asked where the stream crossing is located. Mr. Cilimberg showed on a map where the stream crossing is located as well as the location of roads. With no further questions from the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Mr. Robert Nitzer said he is the agent for the applicant who is out of town. He asked for questions. There were none. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:34 p.m. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve SP-95-09 subject to the five conditions as recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1. Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment; 2. Albemarle County Engineering approval of the final culvert crossing plans. These plans must clearly show the before and after construction one hundred year flood evaluations and boundaries; 3. Albemarle County Engineering receipt of proof of compliance with Federal and State agencies regulating activities af- fecting wetlands and water courses. The applicant is en- couraged to contact the Federal and State agencies in the early stages of the design process; 4. Albemarle County Engineering approval of hydrologic and hydraulic computations. The computations must demonstrate compliance with sections 30.3.2.2 and 30.3.3 of the Zoning Ordinance; 5. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan or a single family erosion control agreement. Agenda Item No. 8. ZMA-95-05. Woodbriar Associates. Public Hearing on a request for relief of Proffer 12 of ZMA-9t-13, Woodbriar Associates, in order to allow relief of phasing requirement and clarification of phase completion, zoned PRD. Property on W side of Rt 29N approx 1 mi N of North Fork Rivanna River. TM32,Pl&TM32G,S3,PsA&83. Rivanna District. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1995.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file in the Clerk's Office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. The Planning Commission, at its meeting on May 30, 1995, by a vote of 5:0:1 recommended approval of this request, subject to changes in Agreements #12 and #8. He said the applicant requests relief as to the order of phasing and the limits on the number of phases under development at a single time. This item 0000 t8 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) was deferred to allow staff and the applicant to investigate possible methods of rearranging the phases and to allow fOr the construction of infrastructure improvements in advance of phases where active residential development was occurring~. The current agreements for this project states "No more than two phases shall be under simultaneous development." The applicant has stated that the limitation on the number of phases under development disrupts the flow of the development by not allowing for construction of infrastructure improvements which are necessary to allow for the residential development to proceed. In addition, the order of the completion of the phases does not allow for response to the market place by allowing for the various products available in Briarwood to be developed according to market demand. With no questions from the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Mr. Wendell Wood, applicant, said without this approval the infrastruc- ture cannot be done which, in effect, will mean there are no houses to sell. He said his company has not built anything since December, 1994. As of the end of next month, there will be no houses available for sale until May, 1996. He said his company is facing approximately a $2.0 million loss in sales and that 35 people may be laid off. Approval of this petition is a necessity. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 7:40 p.m. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to approve ZMA-95-05, as recommended by the Planning Commission with amendments in Agreements #12 and #8. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. (The amended Agreements are set out in full below.) Agreement #12: No more than two phases with signed site plans or subdivision plats shall be under simultaneous development. This phasing limitation shall not be interpreted as limiting the construction of infrastructure (roads, utilities, drainage, etc.). The devel- opment shall proceed in the following order: Phase 3A, 3B, 3C, the completion of Phase 7, IA, 6, 5 and 4. Phase lB may be developed following completion of Phase IA. Phase 8 shall not be subject to the phasing order. A phase shall be considered complete for purposes of satisfying phasing requirements when the following is complete: Ail public roads shown in the phase have been given final inspection by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Charlottesville Residency. A complete assembly package has been submitted to the residency. The mainte- nance fee has been paid and the one-year VDOT performance bond has been posted; All private roads shown in the phase have been completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer and all road bonds have been released; 3 o Ail necessary water and sewer lines shall have been installed and dedicated with the exception of individual connections. Agreement #8: Staff approval of recreational facilities to include: one tot lot with Phase 3C and one tot lot with Phase lB; the dedication of open space with the approval of Phases 4 and 5 for the passive recreational area which shall include construction of walking/ jogging trails; and, the primary recreation area south of Camelot shall be built or bonded for its construction prior to final plat approval of Phase 4. This recreational area shall be built prior to completion of Phase 4 and shall consist of a baseball/multi- purpose field, two basketball courts, playgroup equipment and picnic facilities. All recreation facilities shall be installed by the developer. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Tucker since this situation seems to be a matter of interpretation, if there is a way, in the future, when a proffer, rezoning request or special use permit is reviewed, if the process can be shortened and the problems resolved sooner. He said the applicant indicated that because he was not able to do the infrastructure and the other phases, some affordable housing may not be constructed. Mr. Tucker said staff has to make an effort in resolving these issues more quickly when they can. But, there are many factors that will need to be evaluated. Mr. Cilimberg said there was no staff or administrative discretion when reviewing this case. The County June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Me~ting) (Page 10) 000089 Attorney and the Zoning Administrator were actively involved in this process. In fact, the real need did not occur until the first Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 1995, where infrastructure became the immediate focus. This was deferred until staff could review the issues involved. It then proceeded quickly and was completed by May 23, 1995, by the Planning Commission and forwarded for the Board's review. Mrs. Humphris said it seems like a common sense solution now, but it seems to her, it was not so during the process. Based on the discussions, it really could not have moved more quickly. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending and reordaining Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate of the Code of Albemarle. This amendment would repeal the special classification for open space real estate for purposes of use value assessment and taxation. (Adver- tised in the Daily Progress on May 30 and June 6, 1995.) Mr. Davis said the County has established special classifications for real estate which allow for reduced real estate taxes for property being used for certain purposes. Currently, property in agricultural, horticultural, forestal or open space can qualify for land use assessment. Pursuant to the State Code, the County can, at the Board of Supervisor's discretion, designate which of the four classifications it wishes to include in the use value assessment ordinance. In evaluating the open space classification, some concerns have been identified. Under open space standards, five categories of land qualify for special assessment. These standards identify "open space" as (1) park or recreation lands; (2) conservation lands; (3) floodways; (4) historic or scenic areas; and (5) lands identified by the County for no development to assist the implementation of the land use plan. The County Assessor has provided information that no property other than land which would otherwise qualify for use value assessment presently benefits from the open space classification. All existing land classified as open space can either qualify as agricultural or forestal land or would continue to receive use value assessment because the property is under a permanent open space easement under the Open Space Land Act. This year, however, three applications have been received for properties which would not qualify for land use without open space classification. One application involves 43 acres that is being bush- hogged. The other two applications are golf courses and related facilities which are seeking land use as "park or recreation lands". If the open space classification is maintained, these applications must be reviewed for compli- ance with the general and specific standards for the open space classifica- tion. The park or recreation use standards specifically recognize privately owned golf clubs and country clubs as qualifying park or recreation lands. If these properties can otherwise meet the open space standards, they would have to be accepted into the land use program. Staff's recommendation of the proposed ordinance would eliminate the special classification for open space for purposes of use value assessment and taxation. The effect would be that only open space land consisting of 20 or more acres subject to a permanent easement pursuant to the Open Space Land Act would continue to qualify for open space use value assessment. The adoption of the proposed ordinance would preclude the necessity for consideration of those applications proposing to qualify land for open space value assessment for tax year 1995. The ordinance does not affect the current land use program as it applies to agricultural, horticultural or forestal lands. Mr. Marshall asked if a little league ball team would qualify for land use taxation under Virginia law. Mr. Davis said yes. Under the Virginia Open Space Land Act, a permanent easement can be provided to a qualifying public body which could be the Virginia Outdoors Foundation or the Albemarle Public Recreational Authority. If these organizations accepted an easement for that property, it could qualify for open space and could receive special assessment under the State Code, whether or not there is an open space classification. Those entities which grant easements to qualifying public bodies would continue to get the open space taxation break. Mr. Marshall asked who the easement would be granted to. Mr. Davis said to the public body. What the easement will say is that the property will not be more intensely developed and will continue to be used for one of the categories that qualify for open space. Within the open space category, parks and recreation land is a qualifying use. If the land is used as a baseball field and as a surrounding buffer, that would be a qualifying use, if the public body accepts that easement. Mr. Marshall said what he had been led to believe is not true. If the Board decides to keep the open space category, the Board does not have to grant either one of the golf courses what they want to get special treatment. They can be disallowed because they are not public, but private, and do not fit into this category. Mr. Davis said the test is whether or not the golf courses are open for public or community use. Across the State, the interpre- tation has been that private country clubs are open for community use, therefore, they do qualify for open space consideration if they meet other required standards. This issue is one that the Board must carefully consider when reviewing these applications in order to determine whether or not these golf courses are open for community use. Although there are many private golf courses with limited membership, that does not necessarily mean that they are not open for community use. The predominant viewpoint across the State is that it is for community use and this does not disqualify them. Mr. Marshall asked if the Board decides to keep the open space category and not allow special use taxation to applicants, if the County could be taken to court. 0000 0 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) Mr. Davis said if an application is denied solely on that issue, it would be an issue that would have to be litigated. There are other standards set forth in the regulations that would need to be met. The primary standard is whether. or not the open space use, such as golf courses, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for specific applications. If the Board determined that the Comprehensive Plan did not support golf courses in those locations and that preserving them is not what the Comprehensive Plan prescribed, then the Board can deny an application for that reason. Mr. Marshall asked how the Board can do this in Glenmore's case. Mr. Davis said Glenmore was approved as a planned community and a decision was made to accept a golf course as part of the planned community, so this would be an issue that would be difficult to deal with. With no further comments made by the Board, Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Thomas Lewis said he shared Mr. Marshall's concern about probable litigation by Glenmore or Farmington. Part of the reason for the open space classification is to prevent development of these areas in the County. It seems to him that since Glenmore is "a golf community" and so is Farmington, the way to prevent them from obtaining this special tax rate is by eliminating this classification. He thinks it should be eliminated because the County may have to spend a lot of money in the future in some type of litigation which may drag out indefinitely and will cost even more money in the long run. He does not believe there will not be any major adverse reactions in eliminating this classification. He requested that the Board not approve these applica- tions because it would be subsidizing the wealthy at the expense of the tax payers. Mr. Tom Olivier said he is a resident of the Scottsville District, and he represents Citizens for Albemarle on this issue. Citizens of Albemarle urges that the open space category be retained in the land use taxation ordinance. The open space category provides a mechanism for protection of natural areas and historic sites. Such areas can contribute significantly to the common good, though income-generating potentials may be low to nonexis- tent. He said that Dr. Pete Myers noted the critical need to protect flora and fauna, i.e., biodiversity, and the habitats on which plants and animals depend. This need to protect flora and fauna is also described in the Open Space Plan. Unfortunately, the open space plan notes most of the techniques used for the protection of wildlife habitats are indirect. For example, agricultural and forestal districts are aimed primarily at protecting rural industries. However, in the section of the State Land Advisory Council Manual that deals with classification standards, it is explicitly stated that the open space category may be applied to lands dedicated to wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves, swamps, and similar natural areas. It is true that until now there has been little use of the open space designation. However, as this community seeks to better protect its biological resources, the value of this category and its utilization will increase. It is unfortunate that commercial golf courses are explicitly included in the State standards. The County Attorney should thoroughly explore all legal options for retention of the open space ordinance without committing the County to granting such designations to golf courses. He requested that the Board retain the open space category, even if it means the County will lose tax revenue from golf courses that seek protection under it. To repeal the entire category would amount to "throwing out the baby with the bath water." Mr. Marshall said he wanted to keep the open space category, but he does not want to keep it at the cost of $100,000 to taxpayers in the County. He asked if there are ordinances already in place that will protect this catego- ry, such as the agricultural and forestal districts. Mr. Olivier said probably not. The agricultural and forestal districts were developed to protect rural industry. Much of the Comprehensive Plan deals with protecting rural industry. On the other hand, residents care deeply about green spaces. Mr. Perkins said landowners have the right to place their land under the forestal use category. There is no requirement that residents have to harvest timber at any time. Mr. Olivier said a concern is that someone might imply that if this is being developed primarily for industrial purposes, then one might stipulate that if residents have not timbered their land in a given number of years, they are violating the spirit of this type of protection. He said some areas may not be agricultural or forestal but may have valuable biological resources. There must be a way that this can be recognized. Mr. Perkins said the Endangered Species Act would probably take care of this. Mr. O~ivier said the Act does not protect communities and that is a problem. There are federal regulations which deal with some of these issues, but in terms of protecting communities they do not. One of the problems in the County is that many of the plants and animals are not endangered in the sense of becoming extinct but are still an essential part of the surroundings. He requested that the Board proceed with caution in dealing with this issue. Mr. Marshall said he received several telephone calls from people requesting that the Board not allow wealthy people who live on golf courses to maintain those golf courses at taxpayers expense. Make the people who belong to the clubs pay the bill. He asked how this can be done while keeping the Open Space category in place. Ms. Eleanor Santic said she is a citizen of Albemarle County. She said if the law on this issue was clear, no one would be here this evening. What seems apparent in the law apparently is not: what seems obvious, apparently June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) is not obvious. To compare a golf course to a farm seems quite silly. To consider that a golf course might take advantage of a forestal or horticultur- al designation is equally facetious. Trees create obstacles for the happy golfer, and flower beds would be hazards above and beyond. To suggest that a golf course constitutes a scenic addition to the public's view should also suggest that the public has access to the view proposed. The public may not picnic in these areas or enjoy the view while munching lunch. The public may not drive into these areas to park and sit and enjoy the view any time of day. The public is not invited to use these areas in any manner which gives them the freedom to enjoy the scenery at all. The law specifically states in the Open Space agreement that quote: "There shall be no construction or placement of fences, screens, hedges or other similar barriers which materially obstruct the public's view of scenic areas of the property." The law does allow golf courses under the section labeled "Specific Standards." The allowance is listed under "Parks or recreation use," on page 15. But, and she feels it is an important but, the first provision specifies "for public or community use, except any use operated with intent for profit." The second provision allows golf courses operated for profit, but adds "as a public service and having the park-like characteristics normally associated with a country club." Neither provision says "private country clubs." Neither provision says operated for profit where the public contributes to the profit. Mrs. Santic went on to say that there may be other arguments against granting these applications without eliminating the open space provision of the law. Access to public utilities, for example. Preservation of watershed areas would certainly not be one of the arguments because the carefully tended greens are not preserving the watershed. They are improved lands. Of course, logic might suggest that improved grounds constitute no reason for denial. Then perhaps all improved grounds in the County should have the same benefit. For example, every beautiful lawn on every lovely property should be consid- ered as Open Space. Certainly the lovely lawns of neighbors are far more accessible for public view than are the private entry grounds of these applicants. Logic and perhaps good sense should prevail in this situation. If the public contributes to the benefits, then the public should be able to pursue those benefits. If the public is not permitted to freely enjoy the benefits, then the public should not be asked to freely contribute to those benefits. She requested that the Board keep the open space category, but deny these applications. Mr. Steve Runkle said he represents the Kessler Group, and he is also a partner in Glenmore Associates. He prefaced his presentation by saying that if the Board does not think their application has any merit, the Kessler Group will voluntarily withdraw its request and guarantee that they will not sue the County. He said it is the desire of Glenmore Associates that the Board consider their input before making a judgement. Much has been said in the media about the Glenmore Associates' application for land use, projected tax 'savings to Kessler, and why the application for land use for a golf course/country club has no merit. He asked to explain, to provide some rationale for the application, and to provide a perspective of land taxation at Glenmore. Mr. Runkle said during 1989, the Rivanna Growth Area was approved by the Board. A significant reason for the approval of the Rivanna Growth Area, and the subsequent rezoning of Glenmore in late 1990, was their argument that large, amenity-based projects could move single family residential development from rural to growth areas, and thus preserve rural areas. In fact, the Kessler Group can show that Forest Lakes has been responsible for shifting approximately 20 percent of new single family detached housing from rural areas to a growth area. The master plan submitted as part of the Glenmore rezoning to Planned Residential Development (PRD) envisioned a very large proportion of the land being reserved for non-residential uses including golf, equestrian and open space. The residential development was only about 50 percent of the total 1150 acres in the PRD. Given the proffered maximum number of lots of 750, the average lot size would be less than two-thirds of an acre. Yet, because of the amenities and open space, they felt that they could create value in the lots and could draw development from much larger lot, rural area developments. Mr. Runkle said that in the referenced master plan: (1) 567 acres were estimated for roads and residential development areas (the numbered acres) including common space to be deeded to the Community Association; (2) 176 acres were estimated for the golf course, club facilities, and golf mainte- nance facilities; (3) 38 acres were designated as equestrian area; and (4) 360 acres (the remainder) were designated as other open space. He then made reference to a map that highlighted numbers 1-4. He said that 54 acres were not included in the PRD, six acres were given for a fire station, and 27 acres for a school or other public use. The application for land use was intended for a golf course, club and equestrian areas, or 568 acres. In other words, the application was for the amenities and Open Space provides this as part of the project and creates the value into relatively small lots, and the competi- tive advantage necessary to draw single family residential development from larger lot, rural areas. Mr. Runkle provided history regarding Glenmore. Work began on the first phase, 314 lots, in the spring of 1992. Those 314 lots consisted of 70 of what is known as cottage lots, averaging about 0.25 acre and 244 regular lots averaging about two-thirds of an acre. Since that time, an additional 98 regular lots have been developed, but no additional cottage lots. From May of June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) 000092 1992 through the end of 1994, 257 regular lots and 52 cottage lots, or 309 in total were sold. Current prices average about $75,000 for a cottage lot and $115,000 for a regular lot. He then presented four tables that explained this data. Table One represents the building permit data for the years 1984-1994, for single family detached houses. From 1984-1987, only 25 to 30 percent of single family home permits were in growth areas. Forest Lakes began in late 1988, and in the years 1989 through 1992 about 45 to 50 percent of single family permits were in growth areas, or an increase of about 20 percent. Glenmore lot sales began in 1992, and by 1994, Glenmore accounted for 15 percent. Clearly, the desired result of drawing single family homes out of rural areas is occurring, and the trend should be even more pronounced as more of the lots already sold in Glenmore are built on (through 1994, 309 lots were sold, but only 133 building permits were issued). Table Two showed some of the larger lot developments Glenmore competes against in the rural areas. While these do not represent 100 percent of what is available, they do demonstrate the primary distinction - larger lot size without open space or project amenities such as golf, tennis, swimming, and equestrian facilities. In fact, had the 309 Glenmore lots sold through 1994 averaged the lot size, the total acreage utilized would have been about 2500 acres. For 750 lots, the total lots allowed at Glenmore, the acreage utilized would be about 6225 acres, or over five times the size of Glenmore. Mr. Runkle continued by saying that Tables Three(a) and Three(b) contain land tax assessment information and the estimated projected tax savings if their application is approved. It does not include improvements. The 1989 assessment occurred prior to the purchase in November of 1989, and averaged about $1100 per acre. In December of 1989, the Rivanna Growth area was approved, and in December of 1990, the rezoning of Glenmore as a PRD was approved. The 1991 assessment increased the average per acre value to about $2500. In 1991, soon after approval of the rezoning, all roll-back taxes were paid for the years 1986-1990. By the time of the 1993 assessment, the tax map parcels had been combined and renumbered to reflect the PRD and other parcels. The only significant deviation in acreage was in "other open". The reason for that deviation is that about forty acres originally classified as "other open" became common area to be deeded to the Community Association, thus increasing the "residential" designation by a like amount. Those forty acres remain as Open Space, but are classified differently. The total assessed value for developed lots of $27.0 million in 1993 and $45.0 million in 1995, are estimates based on the assessments of lots still owned by Glenmore Associates, but are felt to be accurate to within plus or minus ten percent. Please note that the average per acre assessment for land utilized for developed lots including roads and common areas now average more than $125,000/acre. For a two-acre rural area lot this value would equate to $250,000, for five acres $625,000, and the eight acres average $1.0 million. He said one must question what causes such high relative values in Glenmore. He also noted that by 1995, the average per acre assessment for the land used for nonresidential uses (golf, equestrian and open) had increased to $6523 or 154 percent of the 1993 assessment. Mr. Runkle said pertinent issues relative to the values assigned to the land utilized for nonresidential uses as well as to land use applications are as follows: (1) 750 lots have been proffered. Changing the designation of land use within the PRD does not increase the number of development rights. The $15,000 per acre assessment on golf and equestrian land is a value for residential development property; (2) At least 30 percent of the golf course is in the flood plain, and probably at least that much of the "other open" is in the flood plain; (3) What distinguishes "equestrian" from "other open" other than the designation? Often there is little or no physical difference in the land; (4) Approximately 30 acres of the "other open" land has been reserved as a 100 foot greenbelt along the Rivanna River, and agreed to be given to the County at its request; (5) Should any of the "other open" or "equestrian" lands be designated common area and deeded to the Community Association, it would not be taxed; and (6) Improvements to the golf course land, i.e. construction of tees, sand traps, greens, and fairways, have been assessed at $3,150,000. In other words, the total assessment for the golf course is $5,706,500. Mr. Runkle said Table Three(b) also contains the estimate of projected tax savings under land use. He said he has been told by the Assessor's office that in Albemarle County, a use value of $380 to $510 is normally used for agricultural land or open space, $160 for forestry, and a statewide value of $2000 for a golf course. The lower values suggested were used in the estimate since the lower value would estimate the highest potential savings. Also, for "other open" a blended rate was used since some of the land is open and some is wooded. Obviously, the actual tax savings would be a function of the values agreed to and the acreage those values are applied to. He said it is worth noting that the projected savings represent about 5.5 percent of the total tax on the land'of $388,357. Assuming no change in value from the 1995 assessment, at completion of the 750 lot Glenmore project, the estimated savings would represent about 3.5 percent of the total tax on the 1144 acres in the PRD. Mr. Runkle said in conclusion, the application is allowable under the existing code. As stated therein, "Real estate devoted to Open Space use shall mean real estate used as provided or preserved for park or recreational purposes, or assisting in the shaping of the character, direction and timing of community development or for the public interest and consistent with the local land use plan .... " He said this is one possible incentive that is 000093 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) available to promote the stated land use goals of the County and he thinks it should be allowed. Mr. Frank Kessler said he is with Glenmore Associates. He said the media, over the past two weeks, has painted Glenmore Associates as "fat cats" who do not want to pay their taxes and who are trying to beat the County out of something. He said his organization is a "giver and not a taker." In 1994, in the County's general budget, $309,000 plus interest was proffered by Glenmore, through no requirement by this Board, because there was a question of what the effect Glenmore would have on the schools. He said land was donated for a fire house as well as land for a schoOl site. Taxes are currently being paid on the school site until the County accepts the land. It was pointed out by engineers when they built a tertiary plant that if ultravi- olet was used it would be better for the community rather than chlorine. The decision was made to do that, which cost an additional $400,000. This does not consider the waterline to the growth area. Total contribution thus far is in excess of $3.5 million. He said he supports Mr. Runkle's statement that if the Board does not think their application has any merit, the Kessler Group will voluntarily withdraw its request and will guarantee that they will not sue the County. He said despite the Board's decision, his organization will continue, as it has in the past, to work very hard to accomplish the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, in particular, preserving the rural areas. Ms. Sherry Buttrick said she lives in the White Hall District, and she is located in the Open Space. She likes the open space category because it suits the particular goals she has for the land she owns. She is interested in small game management and restoring a farm. The open space category is consistent and supportive of the goals in the Comprehensive Plan. The category also allows, in addition to its merit on a biological basis, for preservation of a resource base for forestry and agricultural use in the future. It seems to her that the larger conceptual question in front of the Board is whether this category is in the public interest for the County. The Board should not make a decision based on a future application that, as yet, has not been explored. She said the two golf course applications are complex issues. The standards in the State Code are not clear on this issue. The question as to the public dimension of the golf courses is not clear in the way it is written. It says land which is public, private, or semi-private and operated on a nonprofit basis or is operated for profit may generally be supportive and consistent of the Comprehensive Plan. The two golf course applications need to be investigated on their own merit and without the fear of possible future litigation. She requested that the Board focus on whether the open space category is conceptually a good thing for this County and whether it is in the public interest to have such a thing. Mr. Kevin Cox said he is very interested in this issue. He supports the retention of the Open Space category. It has the potential for improving the environment and when used with the Agricultural and Forestal Districts, it can have a significant impact on land speculation in the County. As the Director of Planning pointed out in his memo, the Open Space category is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and it is the best planning tool available to the Board. He said there are methods of keeping the golf courses out of the land use program without eliminating the Open Space category. Three years ago he went to Prince William County to speak out against a golf course that had applied for a Comprehensive Plan amendment in order to stay in use value taxation. The assessor determined that the golf course did not conform to the county's Comprehensive Plan, so the golf course was removed from the Plan. The board members went back to the county and requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment and it was denied. It is still a golf course, but it is now paying fair market taxes and it is not in the land use program. If it can work there, it can work here. The Board can find rational justifications for amending the Comprehensive Plan designations of these two applications. He said after reviewing the standards of classification, the standards are clear that the Board can simply say no without changing the Comprehensive Plan. The classification is for golf courses operated for profit as a public service. Glenmore and Farmington are not operated as a public service. The classifica- tion further includes public, semi-public, or privately owned park, play- ground, or similar recreational area for public or community use. It is likely that Glenmore and Farmington will say they are communities and the golf courses are for community use. They are not communities but subdivisions of a larger community. Mr. Cox read from J. Paxton Marshall's, Extension Economist for Public Policy, letter that "a board of supervisors may elect to act to enter into Open-space Use Agreements with owners of qualifying land seeking to obtain the benefits available to land in the Open-space Class. Though judgments differ, my judgment is, and that of other persons who deal with this matter profes- sionally is, that there is no requirement tha~ a board of supervisors ever enter into an Open-space Agreement with any requesting owner of land that either clearly qualifies or marginally qualifies for the Open-space Class." He said the Board has the discretion to say "no" He went on to read "This view of discretion is clearly subject to being contested in Court." He said "so be it", let the judge decide. He further read "a board of supervisors may choose among the subclasses of Open-space Class land when entering into Open- space Use Agreements with the objective and purpose of achieving locally determined land-use goals. Five subclasses are within the Open-space Class. They are: (a) Park or recreation use; (b) Conservation of land or other natural resources; (c) Floodway; (d) Historic or Scenic Areas; and (e) Assisting in the shaping of the character, direction and timing of community June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) 000094 development, or for the public interest." He said this Board can pick and choose among the five subclasses. He continued to read that "a board of supervisors clearly has the authority to act at its discretion to amend the local comprehensive plan so that said plan will provide that land being used in specifically designated ways or devoted to specifically designated uses will not qualify for the Open-space Class." He requested that the Board require landowners who want to get into the land use program to either enter into the Open-space category or in the Agricultural and Forestal District. He said the County wants to control growth, but instead the County has the most liberal and most generous give away policy that the State allows. This is the County's chance to add to its collection of land use regulations and to use tax relief as an incentive to preservation. He requested that the Board review all of the alternatives before eliminating this valuable category. Mr. Davis said the letter from Mr. Paxton Marshall is in each board member's packet. He said he had extensive conversations with Mr.' Marshall on these topics exploring in detail all the potential alternatives that might be available. Mr. Marshall provided four potential alternatives that the Board may want to consider. The first and last alternative are clear-cut alterna- tives. The first alternative repeals the Open-space classification. The last alternative amends the Comprehensive Plan to clarify that golf courses or any type of use that is not appropriate for Open-space is not in the Comprehensive Plan. The second and the third alternatives, which Mr. Cox mentioned, are not clear-cut alternatives. In fact, the majority of lawyers who have dealt with this issue will say those alternatives are not available. The reason for this is that the State Code says that the Open Space Ordinance, once it is adopted, has to be uniformly applied throughout the Commonwealth implementing the rules and regulations that have been permitted. The argument is that if one elects to simply not agree to any agreement, no matter what the circumstances are, that can be argued to be inconsistent with the State Code and the regulations because that is an option that is specifically set forth for localities to use when considering whether or not to accept properties into the Open Space Land Use Category. It is the same thing with the third alternative. If the Board picks and chooses among the subclasses, the definition in the State Code specifically says that all of the subclasses are qualified land uses for open space. If Albemarle County, alone, picks and chooses which of those it can apply, that would not be a uniform application state wide. There would be some doubt as to whether or not the uniformity requirement would be met by the second and third alternative. He said that Mr. Paxton Marshall agrees with this assessment. However, Mr. Marshall feels that all options should be explored because this issue has not been litigated. Mr. Forrest Marshall asked if it is the consensus of the Board to amend~ the Comprehensive Plan, would that have to be done before this ordinance can be voted on. Mr. Davis said if the last alternative is considered, which is to amend the Comprehensive Plan, the Board will need to do the amendment before the Board can consider the applications that have been made for open space this year. Mr. Marshall asked if this item needs to be deferred. Mr. Davis said if the Board is considering the last alternative, the Board would simply not adopt this ordinance. The Board would then review the applications as to whether or not it would be appropriate to enter into Open Space Land Use Agreements with those applicants. Mr. Marshall said he is still not clear as to how the Comprehensive Plan amendment will be done. Mr. Davis and Mr. Tucker both said it would be a separate action by the Board. Mr. Marshall then asked how this would legally affect the County as to the two golf courses presently being considered. Mr. Davis said the Board would have to defer consideration of the applications until it has made a Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mrs. Thomas asked if it would be arbitrary to amend the Comprehensive Plan after the Board has received the two applications. Mr. Davis said the Board has the option to amend the Comprehensive Plan at its discretion. There is no immediate need to review the two applications which must be reviewed prior to the assessment office sending bills for this tax year. However, there is some time constraint. It should be done before late summer to meet the assessment office's schedule. If the Board is to consider a'Comprehensive Plan amendment, it must be done quickly. Mrs. Mary Scott Birdsall said she is not competent to speak regarding the confusion that seems to surround this issue. She supports the retention of the open space category and requests that the Board consider all alterna- tives before making a decision. She feels that open space should be left to the private landowners who will decide what they want to do with it. It is a shame that the benefits which the open space category have should be held hostage to the fear of class war issues and class war rhetoric. It would be regrettable to remove from the County's options, the concepts which the term open space represents. She requested that the Board "keep the baby in that bath water", and give this issue further consideration. Ms. Babette Thorpe, with the Piedmont Environmental Council, said instead of reading the letter signed by their attorney, Mr. Tim Lindstrom, that was presented with the staff report in each board member's packet, she requested that the Board read the legal opinion on the open space category. She then asked for questions. There were none. (The letter is on file in the Clerk's office.) With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 8:57 p.m. June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 16) Mrs. Humphris said she is willing to discuss this request but she feels overwhelmed by the pages and pages of information received. She said she needed to read and further comprehend the issues, and that she is not prepared to vote tonight. Mrs. Thomas said this speaks well of the community in spending hours working and trying to understand the law as well as trying to meet the long range needs of the County. The land use tax program is an important part of meeting the County's long range needs. Whether it can be done with this open space category, which is needed, or what the impact is of other actions that might follow from that is not known. She said she is not prepared to make a motion, but encourages discussion instead. She recommends that a decision be made at the Board's next meeting. Although there are some time constraints so the Assessor can get the tax bills out in a timely manner, the Board does not have to make a decision this minute. Mr. Bowerman said he supports Mrs. Thomas, but feels that his mind has been sufficiently influenced by the materials received to think that the evidence is heavily on the side of supporting the open space category. Future applications can be dealt with on an individual basis. The overall benefit to the community is significant. Mrs. Humphris said she agreed with Mr. Bowerman. She said she supports keeping the open space category. It is important now and will be even more important in the future. (Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin left at 9:00 p.m. Mr. Martin returned at 9:03 p.m. Mr. Marshall returned at 9:04 p.m.) Mr. Martin said the Board is often accused of having its mind made up prior to a public hearing. This is one of those cases. He came to the meeting prepared to eliminate the open space category. Now, he has changed his mind completely and supports this issue. Mr. Marshall said he wants to keep the open space category too. However, he does not want golf courses included in this category. Mr. Kessler interjected that it includes more than golf courses. He has over 500 acres in consideration of open space. He said this issue is confusing. He encourages the Board to investigate this issue further before making a decision. Mr. Perkins said one of two things can be done: (1) take no action, or (2) defer action. Mr. Davis said he wanted to make a statement. While Mr. Kessler is promising not to sue the County, there is an issue that has not been discussed with Mr. Kessler or Mr. Runkle because their application has not been significantly reviewed. There is a provision in the State Code that deals with land use which will have an impact on their application. The State Code says any land which is rezoned to a more intense use is ineligible for open space even though the use does not change. This is the case for much of the property involved in the Glenmore application. The land which is actually being reserved in open space such as the flood plain and buffer areas which are set out in the Plan, has been rezoned to a more intensive land use category and is ineligible for land use classification. The only part of Glenmore's application that may be eligible is that land which is developed because of the rezoning and that is the golf course. It seems that the golf course is the only part of the property that might be eligible for open space. The rest, because of the State Code, is ineligible. Mrs. Humphris asked Mr. Davis what the appropriate action should be. If it is the consensus of the Board to not amend the ordinance, does the Board need to make a motion to that effect. Mr. Davis said if the Board is ready to make a decision, a motion would be in order to not adopt this ordinance. This would end this matter, but if the Board later changed its mind it would have to be readvertised for another public hearing. Mr. Marshall said he thought there is already an open space category. Mr. Tucker said this ordinance will eliminate it. Mr. Perkins asked if there will be additional information sent to the Board within the next two weeks that would change anything. Mr. Davis said the Board is aware of all the issues. What this means is that the Board will have three applications that the Assessor's office will have to review for compliance with the open space standards. Two of those applications, unless circumstances change, will not be eligible unless they enter into open space land use agreement with the Board. He assumes that the applicants for those two uses will ask the Board to enter into an agreement. If so, that question will have to be placed on a future Board agenda. The Board will then have to determine whether or not it is eligible or desirable to enter into an agree- ment. At this time, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, not to adopt the ordinance which was advertised. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. (The Board recessed at 9:12 p.m. and reconvened at 9:25 p.m.) 000096 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 17) Agenda Item No. 10. Public Hearing to consider an ordinance amending and reordaining Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors. This amendment will increase the Board's compensation from $9,095.00 per year to $9,368.00 per year. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on May 29 and June 5, 1995.) Mr. Tucker summarized the ordinance amendment which is on file in the Clerk's office and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. Mr. Perkins opened the public hearing at 9:24 p.m. Mr. Rob Watson said he has been involved in the public policy process at the federal, local and state level for over 20 years. In his opinion, that past, present and future boards are not in public life for the money. He would rather think that most of the board members are in it for civic respon- sibilities and to influence the outcome of public policy regardless of their bent on the issues. He feels that some members may need compensation to campaign or may need the compensation to serve. These are critical times in trying to attract supervisors who have good judgement to enact a fiscal policy, and to enact sound future planning policies. The salaries are woefully low. The time spent and the responsibilities that the Board has certainly is not reflected in the current salary level. A three percent raise is not realistic but that is the number that is on the table. He encourages the Board to adopt this raise and to continue with future pay increases. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Mrs. Humphris said salaries should remain realistic and should reflect, in some small part, the demands of the job. The amount of money should be barely enough to attract good candidates to run for the position and to serve, but not enough so that anybody would run for it just because of the amount of the compensation. Therefore, she believes that the three percent increase is just and should be considered every year. Mr. Martin said he has voted consistently against any salary increase in the past. Now in his fourth year, he has come to believe as Mrs. Humphris does that there needs to be a minor increase each year so that the salary does not become so far behind that at some point a large increase is needed which the public may object to. He said again he has voted consistently against this, but now is adopting a philosophy of voting for it in the future as long as it is at a minor rate that keeps the salary in line. Mrs. Thomas said the supervisors' salary has not been raised in three years. This increase amounts to one percent a year for the past three years. Mr. Marshall said he is not supporting the pay increase because he never has. Although he does not disagree with it, he has another reason why he does not want to support it. He said he has had to downsize his business and that he has not been able to give his employees a pay raise. He said he was reluctant in voting staff a pay increase, and he does not feel good in voting himself a raise when not being able to provide something for his employees. Mr. Bowerman said he agreed with Mr. Marshall's position on this issue and that he will vote to support him. However if it passes, especially if he and Mr. Marshall vote against it, he will not accept the increase. Mr. Marshall said he will do the same. Mr. Bowerman said he will vote for the increase, and what he is saying is that if a Board member does not support this increase, then he/she should not go along with the rest of the Board. Mr. Marshall said the raise will not make much difference anyway. Mr. Bowerman said he asked Mr. Tucker if there was a mechanism in place that if somebody votes against the raise, he/she can donate the money back to the County. Mr. Tucker said either that or the payroll system can be programmed to where the raise will not go into effect. Mr. Marshall said he cannot accept the raise in good conscience and asked that his portion go to other Board members. Mrs. Humphris said this request is not based on individual need or circumstance. It is based on the job and what the job requires to attract qualified people to do it. The Supervisors who are not going to be in office forever~ have to consider future members and their needs. Mr. Marshall said he could not in good conscience vote himself a raise and not be able to give a raise to his employees. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Marshall's circumstances may be different from what others in the County are. Mr. Marshall said exactly. Whoever replaces him on the Board can do whatever he/she wants. Mr. Perkins said small salary increases are needed and that he supported this increase in 1991 and does now in 1995. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to adopt an ordinance amending and reordaining Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, of the Code of Albemarle, in Section 2-2.1, Compensation of Board of Supervisors. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Martin and Perkins. NAYS: Mr. Marshall. June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 18) 000097 (Note: The ordinance, as adopted, is set out in full below.) O R D I N A N C E N O. 95-2 (1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 2, ADMINISTRATION, ARTICLE I, IN GENERAL, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that Chapter 2, Administration, Article I, In General, is hereby amended and reordained by amending Section 2-2.1, Compensation of board of supervisors, as follows: Sec. 2-2.1. Compensation of board of supervisors. The salary of the board of supervisors is hereby set as follows: Nine thousand three hundred sixty-eight dollars and no cents ($9368.00) for each board member; provided, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the vice-chairman shall receive a stipend of thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for each and every meeting chaired; provided, further, that in addition to his/her regular salary, the chairman shall receive a stipend of one thousand eight hundred dollars ($1,800.00). Agenda Item No. 11. (Moved to Item 5.4a on Consent Agenda.) Agenda Item No. 12. Approval of Minutes: April 7, 1993; April 19 and May 10, 1995. Mr. Marshall read the April 19, 1995, minutes and found an error on page 9. The first word in the first paragraph needs to be corrected to reflect that Mrs. Thomas made the remark rather than Mrs. Humphris. Mr. Bowerman had read April 7, 1993, pages 1 19 and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mrs. Thomas, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 13a. Cancel June 21, 1995 Board meeting. See other matters not listed on the agenda from the board. Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said the Board has, in its packet, two letters. One letter is drafted for the Chairman's signature regarding the Commonwealth Transporta- tion Board's (CTB) final public hearing on the Primary and Interstate Highway System Budget that occurred on June 12, 1995. The letter says that the Meadow Creek Parkway is the County's highest priority which is similar to the language presented in Culpeper this year. At the end of last week, two board members, staff from the CTB and County staff met to see how to get this project into the CTB's consideration. The CTB feels the cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway is extremely high. The virginia DePartment of Transportation (VDOT), and staff will investigate ways to reduce the cost of the Meadow Creek Parkway. This will be fast-tracked and recommendations will be made in the spring of 1996, so that the County can make a presentation at the next preallocation hearing in Culpeper. One way to reduce cost is to eliminate the grade-separated interchange at Route 29 and Rio Road for the time-being, if the County had the right-of-way dedication, or if initially two-lanes are build rather than four lanes. Mr. Tucker said the second letter refers to certain Board members being allowed to make a presentation to the CTB on June 22, 1995, regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Martinez faxed back a response that the CTB meeting on June 22, 1995, is open to the public but is not a public hearing. The Meadow Creek Parkway is not on their agenda and he denied the County's request for a presentation. Mr. Martin requested that the Board institute a zoning text amendment to include "commercial stables" as a use in the rural areas district. He then offered a motion to adopt the following resolution of intent. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowerman. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 19) 000098 NAYS: None. RESOLUTION OF INTENT BE IT RESOLVED for purposes of public necessity, conve- nience, general welfare, and good zoning practice, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related thereto. Mrs. Thomas said the Planning District Commission chose her to be its Chairman. As Chairman, she will be signing the Regional Economic Development Partnership paperwork for the Commission. She noted that Albemarle COunty is not a member. Mrs. Humphris provided to Mr. Tucker a transcript of the CTB meeting in Richmond on April 19, 1995, regarding the work session on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Mr. Marshall thanked the Parks and Recreation division for the beautiful job that is being done maintaining the median strips on Route 20. He request- ed that in next year's budget some money be allocated for flower beds. He said this is the number one entrance corridor to the community and it says what Charlottesville/Albemarle is like. Mr. Bowerman said he had two members of the African/American community talk to him today about a meeting that the Monticello Area Community Action Agency (MACAA) is sponsoring. He said he would ask if they could use the County Office Building, at no cost, since it is a public function. He will obtain the date and will make arrangements. Mr. Bowerman mentioned that at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 29 North, the outside light bulbs can be seen and they are bright. He asked that in the site plan ordinance lighting requirements, if there would be a way to ensure that no direct outside lighting source be seen. He suggested that a casing around the light source might assist in reducing complaints. Mr. Perkins said he had a statement he wanted to read. "This Board has discussed the possibility of retaining Mr. Richard Cranwell as legal counsel to represent Albemarle County in the on-going reversion discussion with the City of Charlottesville. The Board believes this action is neces- sary as part of the sincere effort to convince the decision- makers in the City to come to the table and negotiate with the County, in good faith, over reversion and related con- cerns. If Mr. Cranwell is retained, he should contact the Charlottesville City Attorney's office and agree upon the earliest possible date for the Board of Supervisors and the City Council to meet and discuss reversion face-to-face. This is necessary and essential in order to start the dia- logue between the County and City over reversion and other alternatives and to get concerns out onto the table and to the public. The Board has previously invited City Council to sit down and meet to discuss respective concerns. Unfor- tunately, City Council said they could not meet with the County in June. It is in the best interest of County and City residents and government to get together as soon as possible. Today, the Board renews this invitation to the City. Both localities have a long history of resolving differences without conflict. This was done in the 1980's with the revenue sharing agreement and the Board feels there is no reason why this matter cannot be resolved with the City in 1995." Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bowerman, to retain Richard Cranwell as legal counsel to represent Albemarle County in a discus- sion with the City of Charlottesville regarding the City's alleged wish to revert to town status. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. NAYS: None. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn to June 28, 1995. At 9:59 p.m., with no further business to come before the Board, motion was offered by Mr. Bowerman, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adjourn this meeting until June 21, 1995, at 000099 June 14, 1995 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 20) 5:00 p.m. in the County Office Building. carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Roll was called, and the motion Mrs. Thomas, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Perkins. None. Chairman