Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-08-11August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 1) 00000 1 A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on August 11, 1993, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville~ Virginia° PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Charlotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Walter F. Perkins. ABSENT: None. OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr. and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg. Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by the Chairman, Mr. Bowerman. Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence. Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the PUBLIC. Mr. Bill Haynie, Management Development Vice-President of the Char- lottesville/Albemarle Jaycees, presented a letter of thanks and a Certificate of Appreciation to the Board for adopting a Resolution of Support for the July 4th event at McIntire Park. Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the items on the consent agenda as information. Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain° None. Item 5.1. Copy of Planning Commission minutes for July 20, 1993, was received for information. Item 5.2. 1993 Second Quarter Building Report prepared by the Depart- ment of Planning and Community Development, received for information. Item 5.3. Copy of minutes of Board of Directors of the Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority for June 28, 1993, received for information. Item 5.4. Quarterly Environmental Report for the Thomas Jefferson Health District from April, 1993 to June, 1993, receiVed for information. Item 5.5. Quarterly Report of Services and Expenditures for JAUNT from October, 1992 to June~ 1993, received for information. Agenda Item No. 6. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission to receive presentation from Sverdrup Corporation on the Meadow Creek Parkway. (Planning Commission members present were: (Mrs. Ellen Anderson, Mr. Thomas Blue, Mr. Phil Grimm, Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle, Messrs. Tom Jenkins, Walter Johnson and Bill Nitchmann.) Mr. Bowerman said this meeting had been scheduled so the two bodies could receive the consultant's report at the same time. No public comments will be taken tonight. This report will then go the Planning Commission who will decide if they want to hold work sessions. Present was Mr. Metcalf from Sverdrup who made the presentation. He said the Meadow Creek Parkway is a proposed four-lane controlled access highway connecting U. S. Route 29 and State Route 631 (Rio Road). It was Part of the County's 1982 Comprehensive Plan, the 1985 CATS study, and has been included in all subsequent studies. A little over a year ago, Sverdrup Corp. was asked to do an environmental and location study for the Meadow Creek Parkway from Rio Road to Route 29 North, and to include the Timberwood Connector which is also a part of the Comprehensive Plan and other studies. A connection from Rio Road south to the City of Charlottesville is a separate project and is not included in this study. The improvements recommended for further study are shown in Exhibit E-1. The primary purpose of the Meadow Creek Parkway will be to serve local commuting, shopping and recreational traffic. The Parkway will also serve through traffic~ although the Parkway is not being proposed as a bypass of Route 29. August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 2) 000002 AIRPORT W2 :~IVANNA ' · k~., FoF ~..,-.: '~, CARI%SBROOK ',Q% ,! FORES WOODBROOK /: '2. RECOMMENDED 15 OCT 92 RECOMMENDED NOT RECOMMENDED ON EXISTING ROW MEADOWCREEK PARKWAY STUDY ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES 1 OR/GIN. N. SIZE /iv .WCHE$ Exhibit E-1 The Meadow Creek Parkway Mainline will run from Route 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River to Rio Road. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, including the 'no build' alternative, for the mainline and recommended a combination of segments (See Exhibit E-i). These segments were presented to the public and the Board of Supervisors on October 15~ 1992. The Meadow Creek Parkway Study also includes a connection from the Meadow Creek Mainline to the residential areas of Forest Lakes and Hollymead. This connection, referred to as the Timberwood Connector, is included in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The study team evaluated a wide range of alternatives, including the 'no build~ alternative, and is recommending alternative Ti. Alternative T1 has similar traffic service to alternative T3~ with fewer environmental impacts and costs. Alternative T1 provides better August 11, 1993 (Regular Night ~eeting) (Page 3) '00O003 residential traffic service than alternative T4, and has far less environmen- tal impacts and costs than alternative T4. The Timberwood Connector alterna- tive locations are shown in Exhibit E-1. The need for a Timberwood Connector has been questioned, particularly by residents in the Forest Lakes and Hollymead residential areas. The residents object to the potential for external traffic to travel through their neighbor- hoods enroute to the Meadow Creek Parkway. If U. S. Route 29 between the South Fork and Route 649 (Airport Road) is projected to have insufficient capacity, then this traffic pattern may occur. With the planned improvements and projected growth, Route 29 is not expected to be over capacity by the year 2015. At this time, it is too early in the study process to discontinue the study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts which are not expected to occur. A connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway west of Route 29 was also studied. This connection, referred to as the Western Alternative, was proposed and studied not only to improve access to the Meadow Creek Parkway, but also as a possible substitute for the Timberwood Connector. Two alterna- tives were studied, a single roadway parallel to Route 29 (Wi), and the parallel roadway with an east-west connector (W2). The study team determined that although the Western Alternatives have merits on their own, they are not substitutes for a Timberwood Connector. Alternative W2 is recommended because it provides better access to Route 29 and the Meadow Creek Parkway with only slightly greater costs and impacts. Referring to the map, Mr. Metcalf said Alternative Bi has the advantage of following the existing corridor of the railroad; however, this alternative has more bridging to be constructed to cross the lowland terrain and the Rivanna River. In contract, Alternative B2 does not impact the Northfield residents and takes advantage of the higher terrain to make a Rivanna River crossing. In addition, B2 would provide a more scenic Parkway than Bi. The consultants feel the lower construction cost and the scenic route of B2, combined with a lesser impact on Northfield Subdivision, outweight the advantage of running parallel to the railroad, therefore, they recommend alternative B2. As to G1 vs G2 vs G4, the three alternatives have similar impacts. Alternative G4 stays east of the railroad and, as a result, impacts the Bentivar neighborhood more than G1 or G2. G1 and G2 are essentially the same corridor. The evaluation of G1 vs. G2 comes down to the shorter length of G1 vs. the higher ground of G2. The ridge that G2 uses would result in an easier to construct and more scenic Parkway, however, the Parkway would be more obtrusive. Use of the ridge for the Parkway would also preclude any other use of the ridge. The consultants believe the differences between G1 and G2 are marginal at best. They believe G1 would be a shorter and less obtrusive facility with better access to the river if desired. As to Alternative Y1 vs Y3, the length of the flood plain crossed by Y1 is very small and is not a significant factor. Alternative Y3 crosses an additional stream and impacts substantially more residents of the Ridgewood Mobile Home Park. The costs of the two alternatives and the type of terrain they cross are similar. The consultants recommend Alternative Y1 to minimize the impact to current residents in Ridgewood Mobile Home Park and future residents of Forest Lakes South. The last items are the Timberwood Connector and Western Alternatives. Three Timberwood Connector alternatives and two Meadow Creek Parkway Extended alternatives were considered. Alternative TI begins at the southern end of Hollymead as a continuation of Powell Creek Drive. This alternative would include connecting Hollymead and Forest Lakes with a roadway over the Dam separating the two neighborhoods. The alternative ends with an interchange or intersection on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Alternative T3 begins in the vicinity of the Dam and runs generally eastward away from Hollymead and Forest Lakes. Details of the connection with the roads leading to the Dam have not been decided. The alternative could,'if desired, have separate access to Hollymead and Forest Lakes without opening the roadway across the Dam. This alternative also ends with an interchange on the Meadow Creek Parkway. Alternative T4 begins on Route 649, Proffit Road. This alternative runs just east of Forest Lakes. The Meadow Creek Parkway Alternatives run in the largely undeveloped area just west of Route 29. Alternative Wi runs parallel to Route 29 from Airport Road to the Meadow Creek Parkway Interchange on Route 29. Alternative W2 is alternative WI with an additional east-west leg from Route 606 to Route 29. As extensions to the Meadow Creek Parkway, both alternatives would be controlled access, four-lane roadways° The conclusions of the consultants were: Timberwood Connector supports Meadow Creek Parkway. The purpose of the Timberwood Connector, as established in the 1989 Comprehen- sive Plan, is to provide residential areas access to the Meadow August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 4) 000004 Creek Parkway. A Timberwood Connector provides a direct and easy connection to the Meadow Creek Parkway from Hollymead, Forest Lakes and Forest Lakes South. With the T1 and T3 alternatives, the 900 current residences in Hollymead/Forest Lakes will have direct access to the Meadow Creek Parkway without using Route 29. In addition, the TI alternative provides direct access to Meadow Creek for up to 1200 planned future residences at Forest Lakes South. 2. Timberwood Connector Alternative T1 has the smallest impacts and costs. The T1 alternative will cost less, have fewer environmen- tal and residential impacts than either T3 or T4, and will provide similar service. T1 is only 0.5 mile long as compared with 1.3 miles for T3 and 2.3 miles for T4. Ti is estimated to cost $5.7 million as compared with $18.8 million for T3 and $27.0 million for T4. Both T3 and T4 run along and across Powell Creek. T4 will impact both the north end of Forest Lakes and Meadowfield and is estimated to take nine residences. It should be noted that both T1 and T3 have the potential to be used by external traffic to travel from Route 29 to the Parkway. This potential traffic impact has been a source of concern to the Hollymead/Forest Lakes residences, and the residential associa- tions have been against Ti and T3 primarily for this reason. It does not appear likely that travel through the Hollymead/Forest Lakes Subdivisions will be an attractive route for external through traffic. 3. The Western alternatives are not substitutes for the T~mberwood Connector. Wi and W2 were considered as possible replacements for the Timberwood Connectors. As a replacement for the Timberwood Connector, the western alternatives eliminate the potential for external traffic to travel through Hollymead/Forest Lakes. However, they provide access for Hollymead and Forest Lakes to the Meadow Creek Parkway through a circuitous route. As a result, Wl/W2 is not a suitable replacement for the Timberwood Connector. 4e The Western Alternatives have merits on their own. The W1 and W2 alternatives do provide another North-South alternative and provide for planned residential and industrial development. As such, W1 and W2 are sound alternatives on their own merits, but are not replacements for a Timberwood Connector. The recommendations of the consultants are as follows: "We recommend that Timberwood Connector Alternative T1 be selected and that alternatives T3 and T4 be dropped from further study. We also recommend that the W2 alternative be chosen for further study of a Western Alignment. Alternative TI is recommended because it provides comparable traffic service to T3, and better residential traffic service than T4. Alterna- tive T1 provides this better service with less cost and impacts than T3 or T4. Alternative W1 and W2 are very similar; W2 is an extension of W1. Alternative W2 provides better access to the Meadow Creek Parkway with only slightly greater costs; as such W2 is recommended for further study. The purpose of the Timberwood Connector is to support the residential areas north of the Meadow Creek Parkway. At this time residents of the areas that would be served by the Connector have shown opposition to Alternatives T1 and T3, primarily because of the potential for through traffic to travel in their residential areas. Although this potential impact should be taken seriously, it is too early in the study process to discontinue study of a Timberwood Connector for traffic impacts which are not expected to occur. Mrs. Humphris asked for an explanation of the chart. Mr. Metcalf went over the figures. Mr. Marshall said it takes such a small amount of traffic off of Route 29 North, he wonders if it will be worth the amount of money it will cost. Mr. Martin said it takes little traffic off of Route 29, and the residents in the area are against building of the road. Mr. Perkins asked if the cost estimates are for a four-lane, divided road. Mr. Metcalf said "yes". Mr. Perkins asked if a two-lane road would not handle the volume of traffic estimated. Mr. Perkins said Route 240 in Crozet has more than 8000 vtpd, and that is not even a standard two-lane road. 00000 August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 5) YF~ 2010 TRAFFIC PROJECTIOIIS ALTERNATIVE ADT NO RCP Wl & T4 T1/3 & B~SE LOCATION BUILD ONLY Wl N2 N1/2 T1/T3 V1/2 T4 1~9Z ROUTE 29 ~ SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER 49,900 44,600 50,200 46,200 42,000 43,300 46,200 39,800 34,500 ROUTE 29 m HOLLYMEAD 47,200 49,900 36,000 36,100 27,100 44,400 31,500 37,000 27,200 MCP ~ SOUTH FORK RIVANNA RIVER 8,000 9,500 11,300 16,300 9,200 11,600 16,600 - T1 & T3 ~ HCP - 5¢500 5r300 T4 8 HCP - - 13,200 16,800 WI @ MCP 17,700 W1 & W2 @ MCP - 18,900 15,300 - 18,600 NATCH LINE RT 29 &RCP 49,900 52,600 59,700 57,500 58,300 52,500 57,800 56,400 Mr. Bowerman said he and Mr. Bain had been talking about projections in some of the studies mentioned. They thought it ran to about 18,000 vtpd at Rio Road and the Meadow Creek Parkway. They were looking at roadways (with and without the Meadow Creek Parkway, and with and without the Bypass) and various combinations of them. None of the projections for the Meadow Creek Parkway had a figure as low as 8000. Mr. Metcalf said it is the same model producing these numbers. These were produced by County staff using the data from COMSIS that was developed as part of the Route 29 study. Mr. Bowerman asked for the number between Rio Road and the Bypass. Mr. Juandiego Wade, County Transportation Planner, said the main reason the number is much lower than the previous study is that County staff ran the Meadow Creek Parkway much further south on Route 29 than the previous study did. The model is picking it up and saying it does not look as attractive to commuters. Mr. Metcalf said T4 should be compared with the numbers Mr. Bowerman is talking about. Mrs. Huckle asked if the consultants have figured out the cost per user comparing T4 and G and Y. If there are only to be 8000 users as compared to the alternative with 16,000, how does that effect the cost per user? Mr. Metcalf said he does not know offhand. Mrs. Huckle said that would be an interesting figure to know. If a lot of money is to be spent to serve just a few users, and by spending the extra money a better job could be done and many more served, and Route 29 helped, it might be better to do that. Mr. Metcalf said he had been looking at the traffic benefit compared to the purpose of the roadway. How will the facility that is being planned meet the purpose as stated? The purpose as stated is to be a local resource, to be for local commuter traffic, and the reasons there are such large numbers for T4 is that it is functioning as a bypass. Mrs. Huckle said the people who are proposed to be served by this roadway don't seem to want to "buy into it". Mr. Bain asked if grade-separated interchanges at Rio and Greenbrier were taken into consideration when generating these traffic figures. Mr. Metcalf said the volume of traffic is light enough at Rio Road to have an at- grade interchange in the beginning, and also at other interchanges° Mr. Martin said the T1 connector is shown in front of the schools in Hollymead. He asked if the consultants had considered that a lot of parents go into Hollymead to drop off children and then must come back out to 29, and they would not have to do that if there was a "T" connector. Mr. Metcalf said he recognizes that that would be a much more efficient travel pattern, but he thinks there would still be an increase in traffic by the schools. Mr. Bowerman asked when this is scheduled to be discussed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Cilimberg said the Chairman hopes a work session can be scheduled in early September. Mr. Bowerman said the Board of Supervisors will decide whether to have a work session or go to straight to public hearing after it receives the Planning Commission's recommendations. He asked if any member of the public had a significant question about the facts that have been .presented tonight. An unidentified lady asked if the' T1 connector will cross the dam. Mr. Metcalf said VDoT will not rebuild the dam if a road is put across the dam and the dam collapses. Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Highway Engineer, was present and said VDoT will maintain the road across the dam, but some other entity will have to be responsible for the dam itself. Mr. Bowerman said he would like to have questions only about the report presented tonight. August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 000006 (Page 6) An unidentified man asked that the term "local traffic" be defined. Mr. Metcalf said local traffic would use this road to access roads further south. Mr. Martin asked the Planning Commission to consider the fact that this project evolved around local interests and was not to alleviate traffic congestion on Route 29 North. He also asked that the Planning Commission consider that most of the people who would receive this local benefit are opposed to the proposal, and asked the Planning Commission to consider taking the T-Connectors and possibly even more out of this proposal. Mr. Blue, the Rivanna District representative on the Planning Commis- sion, said he attended the same meetings that Mr. Martin attended and is aware of the feelings of the residents on the project. He has passed on to the Planning Commission this same information. Mr. Bowerman said the study will now go before the Planning Commission. Agenda Item No. 7. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, of the Code of Albemarle in Article VIII, Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultural, Forest or Open Space Real Estate known as "Land Use Taxation." Amendments would exclude properties in a planned development, industrial or commercial zoning district established prior to 1981 from taxation based on land use; properties rezoned to a more intensive use at the owner's request will be subject to payment of the roll- back tax immediately instead of its being delayed until the actual change of use; and adjust interest rates to the maximum allowable to be consistent with the rate applicable to delinquent taxes. (Notice of this public hearing was published in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1993.) Mr. Tucker noted that this amendment is based on a change requested by Albemarle County in State legislation and which was approved by the General Assembly effective July 1, 1993. The amendment will affect an estimated 22 landowners with 1834 acres in the land use program effective for tax year 1994. These properties are currently receiving a tax deferral of approximate- ly $93,000. The amendment will also subject properties rezoned to a more intensive use at the owner's request to the roll-back tax immediately instead of its being delayed until there is an actual change in use. Interest rates on the deferred tax and for late payment are also being adjusted to be consistent with the rate applicable to that of other delinquent taxes. The public hearing was opened. First to speak was Mr. Kevin Cox. This change involves 1800 acres or .4 percent of all the land in the County. Seventy-five percent, or 330,000 acres are in the land use program at this time. Much of that land is rural areas, but some of it is in growth areas and is zoned rural agricultural, is residen- tial and does not fit one of the three categories that will be affected tonight. Even with the passage of this legislation there will be thousands of acres in use value that are in the path of development and will be developed despite the tax relief offered through the program. The program is intended to preserve land by providing tax relief, it is not simply tax relief, it is a preservation program. Mr. Cox said if use value is to serve the purpose the State law sets out, to preserve land, the Board should consider using the agricultural/ forestal district option wherein the Board would require that in order to receive the land use tax break, property would have to be put into an agricul- tural/forestal district and then a time limit of ten years set. This would require that the owner give up something in order to get the tax break. Mr. Cox said even this idea has problems. There are farmers in the CoUnty who still rely on the land and could not continue to farm if they had to pay full, fair market taxes and who are counting on the ability to develop their land when they are no longer able to farm. A lot of farmers have plans for their lando It is their retirement pension. Mr. Cox said the State has initiated a study on the effectiveness of use value, and the study will begin soon. He pointed out that of the 330,000 acres in Albemarle County that are in land use and which result in the shift of $5.5 million in taxes to the 25 percent that is owned by the working class~ most of that 330,000 acres is owned by people who do not depend on the land for their livelihood, can easily afford to pay the fair market value tax on it, and wouldn't change the use no matter what happened. Mr. Cox said he appreciates what the Board is doing, and he wishes the State would give more power to the Board to help correct the problem. He, personally, will work for an income tax because he feels that is the solution. Next to speak was Mr. Ed Scharer, an Albemarle County farmer, who said it seems that everytime he comes before the Board it is to say "no" or "please don't." Tonight is no exception. He asked that the Board reconsider its plans to eliminate land use taxation from parcels in the growth ring. These parcels have been in land use for thirteen years. They provide viewsheds and open space in a rapidly growing area. People in the program for this length of time have done exactly what the plan was designed to do. They have provided farm land and open space. This proposal is not designed to add to August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 7) OOOO07 the County's tax rolls, and it WIi~ h6~ add to the supply of affordable housing. Mr. Scharer said this ordinance is seen by some as a way to support the Comprehensive Plan because it will quickly add to the already large pool of developable land available. It should be realized that this surge in develop- ment carries a high price to the County and its citizens who will pay even more in taxes for new schools, police, roads, etc. This ordinance is seen by some as a means of lowering property taxes by shifting the burden even further to the rural landowner, but remember that the citizen in the land use taxation program pays the full assessed value on his house, his lot, on his sheds and his barns, on his trucks and his car, just like every other Citizen of the County. In addition to these equitable taxes, he also pays on open land in relation to its productive capability. Studies have shown that farms and forest provide far more in revenue than they require in services, thus providing needed funds for the County. The land use taxation program also requires roll back taxes and interest for the preceding five years when use of the land is changed. Mr. Scharer said he sees this ordinance as a short-sighted attempt by special interests to undermine land use taxation. He thinks it will be an environmental error because parks and open space will be badly needed in that urban ring. It is also a fiscal mistake, because for the $93,000 in increased tax revenue, the County will give up nearly one-half of a million dollars in roll back taxes and interest. Mr. Caleb Morris said he has been a resident homeowner in Albemarle County for 37 years. He recently read in the Daily Progress that the real estate taxes may run as much as sixteen cents per $100 valuation to pay for education projects over the next five years. Mr. Morris said that means his taxes will increase substantially, as much as $225.00 per year above and beyond the increased reassessment that is inevitable every year. Since 1988, the assessed value of his 37 year old home in a very middle-classed neighbor- hood on a 1/3 acre lot has increased $7000 per year. Mr. Morris said he feels the land use tax is patently unfair in several respects: 1) it permits the true gentlemen farmers who run farming operations at a loss every year to reduce their federal, state and local taxes, to benefit from land use taxes; 2) the land use tax permits timbering and pulp wood operations to benefit from reduced taxes. These are not small farmers who may truly need the protection of the land use tax; and 3) it permits certain speculators and developers to avoid taxes while holding their lands for development. Mr. Morris said a number of localities in Virginia have already reas- sessed their land use tax status, and have modified it accordingly. Albemarle should consider a more comprehensive evaluation of the whole program. Also, agricultural and forestal districts are now available for those who wish to protect their land. The County foregoes between $4.0 and $5.0 million in deferred taxes by supporting the current land use tax law. These lost taxes are made up for the most part by the small residential property owner. He thinks that is an unfair situation. If the idea is to preserve agricultural, forestry and nursery land from development, the application of the law should be restricted to the true private farmers and forest landowners, not corpora- tions, estate owners, and developers and speculators. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Marshall said he is one of those people with a large parcel of land and if it were not in land use he could not afford to keep it with what subdivision lots are bringing in his neighborhood. He has people speaking to him everyday about keeping Albemarle County open and beautiful. Mr. Martin said the ordinance only covers land in industrial and commercial zones. Mr. Marshall said there is high density development right next to his property line. Mr. Perkins said Mr. Marshall is just saying that he is next° Mr. Marshall said that is right. Mr. Perkins said there is land in this that has been rezoned against the desires of the landowner. Mr. Marshall said in his lifetime he has no intention of doing anything with his property, but if he were to die, it would put a tremendous imposition on his wife. There is no way she could pay the taxes on the land if it were not in land use. She would not be able to stay in her home. She would have to sell to a developer. Mr. Bowerman said these same arguments were made before the General Assembly by the Farm Bureau and by landowners in rural areas who were con- cerned about the intentions of local government. He does not see the ordi- nance before the Board as a wholesale abrogation of the Board's commitment to land use. He sees it as a way to address glaring inequities currently in the system. Regardless of the current use of the land, all but three parcels are owned by people who are in the land speculation business~ or development business. Certain benefits are accruing to them on land that is designated in the urban area for commercial, industrial or planned development use, and he finds it to be inconsistent to keep land use on parcels like that when the whole land use plan looks to having development occur where services can be provided. August ll, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 8) 000008 Mr. Martin said he agrees 100 percent. This is a situation the Board has talked about since he has b~h a member and the State finally gave it enabling legislation, so he would move to adopt the ordinance as advertised and presented tonight° Mrs. Humphris gave second to the motion. She feels it is important to do this. She believes that in years past, taxpayers have been willing to bear an additional burden in order to support the land use program because they recognized how important it was to preserve the rural area and it allows the County to more efficiently deliver services in growth areas. Since the Board recognized that there were abuses and went to the legislature asking for the right to try and do away with some of these inequities, she feels it is important that the Board do just that. The whole land use program will stay under attack unless these abuses are corrected. This is the most that the legislature has allowed the Board to do, and she feels it is important to take this action. Mr. Bain said he thinks the Board will really have to look more compre- hensively at the land use program. It is clear that the people in the rural areas who have their land in the program are paying the fair market value on all of their improvements. About 70 percent of the County is in the land use program, while only about 16 percent is in agricultural/forestal districts. He does not think it is the right time to mandate that in order for a person to qualify for the land use program their land must be in an agricultur- al/forestal district. Mr. Perkins said he thinks action on this ordinance is premature because the ability to create mini-agricultural/forestal districts goes hand-in-hand with this ordinance. He does not think one ordinance should be adopted without the other. He suggested that the Board wait and adopt the mini- agricultural/forestal district legislation before adopting this ordinance. He is shocked about the ignorance and misunderstanding about the land use program, its whole purpose and why it was created. He was shocked at some of the remarks made tonight. People seem to think that if a person owns land, that person is rich, but people should have to put up with the things the farmer puts up with. At this moment, it is the insect infestation. It's as if it were a big gift for them, but they are paying more than their fair share already. If land use were done away with in this County, within five years there would be a tremendous devaluation of rural property. It would make a big difference in the appearance of Albemarle County. He is afraid this is just one step, and if the Board votes tonight, he cannot support it. Mr. Marshall said he cannot support it either. It seems as though the County needs to stop the developers from making profits at the expense of the other taxpayers and he does not disagree with that. In order to get back at a few people, the Board is going to hurt a lot more people and he does not believe it is in the best interest of trying to preserve open spaces and the rural character. He thinks land use is the way to do ito Mrs. Humphris said she is looking at the integrity of the program. To her, allowing these types of zoned properties to be involved in a plan dig at the very foundations of the program and make it less acceptable in the eyes of the rest of the taxpayers. She thinks the Board has an obligation to be sure the plan is what the Board says it is. Mr. Marshall said that is the reason for roll-back taxes, and the interest on those taxes. Mr. Martin said he agrees. Taking the steps Mr. Marshall would like to take if the County received enabling legislation in the future would be hurting all of Albemarle County, but, to him, the Board is protecting land use because there is an identified inequity which has been identified for many years. This ordinance gives the Board the opportunity to deal with that identified inequity which makes the land use program stronger. It gets rid of a part of it that people keep pointing to. Mr. Perkins said the Board does not know that the land will be devel- oped. It might just be a parcel of land left just one more year in green space or open space. The Board does not know it will be developed. If a piece of land remains open just one more year, why should that person not receive that benefit? Mr. Marshall said the Board might even be encouraging development with this because of the taxes that person will have to pay. Mr. Bowerman said the surest way to lose the entire program is to allow inequities like this to exist. Mr. Marshall suggested just going to the roll-back taxes. Mr. Martin called for the question. Roll was called, and the vote was as follows: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and Bain. NAYS: Mr. Perkins. August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 9) 000009 Roll was immediately called Oh t'he'mo~ion to adopt the ordinance as advertised and presented here tonight. The motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Bain. NAYS: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins. (Note: The ordinance as adopted is set out in full below.) ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 8, FINANCE AND TAXATION OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE IN CERTAIN SECTIONS BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that Chapter 8, Finance and Taxation, Article VIII, known as "Special Assessments for Agricultural, Horticultur- al, Forest or Open Space Real Estate", of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted in certain sections as follows: ARTICLE VIII. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL, HORTICULTURAL, FOREST OR OPEN SPACE REAL ESTATE* Sec. 8-33. Applications for assessment-By property owner. (a) The owner of any real estate meeting the criteria set forth in sections 8-31 and 8-35(b) herein and the standards adopted by the commissioner of agriculture and consumer services, the department of forestry or the department of conservation and historic resources, and this article, must submit an application for taxation on the basis of a use assessment to the local assess- ing officer by November first preceding the tax year for which taxation is sought or within thirty (30) days of the mailing of notices of a general reassessment. An individual who is an owner of an undivided interest in a parcel may apply on behalf of himself and the other owners of such parcel upon submitting an affidavit that such other owners are minors or cannot be located. (b) Same. * * * * * Sec. 8-35. Determinations to be made by local officers before assessment. Paragraph same. (1) Same. (2) Same. (3) Determine further that the real estate is not in a planned development, or an industrial or commercial zoning district established prior to January 1, 1981, as referred to in Section 58.1-3237.1 of the Code of Virginia. Sec. 8-37. Changes in use of assessed real estate; roll-back taxes. (a) When real estate qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use under this article, and the use by which it qualified changes to a nonqualifying use, it shall be subject to additional taxes, hereinafter referred to as roll-back taxes, in an amount equal to the amount, if any, by which the taxes paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment and taxation under this article were exceeded by the taxes that would have been paid or payable on the basis of the valuation, assessment or taxation of other real estate in the taxing locality in the year of the change plus simple interest on such roll-back taxes at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum. Such additional taxes shall only be assessed against that portion of such real estate which no longer qualifies for assessment and taxation on the basis of use° If, in the tax year in which the change of use occurs, the real estate was not valued, assessed and taxed under this article, the real estate or portion thereof shall be subject to roll-back taxes for each of the five (5) years immediately preced- ing in which the real estate was valued, assessed and taxed under this article. (b) Same. August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) 0000~.0 (Page 10) (c) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attach when a change in use occurs, but not when a change in ownership of the title takes place if the new owner continues the real estate in the use for which it is classified under the conditions prescribed in this article and article 4 of chapter 32 of title 58.1 of the Code of Virginia. (d) Liability to the roll-back taxes shall attached at any time the zoning of property taxed under the provisions of this article is changes to a more intensive use at the request of the owner or his agent, such property shall not be eligible for assessment and taxation under this article for the years such more intensive use is effective, and for three years thereafter if rezoned to agricultural zoning. (e) Same. (f) The owner of any real estate rezoned as provided in subsection (d) of this section, or liable for roll-back taxes, shall, within sixty (60) days following such change in use or zoning, report such change to the county assessing officer on such forms as may be prescribed. The county assessing officer shall forthwith determine and assess the roll-back tax as provided in subsection (a), which shall be assessed against and paid by the owner of the property at the time of the rezoning or the change in use which no longer qualified occurs and shall be paid to the director of finance within thirty (30) days of the assessment. sec. 8-40. Violations; penalties; assessment° (a) The owner of any real estate liable for roll-back taxes shall, within sixty (60) days following a change in use or zoning, report to the director of finance in writing, the date of any change in the use of such property to a non-qualifying use, or rezoning to a more intensive use. (b) Same. (c) Same. (d) Payment of the roll-back tax plus interest and any penalty thereon shall be due within thirty (30) days of the date of assessment. An additional penalty equal to ten (10) per centum of the amount of the roll-back tax due shall be assessed for failure to pay within such thirty (30) day period, plus simple interest at the rate of ten (10) per centum per annum until the date of payment. (e) Same. (Note: Mr. Martin left the meeting at 8:10 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 8. Public Hearing on An Ordinance to provide for the creation of agricultural/forestal "district of local significance." This ordinance is authorized by Chapter 36.1 of the Code of Virginia and will allow parcels with a minimum of 25 acres to apply for mini-agricultural/forestal district status. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1993.) Mr. Bowerman said it has been found that some information was left out of the advertisement for this item, therefore, it must be readvertised. However, if there is any member of the public who feels compelled to speak to this issue, the Board will hear them tonight. A gentlemen asked if people who are currently involved will be allowed to use the mini-agricultural/forestal district. Mr. Bowerman said this legislation was originally requested to allow areas that were removed from land use taxation in the urban area to continue to operate as a farm. If land was in commercial zoning in the urban area, and it was being actively farmed, the Board could still grant this designation. This was looked at primarily because the Farm Bureau pointed out the inequity that could happen. Mr. Perkins asked what will happen to this land between now and the time the Board can adopt the mini-agricultural/forestal district ordinance. Mr. Tucker said there is no change° Land use is calculated on a calendar year so this will not affect any properties until January 1, 1994. Mr. Bowerman said the matter would be deferred until October 12. Mr. Bain asked why it could not be done in September. Mr. Tucker said staff wanted time to run it through the local agricultural/forestal committee. Mr. Bowerman suggested doing it on September 15. Mr. Bain then offered motion to reschedule any action on this question until September 15, 1993, on the mini-agricultural/forestal district. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 11) 000011 Roi1 was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. Agenda Item No. 9. Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend and reenact Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, Section 11-21, to remove the requirement that subcontractors exhibit a county business license before beginning work. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1993.) Mr. Tucker said the County has recently been confronted by an attorney questioning the County's authority to impose such a requirement (it has been in the Code since its codification in 1967). Research by Finance Office staff and the County Attorney's staff have not revealed any state enabling legisla- tion. The County has no way of verifying that contractors are complying with this requirement and there is no record of anyone ever being prosecuted for failing to do so. Staff recommends that County Code Section 11-21 be amended to remove this requirement° The public hearing was opened. With no one coming forward to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to adopt the ordinance as advertised. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins and Bain. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Martin. ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REENACT CHAPTER 11, LICENSES, IN SECTION 11-21 OF THE CODE OF ALBEMARLE BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Supervisors of Albe- marle County, Virginia, that Chapter 11, Licenses, Article I, In General, Section 11-21, of the Code of Albemarle, is hereby amended and reenacted, as follows: Sec. 11-21. Exhibition of contractor's, etc., license prerequisite to obtaining permit, county contract or subcontract. Every contractor, electrical contractor, plumber and steam- fitter, building wrecker, developer or speculative builder who proposes to do work in the county for which a permit must be obtained or pursuant to a contract let by a department, bureau or office of the county shall, upon making application for such permit or upon the award of such contract, exhibit to the proper county official the county license authorizing him to engage in the business for the year in which the permit is applied for, or in which such contract is awarded, and shall furnish to that official a list of his subcontractors and the amounts of such subcontracts. If any of such subcontracts have not been closed or awarded at the time of applying for such permit or award of such contract, he shall furnish such list in writing immediately upon awarding the subcontract or contracts. Agenda Item No. 10. SP-93-03. Stuart Birckhead. Public Hearing to establish visible outdoor storage and display of modular buildings within the EC Overlay Dist [30.6.3.2(b)], 0.4752 ac znd PD-SC. Property located within the Pantops Shopping Center between First Virginia Bank and Taco Bell. TM78, P17D(2). Rivanna Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on July 13, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the special use permit with five conditions. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Birckhead was present, but had nothing to add to the staff's report. With no other member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing was immediately closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-03, with the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 12) O000 L2 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Perkins and Bain. None. Mr. Martin. (The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) 1o No items shall be located so as to interfere with sight distance of Route 1116 (Riverbend Drive); There shall be no occupying of any shed or any on-site sales; 2° 3o 4e Tax Map 78, Parcel 17D(2) shall not be manned by an employee nor shall an office area be established; The business owner shall, at all times, have any approved home occupation permit for shed sales from the County. This approval shall not include the storage and/or display of these structures at the home; Administrative approval of a site plan waiver to include Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. (Note: Mr. Martin returned to the meeting at 8:16 p.m.) Agenda Item No. 11. SP-93-17. Mt. Ararat Lodge. Public Hearing to construct masonic lodge [10.2.2(2)] on 2.11 acs znd RA. Property located on SE side of inter-sect of Rt 715 & Rt 714. TM121,P32A. Scottsville Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1993.) Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and is made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He said the Planning Commis- sion, at its meeting on July 20, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of SP- 93-17 with five conditions. Mr. Bain noted that the staff had recommended that the building be limited to 1920 square feet and the Planning Commission recommended 2200 square feet. He asked why they made this change. Mr. Cilimberg said one of the commissioners thought the applicant might like to have some "breathing room", and the applicant said that would be find. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Moses Agee, Jr., said he is a trustee for the church. He said if this petition is approved, they will continue to try and be an asset to the community. One member of the Planning Commission suggested that the building size go up to 2100 square feet in case the building ran a little over size. The actual size of the building if 1920 feet. He just wanted to give the church a little leeway. With no other member of the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve SP-93-17 with the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commis- sion. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. (Note: 1. 4e Se The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Administrative approval of site plan to include landscape plan; The building shall be limited in size to 2,200 square feet; Maximum attendance at meetings shall not exceed those limits as established by the Health Department; Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities or structure outlined in the staff report shall require addi- tional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors; Compliance with Section 5.1.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Agenda Item No. 12. SP-93-19. John Alford. Public Hearing to con- struct a foot bridge in the flood plain of the Moorman's River. Located on S side of Rt 614 approx 400 ft W of Rt 674. TM26,P12. White Hall Dist. (Notice of this public hearing was advertised in the Daily Progress on July 27 and August 3, 1993.) August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 13) ooooa.3 Mr. Cilimberg summarized the staff's report which is on file and is made a part of the permanent records of the Board. He mentioned a letter dated August 5, 1993, from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, which reiterates statements made at the Planning Commission's meeting regarding the position of the Advisory Board for the Moormans Scenic River. They do not feel the construction of this foot bridge would have an adverse effect on the River. Mr. Cilimberg then presented to the Board a copy of the Planning Commission's minutes on this question. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 3, 1993, unanimously recommended approval of the petition with four conditions. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Alford was present, but did not care to speak. With no one else from the public rising to speak, the public hearing was closed. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain to approve SP-93-19 with the four conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Humphris. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. (Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below.) Department of Engineering approval of bridge design to ensure that no portion of the span is within the flood plain elevation; Se 3e 0 County Engineer approval of bridge modification consistent with Section 62.1-194.2 of the Code of Virginia, if neces- sary; County Engineer approval of bridge and construction activity in flood plain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; Compliance with all local, state and federal permit require- ments pertaining to disturbance of a perennial stream. Agenda Item No. 12a. Appropriation: CIP Transfer for Murray High School and Media Center (#930013). Motion was offered by Mr. Martin, seconded by Mr. Marshall, to adopt a resolution of appropriation approving the request. Mr. Bain said he has some real questions about this request. He suggested the staff go ahead with the staff report° Mr. Tucker said this is to shift funds which were set aside for the HVAC project at Jack Jouett Middle School, as well as an HVAC and masonry project at Henley Middle School. The savings they realized from those two projects would be used in the Murray High School multi-purpose gymnasium as well as moving the Media Center from the County Office Building on McIntire Road to the Murray High School site. The School Board removed the building of a new high school for the Murray Alternative Education High School from its CIP requests. The School Board has decided to use the Rose Hill building as the Murray High School so some renovations are necessary. Mr. Bain said this is the first time this Board has heard about this, and as a question of procedure, if this Board had known about the excess money being there, they may have found other priorities for use of that money. The School Board does not make CIP decisions, they are the prerogative of this Board. He may not want to vote for it tonight unless he knows more. Mr. Perkins asked if the masonry project on Henley is far enough along, so they will not encounter something which would take some of this money. Mr. Tucker said the School Board looked at that, and they feel that they have adequate funding for that project. He knows they are trying to meet some deadlines, and the Media Center is one because staff is looking to using that space for expansion of the Police Department. Mr. Marshall said he thought they had approved the Murray Education Center, and if the school has to stay there, it has to be. Mr. Tucker said they approved it in their CIP and that is now going to the Planning Commission and has not gotten to this Board yet. Mr. Bain asked for information as to what they looked at, and what other projects were considered, he would like to know that before the Board rubber stamps something. The School Board does not make CIP decisions in terms of funding. August 11, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 14) Mr. Martin said in the interest of an unanimous vote, he would withdraw his motion until there can be further information obtained. Mr. Bain suggest- ed this matter be placed on the agenda again next week. Motion was then offered by Mr. Martin to defer any action on this request until August 18, 1993. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bain. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Agenda Item No. 12b. Appointment. Mr. Tucker recommended the appointment of Mr. Larry W. Davis as Deputy County Attorney effective January 3, 1994, with the understanding that Mr. Davis will become the County Attorney in March of 1994 upon the retirement of Mr. George R. St. John. Motion was offered by Mr. Martin to accept the County Executive's recommendation and make the appointment. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Mumphris. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None. Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: May 6, 1992, and April 14, 1993. Mr. Marshall had read May 6, 1992, pages 15 (~15) to 25 (#21) and found them to be in order. Mr. Martin had read April 14, 1993, pages 12 (#11) to the end, and found them to be in order. Mr. Bowerman had read the minutes of May 6, 1992, pages 25 (#21) to the end and found them to be in order. Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve the minutes which had been read. Roll was called on the motion which carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin, Perkins and Bain. None Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the BOARD. Mr. Tucker said he has had correspondence with VDoT regarding issues on the Alternative 10 western alignment. After the comments which were made by Mrs. Humphris and others on the funding of the Six-Year plan and the inter- changes, Mr. Jack Hodge and other members of VDoT staff will be making a presentation to this Board on October 6, 1993. This will include various changes or options that they are considering for the alignment, particularly with the southern and northern termini. Mr. Perkins said he would like to point out the letter received from Mr. A. L. Francis about looking at the new high school. He hopes that the members of that committee will look at this issue with an open mind. He thinks one possible choice would be year-round schools. Mr. Bain asked Mr. Tucker to set a time for the new high school commit- tee to meet. Mr. Bain said he had received the interim legislative bulletin from the T. J. Planning District CommissiOn staff. He brought the following items to the Board's attention: State Legislative Committees meeting around the state during the summer which include the Growth Commission and some concerns they are talking about have to do with growth areas and what roles the planning district commissions will have. He said the Board needs to look at this in the fall as recommendations are sent forth to the legislature. Transportation Trust Fund, looking at creating new transportation districts with some additional taxes on fuels. Business, Professional and Occupation License Tax. There is a study directing them to look at this. There are numerous alternatives being August ll, 1993 (Regular Night Meeting) (Page 15) considered, one of which is to get rid of that tax. This is a major tax for Albemarle County because it is the third or fourth largest tax source. If this is being considered seriously for elimination, it needs to be followed this Fall. Mrs. Humphris said long-term care is mentioned and the Health and Human Services Committee of the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo) which she serves on has been dealing with this issue and has been represented at the State Committee meetings. This will be discussed at the Local Government Officials Conference (LGOC) which begins this Sunday in Charlottesville. She will report back to the Board on this issue. Agenda Item No. 15. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:39 p.m.