HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-4-08B OARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APR IL 8, 2009
AUD ITORIUM
C OUNTY OFFICE BUILDIN G
3:00 P.M.
1. Call to Order.
2. Work Session: C apital Improvements Program.
3. Work Session: STA20080002. Fees. Amend Sec. 14203, Fees, of Chapter 14, Subdivis ion of Land, of
the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec . 14203 to impose new fees, to increase
existing fees, and to change but not necessarily increase other fees charged for almost all listed
applications, permits, reviews , approvals, ins pec tions and other services provided by the C ounty in the
administration of Chapter 14.
4. Recess.
6:00 P.M.
5. Call to Order.
6. Pledge of Allegiance.
7. Moment of Silence.
8. From the Board: Matters Not Lis ted on the Agenda.
9. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
10. C onsent Agenda (on next sheet).
11. PROJECT: SP20080065. Tandem Friends School Classroom Mobile Unit (Signs # 12&13).
PR OPOSED: Mobile classroom in northeast corner of parcel. ZONIN G CATEGOR Y/GENERAL USAGE:
R 1 Residential 1 unit/acre. SECTION: 18.13.2.2 Private Schools. COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND
U SE/DENSITY: Institutional schools, univ ers ities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities
and utilities; U rban N eighborhood 4. ENTRAN CE C ORRID OR: No. LOCATION: 279 Tandem Lane, approx
350 feet west of the intersection with Mill Creek D r. TAX MAP/PARC EL: 091000000002A0.
MAGISTERIAL DISTR ICT: Scottsville.
12. Discussion and Adoption of FY 2009/10 Capital and Operating Budgets.
13. Discussion and Adoption of C alendar Year 2009 Tax Rates.
14. From the Board: C ommittee R eports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Adjourn to April 17, 2009, 11:30 a.m., Room 241.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPR OVAL:
10.1 Approval of Minutes: February 4, 2009.
10.2 Economic Opportunity Fund Guidelines.
FOR IN FORMATION:
10.3 Copy of Report on Collections of C ommonw ealth R evenues by Local Constitutional Officers for the Year
Ended June 30, 2008, as prepared by the Auditor of Public Acc ounts, Commonwealth of Virginia (on file in
C lerk’s office).
10.4 Copy of notice filed with the State Corporation Commission, by Virginia Elec tric and Power C ompany, re:
2009 statutory rev iew of the rates, terms and conditions for the provision of generation, distribution and
transmission services of Virginia Electric and Pow er Company pursuant to §56585.1 A of the Code of
Virginia (on file in C lerk’s office).
10.5 Copy of notice filed with the State Corporation Commission, by Virginia Elec tric and Power C ompany, re:
to revise its fuel factor pursuant to §56249.6 of the Code of Virginia (on file in Clerk’s office).
10.6 Copy of notice filed with the State Corporation Commission, by Virginia Elec tric and Power C ompany, re:
for approval of rate adjustment c lause pursuant to §56585.1(A)(4) of the Code of Virginia (on file in C lerk’s
office).
10.7 Copy of notice filed with the State Corporation Commission, by Virginia Elec tric and Power C ompany, re:
for approval of a rate adjustment clause with res pect to the Bear Garden Generating Station and Bear
GardenBremo 230 kV Transmiss ion Interconnec tion Line pursuant to §56585.1(A)(6) of the Code of
Virginia (on file in C lerk’s office).
Ret urn t o Top of Agenda
Ret urn t o Board of Superv isors Home P age
Ret urn t o Count y Home Page
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Subdivis ion Ordinance Fees
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Worksess ion to consider amending fees for
County s ervices associated with the Subdivision
Ordinance
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Tucker, Foley, D avis, Kamptner, Graham, Fritz
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 8, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The purpose of this w ork session is to review the Planning Commiss ion’s recommendation for Subdiv ision Ordinanc e
fees. At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a Community Development Fee Study and a
recommendation for a fee policy. (Attachment A) Subsequent to that s tudy, staff proposed changes to the fees in
the Building R egulations and W ater Protection Ordinances, which were approved by the Board in August 2008.
Staff then presented a recommendation for Subdivision Ordinance fees to the Board in September 2008.
(Attachment B) The Board directed staff to present that recommendation to the Planning Commission and the
Planning C ommission to return a recommendation to the Board. The Planning Commission held works essions in
October 2008 and January 2009. The Planning Commission then held an ordinanc e amendment public hearing in
March 2009. (Attachment C) Today’s worksession is to review the Planning C ommission’s recommendation and
staff’s original recommendation on Subdivision Ordinance fees, and to then receive direction from the Board prior to
setting the Board’s public hearing for the amendment to the Subdivision Ordinance. Follow ing completion of the
Subdiv ision Ordinance text amendment, staff plans to bring forward the Zoning Ordinanc e fee amendments.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal Three: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the C ounty 's grow ing needs .
DISCU SSION :
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommendation in Attachment B, presented to the Board in September, 2008, attempted to balance two
factors , maximizing recov ery of County costs assoc iated w ith required Subdivision Ordinance review s and
maintaining reasonable c onsistency w ith fees in comparable localities. Maximizing cost recovery through fees helps
the County reduce the tax support otherwise required for this program. For example, retaining the c urrent fees
means the review costs are largely borne by the taxpay er rather than the subdivision applicant. Maintaining
consistency with other localities assures applicants s ee similar fees to other localities. Staff distributed a simple
survey to a number of s urrounding and comparable localities to see how our proces ses compared to others.
(Attachment E) Staff found Albemarle C ounty’s proc ess es add costs to the applicant that are related to engaging
the neighbors and prov iding additional ov ersight by the Planning Commission not seen in most other comparable
localities. Staff balanced this issue by making the applic ant respons ible for the cos ts associated w ith assuring
ordinanc e c ompliance as typically done in other comparable localities while the County would support those costs
resulting from process es above and beyond other loc alities. Based on the foregoing, the balancing of the two factors
roughly equates to a 50% cost recovery, which was staff’s recommendation to the Board at the September, 2008
workses sion.
PC Recommendation
The Planning Commis sion was divided on how much of the additional process cost s hould be the responsibility of
the applicant versus the C ounty. On Oc tober 7, 2008, the Planning Commission rev iewed the executive summary
from the September 2008 Board work ses sion. The minutes from that meeting on subdiv ision fees are included as
Attachment D. As a result of that meeting, staff was tasked with inv estigating the outs ourcing of engineering
reviews, creating separate charges for notices, and analyzing fees at 100% cost rec overy. Staff subsequently
found that outsourcing engineering rev iews would be complex and recommended this be considered s eparate from
the fees.
On January 14, 2009, the Planning C ommission held a s econd works ess ion to consider a revised proposal that
included 100% cost recov ery during a ty pical year and provided for a s eparate fee for notices. This discussion
included an analysis c omparing fees for ty pical subdivision applications at 50%, 75%, and 100% cost recovery and
compared this to fees charged in other localities. After much discussion, the Planning C ommission, by a 42 vote,
directed staff to proceed to a public hearing with fees s et at 75% cost recovery and a new fee to cover the cost of
preparing and mailing notices.
On March 10, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing for the subdivision fees. (Attachment C) The
Planning C ommission, by a 43 vote, recommended an ordinance amendment that prov ides for 75% cost recovery,
except for family subdivisions, where a 50% cost recov ery was recommended. Attached to the ex ecutive summary
for this public hearing, staff provided a table of typical fees at 50%, 75% and 100% cos t recovery that allowed the
Planning C ommission to c ompare these fees w ith other localities. (The table is Attachment 4 of that ex ecutive
summary) As no minutes of this meeting were available at the time this report was prepared, staff notes two
speakers from the public hearing. The firs t encouraged the County to c onsider the rollback taxes paid when the
property is taken out of land use as an offset for fees. Neither staff nor the Planning C ommission agreed with that
approac h. The second speaker, representing the Free Enterprise Forum, supported staff’s 50% cos t recovery
recommendation.
Question for the Board
Based on the earlier ordinance amendments for fees and the September 2008 Board worksession, Staff believes the
Board has expressed an interest in maximizing cost recovery while maintaining “fairnes s” to applicants . Staff and
the Planning Commiss ion have attempted to answer the fairness ques tion by comparisons to other localities, both in
terms of fees that applic ants pay and the process expected of applicants . Staff continues to believ e a 50% cost
recovery is appropriate; w hile the Planning C ommission believes a 75% cost recovery is appropriate, with the
exception of family subdivisions. Staff’s recommendation assumes the C ounty should bear responsibility for the
additional process costs above most other localities, w hile the Planning C ommission’s recommendation assumes
the applicant should bear more of those costs. Thus, the Board is left w ith a judgment call on the fairness of a 50%
versus 75% cost recovery for the fees. The crux of that question is w hether the applicant should pay for the
additional process costs that Albemarle County requires , including inc reased costs for applications reviewed by the
Planning C ommission.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County currently collects approximately $145,000 from subdivision fees in an av erage year. U nder Staff’s
recommendation, the rev enue w ould increase to approximately $476,000, increasing County revenues by
approximately $331,000 in an average year. Under the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the revenue
would inc rease to approximately $600,000, increasing C ounty revenues by approximately $455,000 in an
average year. Due to the building downturn, Staff anticipates applications will be onehalf of an average year for
FY 09.10. Assuming the Staff recommended fees were implemented by July 2009, Staff anticipates a revenue
increase of approximately $90,000 in FY 0910. Assuming the Planning Commission’s recommended fees were
implemented by July 2009, Staff anticipates a FY 0910 revenue increase of approximately $150,000.
No significant drop in the number of applic ations is anticipated as a result of the fee inc rease for either Staff’s or
the Planning Commiss ion’s recommended fee increas es. While the increase is significant in many
circums tances, the fees remain very small in comparison to the value of the subdivided property.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff requests the Board advise whether to proceed to public hearing bas ed on the Planning C ommission’s
recommendation for 75% c ost recovery, with 50% cost recovery for family subdivisions, or with Staff’s
recommendation of 50% cost recovery . It is noted that the Board can adopt lower fees than what are advertised,
but could not raise them above the advertised amounts without readv ertising and holding another public hearing.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – December 2007 Fees Study Executiv e Summary
Attachment B September 3, 2008 Subdivision Fees Executive Summary
Attachment C Marc h 2009 Planning C ommission Subdivision Fees Ex ecutive Summary
Attachment D Planning Commission minutes, Approved Oct 7, 2008 minutes, Draft January 14, 2009
minutes , March 10, 2009 minutes
Attachment E Locality survey with respect to notices
Attachment F March 10, 2009 Subdivis ion Text Amendment considered by Planning Commission
Attachment G Marc h 10, 2009 Planning Commission Action Letter w/ STA recommendation
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Fee Policy
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Establis h C ounty Polic y for Development Related
Fees
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and
Schlothauer
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
A GENDA DATE:
D ecember 5, 2007
A CTION: X INFOR MA TION:
C ONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION : INFORMATION:
A TTACHMENTS: Yes
R EVIEW ED B Y:
BACK GROUND :
The purpose of this report is to review the findings of a Community Dev elopment Fee Study and to receive Board
direction on the development of a County policy for c ost recovery with these fee bas ed programs. Recognizing the
Board’s interest in having development rev iew and ins pection fees recover all or part of the costs as sociated w ith
those programs, the County contrac ted a study w ith The PFM Group (PFM) to evaluate Community Development’s
fee based programs. (Attachment A) PFM will present its report to the Board at this meeting. (Attachment B)
Following that presentation, staff will discuss PFM’s rec ommendations and provide a recommendation on phasing in
fee increas es over time. Based on Board input and dis cussion, staff w ill follow up at a future meeting w ith a final
policy and proposed ordinance amendments regarding cost recovery.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Effectively Manage Grow th and Development
DISCU SSION :
While the PFM study provides a significant amount of detailed information with respect to program costs and
revenues, it w ill be diffic ult to effectively utilize this information w ithout establis hing a policy for cost recovery
through development fees. PFM has provided six policy recommendations, w hich start on page 4 of their report.
Staff’s pers pective on thos e recommendations is prov ided below.
1. Improve data quality for fees. Specifically, PFM indicates the complexity of the current fee s tructure makes it
difficult to use, suggesting a need to create unique identifiers for each permit. Staff concurs with this
recommendation and believes this can be accomplished as part of consideration of ordinance amendments to rev ise
fees.
2. Reduce the number of fee titles in the schedule. PFM provided a consolidated fee schedule w ith their report
(Table ES4 starting on page 38). Staff concurs with the need to reduce the number of fee titles and believ es this
can be acc omplished as part of amending the fees in the ordinances .
3. Develop a B oard A pproved Cost Recovery Policy. PFM has rec ommended the C ounty implement a policy for
cost recov ery that 1) identifies the C ounty’s c osts; 2) es tablishes the portion of costs to be recovered through
associated fees; 3) establishes the frequenc y with w hich such fees would be rev iewed; and 4) establishes the
process for obtaining public input related to fees. In rev iewing the minutes of past Board meetings, it appears there
was considerable discussion on a fee policy in 1991, but no clear policy w as established. (Attachments C & D )
Following the 1991 discuss ions , there has only been one comprehensive fee adjus tment, but no further policy
consideration. As a result, County fees have not maintained the relationship to cos ts anticipated in 1991. Staff
concurs with the PFM recommendation and believes this policy can as sure fees are being implemented in a fair and
consistent manner. Within other parts of this disc uss ion, staff is prov iding recommendations for the issues of
identifying the County’s costs and the frequency of reviewing the fees. As part
of a cost recovery policy with development fees, the Board will also need to consider the following two issues:
Establishing the portion of the costs to be recovered through fees. In general, staff supports the concept
of full cost recovery through fees, but notes there are some servic es with community benefits that may justify
reduced fees and there are other servic es w here full cost recovery would require fees that are significantly
higher than any of the comparison localities. For example, the fee associated with an Official Determination
of Dev elopment Rights is currently $40, the highest comparable fee was $100, and the County’s cost
ass ociated with this determination is estimated at $2,560. (Fee Study, ID #52, pages 11 & 20). The Board
may feel this letter provides a significant community benefit that justifies a lower fee w hen the determination
is done for property being placed in a conservation easement, but might consider a low er fee inconsistent
with the County’s goals when the letter is used to market the development potential of a Rural Area property.
Staff proposes a policy that as sumes full c ost recovery where fees would be comparable to similar
localities, but recognizes the Board may need to provide guidance for the remaining services. Staff will
dev elop further information on this in the future. Finally, recognizing fees have not kept in step with cost
increases since 1991, staff believes it is appropriate to phase in some fee increases.
Establishing the process for consideration of fee revisions. As the fees are establis hed in County
ordinances, the formal process for revising the fees requires public hearings . Beyond this, s taff believes that
some fee changes could prove controversial and it is desirable to have all concerns w ith fees identified prior
to consideration by the Planning Commission or Board. Staff recommends the process for fee changes
include opportunities for public c omment before the ordinance amendments are drafted.
4. Adjust fees based on budget growth each year. PFM has recommended an annual adjus tment based on a
two step process of reviewing work c hanges and inflation. While staff agrees the fees should be regularly adjusted,
staff notes the fee changes require amending ordinances and reprinting of guidance and documents to reflect the
new fees. Given the cost / benefit associated with the fee adjustments, staff recommends the policy have fees
adjusted every other year, rather than every year, and the adjustment be based on a simpletoimplement inflation
factor.
5. Actual time spent providing the services related to each fee should be captured. PFM is recommending
Community Development implement a time keeping sy stem to accurately track w ork time associated with each
fee. If fees are to be set at or near full cost rec overy, staff agrees this is important. It mus t be noted that
development and implementation of this time keeping system will be a major undertak ing. If it is the Board’s des ire
to set fees at or near c osts, staff rec ommends implementation of a fee specific time keeping system as part of
Community Development’s work program nex t year. Staff has already started investigating how this may be done
and will need to further dis cuss with the Board the impact of this type of system on the work program.
6. A time period should be established for comprehensive review of development related fees. PFM has
recommended this review occur every four or five years w ith implementation of a time k eeping s ystem. Assuming a
time keeping system is implemented in FY 0809, staff recommends the next comprehensive review should be
planned for FY 1112 and the interval for future comprehensive review s should be established as part of that first
review.
BUDGET IMPACT:
A cost rec overy policy allows the County to establish the expectation for development funding v ers us County
funding of C ounty administered permits. This provides for fair and c onsistent treatment of permits and simplifies
budget preparation. It is noted that there are c osts associated with implementing and operating a time keeping
system, but those cost can be largely recovered as part of the fees.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board approve the attached ‘Implementation Plan for Development Fee Policy’
(Attachment E) as the general direction for mov ing forward in implementing fee increases. In addition, staff
recommends the Board provide direc tion regarding the points discuss ed above that can be used in the development
of a policy for consideration at a future meeting. Both of these issues will be cov ered in greater detail through a
presentation at W ednes day’s Board meeting.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A Albemarle County Development Fee Study 2007
Attachment B – PFM Presentation Outline
Attachment C – June 12, 1991 Board Minutes on Development Ordinance’s Fee Schedules
Attachment D August 14, 1991 Board Minutes on Dev elopment Ordinance’s Fee Sc hedules
Attachment E – Implementation Plan for Development Fee Policy
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Community Development Fees – Subdivis ion
Ordinance
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Consider revising fees in the Subdivision
Ordinance
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Kamptner, Graham, and
Fritz
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
September 3, 2008
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
The purpose of this w ork session is to receive Board direction on staff recommended changes to Subdivision
Ordinanc e (“Ordinance”) fees. At the December 5, 2007 Board meeting, staff presented a Community Development
Fee Study and a recommendation for a fee policy. (Attachment A) Given the limited amount of time for discussion
and the complexity of the topic, it was not possible for the Board to giv e specific direction on revised fees. To
provide adequate consideration of the fees, staff divided this task into several ordinanc es. The fees imposed under
the Building R egulations and W ater Protection Ordinances w ere reviewed at an April 9, 2008 work session and
ordinanc e amendments were adopted by the Board on August 6, 2008. Today’s work session is to es tablish
direction for the Subdivis ion Ordinance fees. Following c ompletion of the Subdivision Ordinance, staff plans to bring
forward the Zoning Ordinance fees.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Fund the County ’s Future Needs.
DISCU SSION :
The fee s tudy presented to the Board in December 2007 identified C ounty costs for fee related serv ices , estimated
revenue from current fees, proposed new fees, and compared the rec ommended fees to those in eight comparable
localities. The fee study extract in Attachment A included an explanation of how the s ervice costs were calculated
and the algorithm used by the consultant in developing a recommendation for updated fees.
After review ing past Board discussions regarding fees and the consultant’s fee recommendation, s taff recognized it
would be appropriate to consider simplifying the fee calculation proc ess . To simplify, staff considered establishing
fees at onehalf of the C ounty’s cost and retaining the fee at its current level w here the fee is already greater than
onehalf of the cost. Fees were then rounded to the nearest $10. The concept behind splitting the cos t of service
was to rec ognize that part of the servic e is related to the property owner’s interest and part is related to notices and
other nonmandated C ounty policies and procedures that allow for public involvement. Staff then prepared
Attachment B to provide a side by side comparison of the cost of servic e, the current fee, the cons ultant’s
recommended fee, and a staff recommended fee calc ulated at onehalf of the County cost. Staff also included a
revenue summary for each fee concept in Attachment B. From this analysis, it appears the consultant’s
recommendation and s taff’s recommendation w ill generate very similar revenues in an average year.
Next, s taff provided a comparison of fees for three c ommon subdivis ion types in Attachment C. R ecognizing that
each loc ality has a unique fee structure, staff found it nearly impossible to provide a meaningful comparison of all
fees. This simple table provides meaningful examples of how the fees c ompared with three common subdivisions.
This table demonstrates that the fees are similar in most situations, but that there are a few significant differences.
Among the most signific ant changes would be the fee for a family subdiv ision (Fee Study ID 90, Attachment B).
Staff noted that localities appear to have differing goals in establishing fees for family s ubdivisions and recognized
the Board may wish to treat these differently than other s ubdivision applications.
Finally, staff notes that some other loc alities are also attempting to develop a more consistent fee structure and
recover a higher percentage of their cos ts. C hesterfield C ounty is currently attempting to establish a fee structure
that sets fees at 75% of its costs and Arlington County is attempting to set many of its fees at 100% cost recovery .
Staff noted that either a 75% or 100% c ost recovery w ould set many of Albemarle County’s subdivis ion fees higher
than any of the comparis on localities. There are good reasons for this higher cost:
First, most other localities make their processes administrative, meaning the Planning Commiss ion is not
involved in the proc ess. For example, by comparing the cost of service for a 20 lot preliminary plat that goes
to the Planning C ommission to one handled administratively (Fee Study ID 82 v ersus 87), the cost is roughly
double for the plat that is reviewed by the Planning Commission. Staff found a similar result in Attachment C
with the Stafford C ounty fees. Additionally, not only are subdiv isions often handled administratively in other
localities, most of the waivers or modifications are handled administratively. As the Board is aware,
administrative w aivers were a D evelopment Task Force recommendation and are now being considered by
the Planning C ommission.
Second, in keeping w ith administrative proces ses , most localities do not send notices to neighbors of
proposed subdiv isions. Costs ass ociated with notices include the cost of preparing and mailing the notices,
as well as staff time to address questions resulting from the mailings. While these notices keep the
neighborhood informed, they c an generate a considerable demand for staff time in responses .
Third, it should be recognized that Albemarle C ounty’s Ordinanc e is more complex than most. For example,
Albemarle’s Ordinance is roughly twice the size of the Greene County Ordinance and the requirements are
often more complex. The complex ity of the ordinance in relation to staff time required appears to follow the
rule of the square. In other words , if there are twic e as many requirements, it requires four times as much
time to review, due to the increased likelihood of errors or mistakes.
In s pite of adequate justification for a higher perc entage of cost recovery, staff continues to propose a 50%
recovery to be more in line with the c omparisons localities utilized in the study.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County currently collects approximately $145,000 from subdivision fees in an av erage year. U nder the
consultant’s recommendation, fees collected would increase to approx imately $486,000. Under staff’s
recommendation, they would increase to approximately $476,000, inc reasing County rev enues by approximately
$331,000 in an average year. D ue to recent development trends, staff anticipates applic ations will be twothirds
of an average year for the remainder of this year and most of next year. Assuming the recommended fees were
implemented by January 2009, staff anticipates a revenue increase of $100,000 for the remainder of FY 0809
and of $200,000 in FY 0910.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff offers the following recommendations:
1. The Board direct staff to bring forw ard c hanges to the Subdivision Ordinance fees as rec ommended by
staff in Attac hment B, with any other changes the Board determines appropriate.
2. The Board adopt the Resolution of Intent in Attachment D to amend the Subdivision Ordinance.
With the above direction, s taff w ill proc eed with bringing a Subdivision Text Amendment to the Planning
Commis sion.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – December 5, 2007 Exec utive Summary, Community Development Fee Study
Attachment B Summary of Subdivision Ordinance service costs, current fees, and fee alternatives
Attachment C – Fee c omparison for subdivisions in other localities.
Attachment D – Resolution of Intent to amend Subdivis ion Ordinance fees
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Albemarle C ounty Planning C ommission
October 7, 2008
Work Session:
Subdivision Fees (Mark Graham)
The Planning C ommission held a work session on Subdivision Ordinance fees.
Mark Graham review ed the executive summary. (Attachment – Executive Summary for Community
D evelopment Fees – Subdivision Ordinance dated September 3, 2008)
This is the first of the fee discussions w ith the Planning Commission. In addition to the subdivision
ordinance fees, staff w ill be bringing forw ard fee discussions with the zoning ordinance at the start
of the next calendar year. Staff has been working w ith the Board since last year on fees and in
trying to set a fee policy. What they have found is that the County has never established a fee
policy as related to development activity. The last serious discussion that happened prior to
December 2007 w as in 1991. What they found in 1991 was that the subject became so complex
that everybody walked aw ay from it. They could not figure out how to resolve it. He was trying to
take each ordinance separately and move it forward.
To date they have already done the building regulations and the Water Protection Ordinance.
Both of those ordinances did not require action by the Planning C ommission. How ever, both the
subdivision and zoning ordinances require Planning Commission input and recommendations to be
forw arded to the Board of Supervisors. The executive summary provided w as given to the Board
of Supervisors back in September. There is a resolution of intent to move it forw ard. Before
bringing the ordinance amendment to the Commission, he wanted them to understand what they
were doing, w hy and answ er any questions.
Staff completed a comprehensive fee study in 2007. The entire study is 250 pages long, w hich
includes the diagrams and charts that show how they calculated the fees. Staff held a work
session on the fee study w ith the Board. One of the recommendations that came from the Board
at that time was that staff should look at some of the surrounding counties in addition to the
comparable counties. Based on the direction in April, staff brought forward the building regulations
and Water Protection Ordinance. The Board said that those looked good and asked that they be
put into ordinanceamendment language. That was taken to the Board, approved in August and
implemented.
A w ork session immediately followed on the subdivision fees, which is the executive summary that
is before them. In the subdivision fee consideration, the Board’s direction was that the subdivision
fees should be comparable and not equal or necessarily the same to w hat they see in other
localities. The fees should attempt to recover a significant part of the services. There was an
interest on the Board’s part to see that the fees were recovering as much of the cost as they could
while still maintaining fees comparable to other localities. Everybody agreed that there also needs
to be a policy to establish regular updates of the fees.
With respect to future fee adjustments, about 80% to 85% of the cost, depending on the
application, was found to be associated with the staff time spent on the application. When they
looked at it staff realized that if they based those on the merit pool, which is the annual increase
given to staff, that would closely match the County’s cost and w ould provide a very accurate annual
cost adjustment. Staff recommended that revisions be done on a biannual basis which would be
consistent w ith the policy adopted with the building regulations and Water Protection Ordinance.
With the subdivision fees, staff proposes to recover onehalf the cost of the services. It balances
the cost recovery and comparable fees to other localities. It keeps us in the ballpark as the same
as some of those other localities w hile maximizing the cost recovery. The fee amount should be
adjusted biannually based on the annual merit increase, which would be consistent with the
building regulations and the Water Protection Ordinance. Also, the Board requested that
consideration of future ordinance changes should include the changes in the proposed cost of
service. They need to look at any resulting changes in the cost of service and whether the fee
should be adjusted as a result of that change.
The Board adopted a resolution of intent, which is in the executive summary as attachment D and
directed staff to proceed w ith the Planning C ommission public hearing. If there is an interest in
higher fees than proposed, the Commission needs to make a recommendation to the Board to
adjust that before going to public hearing before the Board. The resolution of intent proposes
changes to the fees in 14203. If there is interest in additional ordinance changes to fees in the
resolution of intent, it may be necessary to revise the resolution of intent and hold a second public
hearing. The main purpose of the work session was to give the Commission some background
before staff w rites the ordinance amendment and brings it forw ard for a public hearing.
Mr. Morris invited questions from the Commission.
Mr. Strucko asked why staff did not use the consultant’s fee recommendation.
Mr. Graham replied that he found the consultant’s recommendation hard to understand and therefore felt it
w as appropriate to simplify the feecalculation process. From staff’s analysis, it appears the consultant’s
recommendation and staff’s recommendation w ill generate very similar revenues in an average year. H e
w anted to keep it simple.
Mr. Morris asked why it was based on 50 percent and not twothirds or 60 percent.
Mr. Graham replied that he struggled w ith the parody w ith other localities. He was not saying that 50
percent was the magic number. There is no certain reason why it should be 50 percent except, as show n
in attachment C, he was trying to keep it reasonably close to what the other localities have.
Mr. Edgerton noted that he was confused by the units.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the units w ere the number of applications.
Mr. Loach asked if there was any consideration to outsourcing to contractors and then having feefor
service for them to provide additional services.
Mr. Graham replied that they have tried that especially with some of the positions that they have had a
hard time filling such as engineers. But, it is turning out to be a little more complicated than he hoped.
Therefore, staff wants to go ahead and take this forward. The idea is that they w ould provide feefor
service in the future when they get the details worked out.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff has an idea of how often this should be done.
Mr. Graham replied that staff suggests that a detailed review be done every five years w ith an automatic
adjustment every tw o years based on staff’s cost increase. Every five to six years they would take another
exhaustive look at the fees to see if something significant has changed. Part of that entails implementing
time sheets, which everybody hates. But it is the only w ay to track time.
Ms. Porterfield suggested that the fees decided upon should be at 100 percent recovery of the cost of staff
time and materials (or in the case of Mr. Loach’s suggestion—outsourcing). Basically, the fees imposed
are a cost of doing business for the applicant.
There was consensus on the Commission that staff should look at 100 percent cost recovery as w ell as 75
percent.
Mr. Graham agreed to bring back the information for fees for 100 percent and 75 percent. The fees have
already been calculated at 50 percent. That w ould provide a good range for consideration at the next
meeting.
Ms. Joseph asked if staff was coming back to the Commission with ordinance language.
Mr. Graham replied yes for a public hearing. H e noted that the C ommission wanted staff to advertise an
ordinance amendment at 100 percent and then the C ommission can look at whether they w ant to go
someplace else.
Mr. Kamptner said that they need to break out the notification costs. H e asked if the notification costs
w ere now averaged into these estimates.
Mr. Graham replied yes that he would review the spreadsheet to see if the notification costs could be
separated.
Ms. Joseph noted that if it was possible to look at numerous revisions to see if it made sense to do that on
the roads and maybe anything else that staff has some ideas on.
Mr. Graham replied that he would bring that up.
In summary, the Commission discussed the Subdivision Ordinance fees, provided direction
to staff as noted below and asked staff to bring the requested information back for further
review. No formal action was taken.
The C ommission asked staff to look at the notice questions to see if they found any other
opportunities there.
Staff requested to look at an ordinance amendment based on 100 percent cost recovery, but also
provide information with regard to 75 percent cost recovery. Staff has already done the analysis for
50 percent. The C ommission w ill be able to look at that information and decide what percentage to
recommend.
Mr. Loach asked that they have the ability to outsource if they had to—then billing a fee for the
service.
Go to next set of minutes
R eturn to executive summary
Albemarle C ounty Planning Commission
January 13, 2009
The Albemarle C ounty Planning Commission held a public hearing, meeting and work session on Tuesday, January
13, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesv ille, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Calvin Morris , Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach and Eric
Struck o, C hairman. J on Cannon, Vice Chairman was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP, nonvoting representative for the
University of Virginia was present.
Other officials pres ent w ere Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Mark Graham,
Director of C ommunity D evelopment; Bill Letteri, Director of Facilities Development; Bill Fritz , Direc tor of Current
Development; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner and Greg Kamptner, D eputy County Attorney .
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Strucko c alled the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
STA200800002 Subdivision Fees
Amend Sec. 14203, Fees, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County C ode. This ordinance w ould
amend Sec. 14203 to impose new fees and to inc rease existing fees charged for almost all listed applications,
permits, reviews, approv als, inspections and other services provided by the C ounty in the administration of C hapter
14. The follow ing fees would be increased: (1) preliminary plats reviewed by commission: (a) 19 lots: from $720 to
$4100; (b) 1019 lots: from $1100 to $4350; (c) 20 or more lots: from $1330 to $4650; (2) preliminary plats reviewed by
agent: (a) 19 lots: from $360 to $2100; (b) 1019 lots: from $550 to $2100; (c) 20 or more lots: $670 to $2100; (d) 2
lots under s ection 14232(B)(2) or lots fronting on existing public street: from $95 to $490; (3) final plats reviewed by
commission: (a) 19 lots: from $720 to $4200; (b) 1019 lots: from $1100 to $4430; (c) 20 or more lots: $1330 to $4650;
(4) final plats reviewed by agent: (a) 19 lots: from $360 to $1950; (b) 1019 lots: from $550 to $2200; (c) 20 or more
lots: $670 to $2450; (d) 2 lots under section 14232(B)(2) or lots fronting on existing public street: from $95 to $1050;
(5) reinstatement of preliminary or final plat review: from $65 to $1000; (6) plat for rural subdivision, family subdivision;
resubdivision, or boundary line adjustment: from $95 to $1350; (7) easement plats: from $95 to $950 if no deed, to
$1500 with a deed; (8) bonding inspection for a plat: from $50 to $500; (9) groundwater assessment Tier 4: from $1000
to $1500; (10) waiver after preliminary plat approv ed, before final plat approved: from $180 to $1650; (11) waiver after
final plat approved: from $830 to $1650; (12) relief from conditions imposed by commission prior to adoption of chapter
14: from $180 to $770; (13) appeal of plat to board of supervisors: from $240 to $540; and (14) extension of plat
approval: from $45 to $240. The following fees would be added: (1) each review of public road plans, including
revisions after approval: $250; (2) each review of private road plans, including revisions after approval: $400; (3)
authorization for one or more private streets within subdivision: $1350; (4) waiver of one or more street standards
before preliminary plat approved: $1050; (5) waiver of curb and/or gutter requirements before preliminary plat approved:
$1050; (6) waiv er of street interconnection requirements before preliminary plat approved: $1050; (7) final plat for
subdiv ision without approved preliminary plat: applic able preliminary plat fee plus applic able final plat fee; (8) bond
estimate request for subdivision improvements: $500; (9) bonding inspec tion for bond reduction: $500; groundwater
assessment Tier 1: $50; and (10) notices required by section 14216 and 14221: $200 for first 50; $1 for each notice
beyond 50. The following fees would be changed but not necessarily increased: (1) groundwater assessment Tier 2:
from $250 plus $25 per lot to $330; (2) groundw ater assessment Tier 3: from $400 plus $25 per lot to $1300. The
proposed fees and fee increases are necess ary to assure that the fees cover the c ost to the County to provide those
services. The proposed fee increases are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.22241(9). The full text of the ordinance is
available for examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of
Community Development, C ounty Office Building, 401 Mc Intire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Mark Graham)
Mark Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the executive summary. (Attachment – Executive
Summary for Community Development Fees – Subdivision Ordinance dated January 13, 2009)
This is a follow up work session to one held in Oc tober which followed on the September Board of Supervisors work
session. H e review ed the background, as follows:
• C ommunity Development Fee Study completed in 2007
• D ecember 2007 Board work session on Fee Study
– Compare fee recommendations to neighboring localities in addition to the study’s comparable
localities
• April 2008 – Board work s ession to review proposed fees for Building Regulations and Water Protection
• April 2008 – Board work s ession to review proposed fees for Building Regulations and Water Protection
Ordinances
• August 2008 – Board adopts new fees for Building Regulations and Water Protec tion Ordinances
• September 2008 Board work session to review propos ed fees for Subdivision Ordinanc e
• October 2008 – Planning Commission work session to review proposed fees for Subdiv ision Ordinance
As part of the Board’s direction on the Subdivision Ordinance to the staff they adopted a res olution of intent and directed
staff to w ork with the Planning Commission to get this to a public hearing.
The public hearing needs to be advertised w ith the maximum fees to be considered
The resolution of intent only considers changes to fees in 14203. If additional ordinance c hanges are
proposed with the fee changes, it may be necess ary to revise the resolution of intent and hold a second public
hearing based on that.
From the October, 2008 the Planning Commission’s direction was to do the following:
Consider Fees for 100% cost recovery and 75% cost recovery;
Consider applicant processed notices or fees for notic es that recover the cost; and
Consider outsourcing of plan reviews.
As noted in the staff report staff interv iewed a number of localities on the notice issue. They found a couple localities
that do require the applic ants to prepare and submit the notices to the adjoining property owners. H owever, he noted
that both of those localities have found it to be somewhat an inefficient process for them. It has not provided the
benefits that they had hoped. W hat they have found is that they get into a lot of questions from neighbors who say
they never received notices and the applicant is saying that they did send the notices. Also, they found that there
have been a lot of QC questions w here an applicant thinks they have s ent all of the notices to the proper property
owners and then there is a search to try to figure out w hether the applicant actually sent it to the right people. By the
time staff finishes with that they might as well hav e done the notices themselves.
With res pect to the outsourcing, staff talked to a couple localities that do that. As noted in the staff report there are
some issues w ith that. That is something after looking and thinking about is something they should really consider at
the time they are ready to try that program. Staff feels that there are going to be additional ordinance c hanges that will
probably need to take place with respect to that. If they go that direc tion they ought to craft it at the time they are
ready to move forw ard on that.
The fees in the attached ordinance were based on that 100% cost recovery using the cons ultant’s study. An
attachment has been prov ided at the back of the staff report that compares fees for typical applications. It looks at
the current fees , the staff recommended fees and what that fee w ould be at 75% cost recov ery and 100% cost
recovery. Some of the fees are not a straight multiplier because he had taken out for those applications where notices
are required. That would be the difference there. In another attachment he compared thos e fees with respect to
other localities both surrounding us and some comparables. At 100% cost recovery s taff found that a number of
them, which are bolded, would be the highest they found in Virginia. The other exception would be that they found
that Stafford County had the highest fees in Virginia.
Mr. Strucko invited questions from the C ommission.
Ms. Porterfield asked when the fees were last adjusted.
Mr. Graham replied that a fee adjustment was done in 2001, but it was not a comprehensive fee adjustment. It was
just looking at the fees and doing a 25 percent adjustment. The last comprehensive fee adjustment was either 1991
or 1992. It has almost been 20 years.
Mr. Porterfield noted that the current fees shown are pretty old.
Mr. Graham agreed that the current fees are very out of date.
Mr. Edgerton asked about what the Board’s direction was on the amounts.
Mr. Graham said that when s taff presented the fee study in Dec ember, 2007 to the Board one of the things they told
us was that they had look ed at number of similar localities, James City, Stafford County and places like that, one of
the things the Board asked staff to do was also to compare the fees to neighboring localities. That is why when they
look at that attachment that staff looked at Charlottesville, Greene County and Fluvanna County. Staff has used
those with the building regulations and the water protection ordinance when they compared fees as well. So staff is
trying to be consis tent as far as how they move forward with the other ordinances on these. He noted that staff
trying to be consis tent as far as how they move forward with the other ordinances on these. He noted that staff
ended up rec ommending 50 percent of w hat the consultant has said our cost of providing the service is .
Mr. Edgerton asked in these tough economic times where is the other 50 percent going to come from.
Mr. Graham replied that it w ould come from tax revenue. He noted that this would be a suffic ient reduction on the
amount of tax revenue as compared to the current existing program.
Mr. Loach said that with the cost recov ery and the data he as ked if it has lead staff to any expectations of the number
of positions he would be able to put into place as a result in the increased fees.
Mr. Graham replied that they are currently down seven full time pos itions and onehalf time position plus they have
shifted two people to other departments. So effectively they are down 9 ½ people right now.
They could say they could use the additional rev enue to justify funding these positions. The Board may go there.
They did that at the time of the Water Protection Ordinance and the Building Regulations and funded two positions .
As a result of that one was an engineering technician and one was a planner. No sooner than they did that the county
found that the revenue situation was even worse than they anticipated. They had two other people leave and those
positions were properly funded. So in the end they did not end up with any of the additional pos itions as a result of
that.
Mr. Loach said essentially if they got additional revenue into the department to hire additional staff those services
would actually go back to the same people for the most part who are us ing those services.
Mr. Graham said that was correct. It could be used to justify funding. He noted that with the number of applications
down these fees are bas ed on the assumption of an “average” year. If the number of applications drops to 50 percent
the number of fees drop to 50 percent. So they really are not covering those costs even if they thought they were
going to.
Mr. Strucko noted that the current fee revenue from the staff report is roughly about $145,000. If they go with staff’s
recommendation to 50 percent of cost it moved from $145,000 to $467,000. If they recov er 100 percent of costs it
jumps to $790,000.
Mr. Graham replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach asked if he broke it down on a fee or per hour basis s o that there was true cost recov ery for the time put in.
Mr. Graham replied that they have talked about that, but frankly to get to that lev el of detail they would have to go to
detailed timesheets. They have not found anybody in their business in Virginia that is doing that. It is something they
could do. There are some engineering consultant firms that do that. They could certainly do that and then get it
closer to a full cost recovery at that point.
Ms. Joseph noted that from several phone calls people are concerned about the cost that has been projected as part
of the review process and wondering how valid that was with the cons ultants.
Mr. Graham replied that he felt it was pretty good. W hen they add up all of the potential fee revenue versus the
departmental budget it came out around twothirds if they went to 100 percent cost recovery based on the consultants
estimated costs of our services. That would cover about twothirds of the departmental budget. The other third w ould
come from s ervices such as Comprehensive Plan changes, Master Plans and other things that they w ork on where
they don’t hav e potential fees . His gut reaction on that is that it is a pretty good average. W hether it fits really well
on each individual fee is another ques tion. That is where they would have to look at the detailed time sheets.
Ms. Joseph asked if the other localities they spoke with are doing 100 percent recovery.
Mr. Graham replied that the only one he found who does that with any of their programs is Stafford County. As a
result of that they are looking at fairly sizeable reductions in force right now becaus e the fees dropped and the
assumption has alw ays been that they were going to be funded by fees. Therefore, they are cutting all of their staff.
Mr. Morris thanked staff for laying out the figures.
Mr. Graham asked for guidance from the Planning Commission. Staff is ready to try to move forw ard to get this to a
public hearing. He has given them the three ranges at 50 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent. H e ask ed the
Planning Commis sion to tell him w hich number they are the most comfortable in moving forward with the idea that
would be the maximum fee amount that they w ould be interested in tak ing to public hearing.
Mr. Strucko invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, said that he had spok en to a number of people about this proposal and had
come before the C ommission during their work sessions.
The Free Enterprise Forum Board of Direc tors actually met today and discussed this at length. They strongly
oppose this measure moving forward at this time. There are a lot of reasons for that opposition including the
insignificant changes that have been made at the direction of the Development Review C ommittee that two
members of the Planning Commission sat on. H e described the changes to be made to the Board that was
approved last week as “getting a D ixie cup of water in the desert.” It is a small step and they are hoping that
is a first step. But there is a lot more stream lining that can go on.
Other questions have come up with regard to the bas e line data which has been referenced. Has the
consultant’s report been examined regarding the normalcy of the study period and of the staff productivity
level? He was not certain how those numbers were put together. But he found that any staff when asked
would define their 8 hours of work and what they have done the way Parkins on Law dictates that the work
expands to fit the time. H e was not directing this towards s taff. But, it has in every business that he has ever
been associated with.
Secondarily are these reality bas ed costs. Roger Ray c alled him this morning. H e had gotten word of this
and was c oncerned. He said that a lot of these things are going to cost more to get approved than it costs for
him to do it. One example that another pers on gave was the 100 percent Planning Commission fee that is on
the board for a 20 lot subdivision that is $4650 for that application. If they estimate by picking a number of
$35 an hour it would allow 137 staff hours to review a 20 lot subdiv ision. H e asked if that is a reasonable
number. He asked how long it takes the engineer to put together that plat. Those are real questions that he
has in digging down to the detail.
Another question that has come up is does the high rate of turn over in Community Development impact the
speed of applications. He w ould generally s ay that it probably has to. He asked if they should be addressing
the retention issues. The public benefit is one of the big keys . He thought that was why they were getting
into this weighing of percentage. Ev ery time a measure is called up and it comes from a preliminary review to
a PC review the applicant w ould be okay if they got an administrative approval. This organization in this
county has made a decision that they would like to take all of those things forward to a Commission review .
The C ommission’s staff report in October indicated of the ten localities interviewed ten of them had
administrative approv al on site plans. The Commiss ion has decided not to do that. That is a clear decision
and he could understand their reasoning for it. But who benefits from that decision. It would be his inclination
to suggest the public benefits from an additional review at the Planning Commission level. But the applicant
probably does not get a great benefit out of that s hould the applicant carry 100 percent of those costs. Should
there perhaps be one cost and whether the Commission calls it up or not it is the one cost.
Finally the last point is the cost c omplexity that he has talked about before. He really appreciated about two
months ago when they had a church that wanted to put up a shed for their lawnmower and it was a
nonconforming use in the rural areas. Mr. Graham explained that to proc ess that application Albemarle
County spent $6,000 to put a shed for a law nmower behind a church. He thought that there was more broken
here than the fees. H e suggested that they examine more of the Development R eview Task Force results
and look for streamlining to perhaps help this case.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public comment to bring the matter before the
Commission.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that they also got an email from Jay W illard. One of Mr. Willard’s comments had to do with
the fact that the expectation is from a community that develops legis lation that imposes it upon developers and
therefore the community should share in some of the responsibility for paying for some of the review . She agreed with
Mr. Willard in that because the community does place these requirements on the process in that they w ant them
review ed properly. Therefore, it does not bother her that they take on some of the responsibility of paying for the
review .
Mr. Loach noted if there is no commercial development then there is no cost incurred. As he understands the work
done by the planning staff is to protect the health and safety of the public from the effects of development. Therefore
he had no problem with the fees assoc iated with commercial development. But he did have some problem with the
family subdivision c osts. H e thought that Mr. Williamson brought up a good point that ought to be looked into as far
as process improvement through department streamlining to bring those costs dow n. He thought that those costs
were an obligation that should be borne by the developer. If in fact the monies from these projects is going back into
staff most of the benefit for thos e additional staff members is also going to be accrued by the developers who are
bringing thes e projects into them. He asked that the fee for family subdivision be lowered and if the property sold
outside the family it should be incurred. He noted that the times are tough for the taxpayers at this time too and
outside the family it should be incurred. He noted that the times are tough for the taxpayers at this time too and
should be taken into cons ideration.
Ms. Porterfield agreed with Mr. Loach that it is the cost of doing business and the cost should be borne by the
developer. The fees should be reasonable. If the fees are close to 20 year old numbers, then the numbers being
looked at are not realistic. What is shocking everyone is the fac t that they are looking at 20 year old numbers and
trying to c ompare them w ith 2009. Even if the amounts w ere updated by 25 percent in 2001 that is still 8 years ago.
She agreed with Mr. Loach that it is tough on the tax pay ers. In this c ounty they have got to stop having John Doe or
whoev er that are s upporting things for other people and gain no benefit out of.
Mr. Morris thought that w ith development there was an overall benefit to the general public. With these figures it really
brought home exactly what he had asked for. W ith 75 percent it is a huge fee. Because of the figures coming out he
felt that the 50 percent staff is recommending is more logical.
Ms. Porterfield asked if staff is s till recommending that.
Mr. Graham replied that he was still recommending 50 percent cost recovery. It is primarily because when they
originally submitted the c onsultant’s study the Board of Supervisors indicated a des ire to have fees s omewhat
comparable to other localities. W hen he did that comparison and started trying to come up with fees that are
reasonably comparable to other localities that he thought that 50 percent is where he ends up.
Ms. J oseph agreed w ith Mr. Morris that they gain good development through the review and the w hole c ommunity
benefits as a result of that. There are a lot of ex traneous things that go on with reviewing a plan. There is a lot of
work with neighbors and people who are not necess arily going to financially benefit from it. There is jus t a lot going on
that makes it complex when reviewing something. She did not mind paying for part of the review in her taxes
because it k eeps people honest. Staff is not only working for the developers but the community.
Mr. Loach recommended cost recovery on the basis of what ever it costs. He w as a programmer in a cost recover
department. They wrote programs for departments w ithin the University. Thos e programs that they wrote benefited
the entire University. The department that wanted the programs is the department that paid for the program. There
was a more careful oversight of the project. If Mr. Williamson’s request is that he w ants to w atch the pennies that
people are spending to get these through then that is the best way to do it. They would know w hat the project
entailed, w ho worked on the project, how many hours of each expertise went into that project and then there is not
much question. He felt that it was a more honest way of doing things.
Mr. Strucko s upported staff’s recommendation for cost recovery for 50 percent of the cost.
Mr. Edgerton suggested cost rec overy at 75 percent of the cost.
Ms. Porterfield noted that this w ould be the maximum amount to advertise.
Mr. Graham agreed that it was the maximum amount. If the C ommission wanted to go down they could, but they
could not go up.
Mr. Morris and Ms. Joseph supported cost recovery at 50 percent.
Mr. Kamptner noted that the consensus of the Commis sion on the percentage of cos t recovery was just to provide
guidance as to what they should advertise. A formal vote was not necessary .
Mr. Strucko noted that Ms . Porterfield had s uggested 75 percent which left it open after a public hearing in making a
determination and recommendation to the Board of s omething lower. They just can’t go above it without another
advertised public hearing.
Ms. Porterfield asked that something be put in the ordinance to give staff the ability to adjust the fees w ithout having
to come back .
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that it has to be done by ordinance and can’t be tied to the cost of living.
Mr. Graham pointed out that once they agree the sec ond bullet is what they have already done w ith the Water
Protec tion Ordinance and Building Regulations Plans to allow the bi annual review by using the cost of living of staff
to adjust fee adjustments. Therefore, they won’t be in the same position again.
Mr. Kamptner noted that it w ould be a very simple process.
Ms. Porterfield s uggested it state “plus postage” so that the postage is in addition to the staff cos t. The cost of
postage is increasing.
Mr. Graham pointed out that when he came up with the estimate he included the cost for preparing the notice and the
postage with creating the first 50 notic es. Then for each additional notice above that it w ould be $1.00 ex tra. For
most subdivisions that is not a factor, but there have been some rare instances like Glen Oaks that 900 notices were
sent out. It can be a significant amount of postage in rare instances.
Mr. Strucko noted that the advertising would cover fees that are 75 percent of the cost figures . That is the ceiling that
when this c omes before the Commission for a public hearing they can consider fees that are low er.
Mr. Kamptner said that there was a comment made by Mr. W illiamson that tie into attachment 2, which is the study of
other localities, regarding the adminis trative review versus Commission review and the disparity in the fee.
Apparently they are a fairly unique locality to the extent of Planning Commission review . There is a dis crepancy and
a fairly significant difference in the fee between administrative review and review by the C ommission w hen an item is
called up. For example, in look ing at a 5 lot subdivision for an administrative approval at 75 percent cost recovery it is
a $1,575 fee. If a neighbor calls it up and asks the Commission to review it that fee almost doubles.
Mr. Graham asked who should bear that cost.
Ms. Kamptner said that Mr. Williamson’s point was that once it goes to the C ommission there is a public involvement.
Mr. Loach asked to see the data that shows the differential in these costs and how they are incurred.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that when it goes to the Planning C ommission there is usually a waiver request. Therefore, it
is two different scenarios they are dealing with a waiver or modification that has to come before the Commission.
She assumed there was more review time on that.
Mr. Graham s aid that the other thing that was noted w hen they were doing this is that typically the projects that get
called to the Commis sion are the more c omplex projects. The simple projects don’t have the issues or questions .
The additional costs come from the preparation of the staff report and the complexity of those projects.
Mr. Graham said that they will advertise with a separate rate for the Planning Commission just to follow up on Mr.
Kamptner’s question as proposed in the table and in the ordinance right now.
Mr. Strucko replied yes, that it w as agreed to by the Planning Commiss ion.
In summary, the Commission recommended that staff proceed to a public hearing with a Subdivision Text
Amendment incorporating their recommendations, as follows:
It w as the general consensus of the Planning C ommission by a vote of (4:2) (Morris and Joseph voted nay) to direct
staff to proceed to public hearing with the maximum fee cost recovery for Subdiv ision Ordinance fees of 75 percent
cost recovery . That is the ceiling and when this comes before the Commission for public hearing it could be lower.
In addition, the C ommission asked staff to advertise with a separate rate for the Planning Commission review as
proposed in the table and in the ordinance right now.
Go to next set of minutes
Return to executive summary
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 10, 2009
STA200800002 Subdivision Fees
Amend Sec. 14203, Fees, of Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 14203 to impose new fees and to increase existing fees
charged for almost all listed applications, permits, reviews, approvals, inspections and other services provided by the County in the administration of Chapter 14. The following fees would
be increased: (1) preliminary plats reviewed by commission: (a) 19 lots: from $720 to $4100; (b) 1019 lots: from $1100 to $4350; (c) 20 or more lots: from $1330 to $4650; (2) preliminary
plats reviewed by agent: (a) 19 lots: from $360 to $2100; (b) 1019 lots: from $550 to $2100; (c) 20 or more lots: $670 to $2100; (d) 2 lots under section 14232(B)(2) or lots fronting on
existing public street: from $95 to $490; (3) final plats reviewed by commission: (a) 19 lots: from $720 to $4200; (b) 1019 lots: from $1100 to $4430; (c) 20 or more lots: $1330 to $4650; (4)
final plats reviewed by agent: (a) 19 lots: from $360 to $1950; (b) 1019 lots: from $550 to $2200; (c) 20 or more lots: $670 to $2450; (d) 2 lots under section 14232(B)(2) or lots fronting on
existing public street: from $95 to $1050; (5) reinstatement of preliminary or final plat review: from $65 to $1000; (6) plat for rural subdivision, family subdivision; resubdivision, or boundary
line adjustment: from $95 to $1350; (7) easement plats: from $95 to $950 if no deed, to $1500 with a deed; (8) bonding inspection for a plat: from $50 to $500; (9) groundwater assessment
Tier 4: from $1000 to $1500; (10) waiver after preliminary plat approved, before final plat approved: from $180 to $1650; (11) waiver after final plat approved: from $830 to $1650; (12) relief
from conditions imposed by commission prior to adoption of chapter 14: from $180 to $770; (13) appeal of plat to board of supervisors: from $240 to $540; and (14) extension of plat
approval: from $45 to $240. The following fees would be added: (1) each review of public road plans, including revisions after approval: $250; (2) each review of private road plans,
including revisions after approval: $400; (3) authorization for one or more private streets within subdivision: $1350; (4) waiver of one or more street standards before preliminary plat
approved: $1050; (5) waiver of curb and/or gutter requirements before preliminary plat approved: $1050; (6) waiver of street interconnection requirements before preliminary plat approved:
$1050; (7) final plat for subdivision without approved preliminary plat: applicable preliminary plat fee plus applicable final plat fee; (8) bond estimate request for subdivision improvements:
$500; (9) bonding inspection for bond reduction: $500; groundwater assessment Tier 1: $50; and (10) notices required by section 14216 and 14221: $200 for first 50; $1 for each notice
beyond 50. The following fees would be changed but not necessarily increased: (1) groundwater assessment Tier 2: from $250 plus $25 per lot to $330; (2) groundwater assessment Tier 3:
from $400 plus $25 per lot to $1300. The proposed fees and fee increases are necessary to assure that the fees cover the cost to the County to provide those services. The proposed fee
increases are authorized by Virginia Code § 15.22241(9). The full text of the ordinance is available for examination by the public in the offices of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and
in the Department of Community Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Mark Graham)
Mark Graham presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the executive summary. (See Executive Summary and PowerPoint Presentation) This is Community Development
fees for the Subdivision Ordinance public hearing for a recommendation for the Board of Supervisors.
In December, 2007 Community Development completed a fee study. It was the first major consideration of development fees since 1991. Staff found that a lot of the fees were
significantly behind as far as keeping up with the cost of living and inflation.
In August, 2008 the Board adopted new fees for both the building regulations and Water Protection Ordinances.
In September, 2008 a Board work session was held to review proposed fees with a staff recommended 50 percent cost recovery. Staff was directed to bring it to the Commission
for consideration and to bring forward a recommendation.
The first work session was held with the Planning Commission in October, 2008. A subsequent work session with the Planning Commission was held in January, 2009 based on
directions from the Planning Commission with respect to a possibility of 100 percent cost recovery, making sure they captured the cost of notices and possible consideration of
outsourcing for some of the reviews. What they got for directions from the Planning Commission was to move forward to a public hearing advertising a 75 percent cost recovery.
That is what is before the Commission tonight.
The Board’s direction to staff was to adopt a resolution of intent. In going back through the minutes the Board did not actually make a recommendation with respect to the
percentage of cost recovery so obviously leaving it to the Commission to develop their own recommendation. At the January, 2009 Planning Commission meeting the direction
staff got was the recommendation to advertise fees for 75 percent cost recovery which is the ordinance amendment that was included with the staff report. Cost recovery for
notices is also included in that ordinance amendment.
Within the executive summary there is an attachment that provides a fee comparison once again looking at the current fees, the fees under the consultant’s recommendation (fee
study), our staff recommendation (75 cost recovery which was taken to the Board) and then some comparisons of fees in similar localities to us.
Staff’s recommendation remains to set the fees at 50 percent cost recovery for a number of reasons. It is recognizing that they have a process that involves quite a bit more
direction and action than anybody else in the area including the things coming to the Planning Commission that normally don’t. They have also noted with the Board that they are
asking for biannual fee adjustments that would be based on the annual merit increases. That is to make sure that they don’t get into the same situation as they had with the lag
from 1991. Then the final thing, which came from the Board of Supervisors, was to make sure that future ordinance changes that are brought forward would include the cost of
service and a fee recommendation with those provisions.
Mr. Strucko invited questions from the Commission for Mr. Graham. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited public comment.
Alex Toomey, resident of Albemarle County, builder and developer, pointed out that he just reviewed the proposal several hours before the meeting. What he did not understand was that
there was no mention about the roll back taxes that they pay on the lots that they create. For instance, there is an example of a two lot neighborhood. If those lots assess for $200,000 a
piece that would be about $7,000 in roll back taxes that the developer would have to pay and 20 percent of that going to Community Development would cover the cost. On the 20 lot
neighborhoods they are talking about the cost of $4,000. A smaller percentage of those roll back taxes would easily cover the cost that the county incurs. The other question is that there
is no talk about actually cutting costs in the county for outsourcing since he thought that the developer is the outsourcer. The developer hires Virginia engineers licensed by the State of
Virginia to stamp the plans and say the plans meet the State Ordinance. In the last couple of years the county simplified the process by eliminating the final approval by the county.
VDOT is now doing all final approvals for subdivision roads. So in the normal year are those savings calculated into this new proposal of what it costs.
Neil Williamson, of Free Enterprise Forum, noted that he provided a document to the Commission outlining some of his concerns with the study that was used as well as his two key
points. There is recognition of the cost of complexity of the ordinances. Just from the discussion tonight there is a significant cost of complexity in Albemarle County’s ordinances. The
Commission has developed those ordinances to protect the public good and to protect what they perceive. The public lean on those ordinances in order to be able to say what they know is
going to happen with the land near them. He thinks that is a public benefit and as such the enforcement of those ordinances should be shared by the public and the private sector. He has
had folks call him and say that the public sector should pay 100 percent because the developer pays to engineer the plans, pays to have the engineers come in for the reviews with the
county engineers and then pays the interest carried on the property. He thought that there is clearly benefit to the applicant as well as to the public. The Free Enterprise Forum is
supportive of the 50 percent cost sharing.
There being no further comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission for discussion and action.
Ms. Porterfield asked staff to reply to Mr. Toomey’s questions.
Mr. Graham replied that in respect to the roll back taxes he was not sure how it inners into the equation except that it is a source of revenue for the County. It is not directly related to the
cost of a subdivision review. Therefore he was not sure how to relate that to subdivision fees.
Mr. Loach asked for an explanation of the roll back tax.
Mr. Graham explained when land is pulled out of Land Use they pay the taxes for the previous five years.
Mr. Loach noted that they are talking about land in the Land Use Taxation Program when they talk about the roll back taxes. He noted that most of the land in the Land Use Program has
been in since 1975. So even paying the 5 years of back taxes they have to realize that the county has subsidized the land owner for the better part of 20 years. So anything over 5 years
they are getting a benefit from the Land Use Program. So he did not agree with the conclusions that were being suggested.
Mr. Graham noted that with respect to his other point on the outsourcing of the road approval that they have noted that there is a much lower fee for public roads that are reviewed by the
county than for private roads. That is because they are discounting that part that is actually being done by VDOT rather than the county at this point.
Ms. Joseph agreed with staff that the reasonable request is 50 percent. She said that the community has decided that they have certain standards and she felt it was part of the
community responsibility to help pay for the review of that.
Mr. Morris agreed. He thought that staff has put a lot of thought into this and 50 percent is where he thought it ought to be.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out having attended the Board of Supervisors meeting a couple of weeks ago when they opened up discussion on the incoming budget she just cannot vote for
something is not going to try to recoup the cost of doing business. Whether it is the cost of doing business for the developer the developer is still going to pass a goodly portion of those
costs on to whoever is going to buy the properties, which makes it the people in Albemarle County who want those areas to build. She went along with bringing the advertising down to 75
percent instead of 100 percent because they could not get the votes. She just firmly believes, especially in this economy, they can’t ask the Albemarle County taxpayers to pick up things
that they may or may not be directly benefiting from. Even though she understands what they are saying she felt that right now the cost of doing business was the cost of doing business.
If they want to pick up 25 percent of it then that is where they are. But, she just can’t go any lower than the 75 percent.
Mr. Loach agreed with Ms. Porterfield that this is the cost of doing business particularly with the current economy. He felt that every department has to get in the mode to recover costs if
and when they can. As far as the cost if there was no development then there would be no cost incurred by the county. He felt that having their cost covered was different than having a
fire department for protection. It is two entirely different things when talking about protection.
Mr. Edgerton agreed with Mr. Loach and Ms. Porterfield with one exception in that he would be willing to drop back to the 50 percent that staff is recommending for the 2 lot family division.
He continues to be frustrated by the amount of work that has to be done by the county and the fact that they can’t seem to pay our staff enough or to hire enough staff to even handle it
when they are in a more prosperous time than they currently are in. Actually they are struggling with the current work load. He agreed with Ms. Porterfield that 75 percent is a good
compromise between the 100 and 50 percent. He would recommend that they go with the 75 percent with the one exception on the 2 lot family division as recommended by staff.
Theoretically that is there to protect the rural land owner that wants to keep some land in the family. .
Mr. Franco noted that he was obviously new to the conversation on this side of the fence. But he did think that a lot of what occurs right now is initiated by the public. The proposal
comes from the development community especially with ministerial acts and there should be a check box that it does this or it does not. A lot of the process is being driven by the public
and being questioned by the public. As such he felt that the public has a shared responsibility for the cost of that review. He supports the staff recommendation of 50 percent. He agreed
that the fees need to be updated from the 1991 costs, which was when it was last updated. But he truly believes that the public is a big piece of this process and they need to share that
cost.
Mr. Strucko noted that previously he agreed to the 75 percent because that was the cap to advertise. He agreed with Ms. Porterfield, Mr. Loach and Mr. Edgerton. He liked Mr.
Edgerton’s suggestion regarding the 2 lot family subdivision. It is for the very reasons that the others stated. He asked if there was a motion.
Ms. Porterfield asked under the notice section what was meant by “or delivering.”
Mr. Kamptner noted that it was “and delivering.”
Ms. Porterfield suggested that they get that out of there because the cost to hand deliver 50 notices is going to be a lot more than $200 when staff had to be sent out in a car to deliver.
She suggested that it say “preparing and mailing.”
Mr. Graham noted that delivering could be that the persons are here at the county. For example, there are other meetings that staff can hand deliver the notice directly to the person at the
meeting rather than mail it.
Ms. Porterfield questioned if they want it to be so open ended.
Mr. Graham noted that he read it to mean that it was staff’s prerogative to choose.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, that this is not obligating staff to hand deliver notices.
Ms. Porterfield agreed to second the motion as long as staff was not being obligated to hand deliver the notices.
Ms. Joseph noted that she thinks of the bottom line and that the economy is a reason she can support the 50 percent. She felt that they have to think of the economy in terms of people
are out there trying to make a living actually doing this sort of thing and submitting site plans. So she was thinking of it in those terms, too.
Mr. Franco said that in the economy today he was not sure if the comment of being able to pass on the expense to the buyer is realistic. He thought that maybe in the days when things
kept going up and up they could. But he thought that they have reached a cap where they can’t continue to pass this burden on to the new resident.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of STA20080002 Subdivision Fees to the Board of Supervisors with the 75 percent cost recovery as
shown on the Chart known as Attachment 4, with the exception of the twolot family division with the 50 percent cost recovery.
The motion passed by a vote of 4:3. (Strucko, Loach, Edgerton and Porterfield voted aye.) (Franco, Morris and Joseph voted nay.)
Mr. Strucko noted that STA20080002 Subdivision Fees would go before the Board of Supervisors on April 8, 2009 with a recommendation for approval with the 75 percent cost recovery
as shown on the Chart known as Attachment 4, with the exception of the twolot family division with the 50 percent cost recovery.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ATTACHMENT 4
STA2008003 Subdivision Fees – Executive Summary Chart 4
ATTACHMENT 4
Subdivision Type Phase
County
Cost
Current
Fee
Fee
Study
Staff
Recommended *
75%
Cost
Recovery
100% Cost
Recovery
** Charlottesville
Fluvanna
County
Greene
County James City County
2 Lot Family
Division $1,377 $95 $800 $690 $1,015 $1,350 $100 $190 $600 $200
5 Lot Subdivision
Preliminary
Admin $2,301 $360 $1,550 $1,150 $1,575 $2,100 NA $400 $1,500 $400 (+ $250/reubmisssion)
PC $4,322 $720 $3,840 $2,200 $3,075 $4,100
Final Admin $1,990 $360 $435 $1,000 $1,465 $1,950 $100 $100 $750 NA
20 Lot Subdivision
Preliminary
Admin $2,464 $670 $1,550 $1,150 $1,575 $2,100 $1,730 $700 $3,000 $1,510 (+$250/resubmission)
PC $4,862 $1,330 $4,380 $2,200 $3,490 $4,650
Final Admin $2,464 $670 $740 $1,230 $1,840 $2,450 $1,730 $100 $1,500 NA
* Note: The staff recommended fees did not include a separate fee for notices. This could be added without changing the fees listed, but results in fees that are slightly higher than 50% of cost.
Return to executive summary
ATTACHMENT E
Survey of Virginia Localities: Site Plan and Subdivisions
B e l o w a r e th e r e s u l ts f r o m 1 0 lo c a li ti e s th a t r e s p o n d e d to a f iv e q u e s ti o n s u r v e y a b o u t h o w th e ir
d e p a r tm e n t s h a n d le d th e r e v i e w a n d a p p r o v a l o f s it e p la n s a n d s u b d iv is io n p la ts . T h e lo c a litie s ,
in c lu d in g th e ir p o p u la tio n s a r e :
1 . R o c k in g h a m C o u n ty (7 5 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
2 . W a s h in g to n C o u n ty (5 3 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
3 . H a li f a x C o u n t y (3 7 ,0 0 0 p e o p l e )
4 . C i ty o f D a n v il le (4 6 ,0 0 0 p e o p l e )
5 . M o n tg o m e r y C o u n t y (9 0 ,0 0 0 p e o p l e )
6 . F r e d e r ic k C o u n ty (8 0 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
7 . F a u q u ie r C o u n ty (6 7 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
8 . A u g u s ta C o u n ty (7 3 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
9 . R o a n o k e C o u n ty (9 2 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
1 0 . A m h e r s t C o u n ty (6 8 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
Q u e s t io n 1 a s k e d , I s th e r e v ie w a n d a p p r o v a l o f s ite p la n s d o n e a d m in is tr a tiv e ly o r b y th e
P l a n n in g C o m i s s io n ?
1 0
0
Administratively Planning
Commission
A m h e r s t C o u n ty
R o a n o k e C o u n ty
A u g u s ta C o u n ty
F a u q u ie r C o u n ty
F r e d e r ic k C o u n ty
M o n tg o m e r y C o u n ty
C ity o f D a n v ille
H a lifa x C o u n ty
W a s h in g to n C o u n ty
R o c k in g h a m C o u n ty
A s y o u c a n s e e , a l l 1 0 o f th e r e s p o n d i n g lo c a li tie s r e v ie w a n d a p p r o v e s ite p la n s a d m in is tr a tiv e ly .
Q u e s tio n 2 w a s v e r y s im ila r , b u t a s k e d , I s th e r e v ie w a n d a p p r o v a l o f s u b d iv is io n p la ts d o n e
a d m in is tr a tiv e ly o r b y th e P la n n in g C o m m is s io n ?
0
3
7
Administratively D ep ends Planning
Commission
F a u q u ie r C o u n ty
M o n tg o m e r y C o u n ty
C ity o f D a n v ille
A m h e r s t C o u n ty
R o a n o k e C o u n ty
A u g u s ta C o u n ty
F r e d e r ic k C o u n ty
H a lifa x C o u n ty
W a s h in g to n C o u n ty
R o c k in g h a m C o u n ty
S e v e n o f th e lo c a litie s e x c lu s iv e ly r e v ie w s u b d iv is io n p la ts a d m in is tr a tiv e ly , w h ile th r e e lo c a litie s
u s e a h y b r id s y s te m w h e r e s o m e p la n s a r e r e v ie w e d b y th e P C a n d s o m e a r e n o t d e p e n d in g o n a
v a r i e ty o f f a c to r s . N o lo c a litie s h a d a ll o f th e ir s u b d iv is io n p la ts r e v ie w e d b y th e P C .
Q u e s tio n 3 a s k e d a c o u p le c la r if y in g q u e s tio n s a b o u t th o s e lo c a litie s th a t u s e a h y b r id s y s te m .
H e r e a r e th e ir r e s p o n s e s :
F auq uier County: O u r P C r e v ie w s a ll p r e lim in a r y p la ts . C o m m e r c ia l a n d in d u s tr ia l lo ts
m a y b e s u b d iv id e d a d m in i s t r a ti v e l y if th e y a r e c o n s is te n t w it h a n a p p r o v e d c o n c e p t p la n
o r h a v e a P la n o f D e v e l o p m e n t a p p r o v e d b y th e P l a n n in g C o m m i s s io n .
Montgom ery County: M a j o r s u b d i v i s i o n s g o th r o u g h b o t h t h e P C & B O S . T h e y a r e
c o n s id e r e d m a j o r if th e y c r e a t e e l e v e n (1 1 ) o r m o r e l o t s o r tr a c t s ; r e q u i r e c o n s t r u c tio n o f a
n e w s t r e e t; o r r e q u i r e s a p r i v a t e a c c e s s e a s e m e n t , s e r v in g a to ta l o f f o u r (4 ) o r m o r e lo ts o r
tr a c t s .
City of D anville: A n y s u b d iv is io n o f t h r e e o r m o r e l o t s , o r a n y th i n g w i th a r ig h t-o f -w a y
d e d ic a t io n g o e s t o o u r P l a n n in g C o m m i s s io n .
Q u e s tio n 4 a s k e d , D o y o u p r o v id e n o tic e to n e ig h b o r s o f p r o p o s e d s u b d iv is io n p la ts o r s ite
p la n s ?
2
7
Y es N o
A u g u s ta C o u n ty
F a u q u ie r C o u n ty
F r e d e r ic k C o u n ty
R o a n o k e C o u n ty
M o n tg o m e r y C o u n ty
C ity o f D a n v ille
H a lifa x C o u n ty
W a s h in g to n C o u n ty
R o c k in g h a m C o u n ty
** A m h e r s t C o u n t y d id n o t r e s p o n d to Q u e s ti o n 4 .
O n ly tw o lo c a litie s in d ic a te d th a t th e y p r o v id e n o ti c e t o n e ig h b o r s f o r p r o p o s e d s u b d iv is io n p la ts
o r s ite p la n s . O n e o f th e N o r e s p o n d e n ts n o te d , h o w e v e r , th a t th e y d o p r o v id e n o tic e if it is
r e q u ir e d b y V A C o d e , a s w ith v a c a tio n o f e a s e m e n ts o r w ith r ig h t o f w a y s .
F in a lly , q u e s tio n 5 s im p ly a s k e d f o r a c o n ta c t p e r s o n f o r e a c h lo c a lity , in c lu d in g th e ir p h o n e o r
e m a il a d d r e s s e s . N in e o f th e te n r e s p o n d e n ts c a n b e f o u n d b e lo w :
1 . R o c k in g h a m C o u n ty (7 5 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
W illia m L ."B illy " V a u g h n
D ir e c to r o f C o m m u n ity D e v e lo p m e n t
w v a u g h n @ r o c k in g h a m c o u n ty v a .g o v
R o c k in g h a m C o u n ty A d m in is tr a tio n C e n te r
2 0 E a s t G a y S tr e e t
H a r r is o n b u r g , V ir g in ia 2 2 8 0 2
5 4 0 .5 6 4 .3 0 3 1 (o f f ic e )
5 4 0 .4 7 6 .1 1 0 1 (m o b ile )
w w w .r o c k in g h a m c o u n ty v a .g o v
w w w .y e s r o c k in g h a m .c o m
2 . W a s h i n g t o n C o u n ty (5 3 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
M a r k R e e te r
C o u n ty A d m i n is tr a t o r
m r e e te r @ w a s h c o v a .c o m
3 . H a lif a x C o u n ty (3 7 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
R o b e r t L o v e
Z o n in g A d m in is tr a to r
4 3 4 -4 7 6 -3 3 0 0 e x t. 2 3 4
r m l@ c o .h a lif a x .v a .u s
4 . C ity o f D a n v ille (4 6 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
K e n G illie
D ir e c to r o f P la n n in g D iv is io n
Z o n in g A d m in is tr a to r
C i ty o f D a n v ille , V A
(4 3 4 ) 7 9 9 -5 2 6 1 (e x t. 2 3 8 )
g illik c @ c i.d a n v ille .v a .u s
5 . M o n tg o m e r y C o u n ty (9 0 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
S te v e n M . S a n d y , A I C P , C Z A
P la n n in g D ir e c to r
M o n tg o m e r y C o u n ty
(5 4 0 )3 9 4 -2 1 4 8
s a n d y s m @ m o n tg o m e r y c o u n ty v a .g o v
6 . F r e d e r ic k C o u n ty (8 0 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
.
E r ic R . L a w r e n c e , A I C P
D ir e c to r , D e p a r tm e n t o f P la n n in g a n d D e v e lo p m e n t
F r e d e r ic k C o u n ty
1 0 7 N . K e n t S tr e e t
W in c h e s te r , V A 2 2 6 0 1
5 4 0 -6 6 5 -5 6 5 1
5 4 0 -6 6 5 -6 3 9 5 (f a x )
e la w r e n c @ c o .f r e d e r ic k .v a .u s
h ttp ://w w w .c o .f r e d e r ic k .v a .u s /P la n n in g A n d D e v e lo p m e n t/P la n n in g A n d D e v .h tm
w w w .c o .f r e d e r ic k .v a .u s
7 . F a u q u ie r C o u n ty (6 7 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
K im b e r le y F o g le , A s s is ta n t D ir e c to r o f C o m m u n ity D e v e lo p m e n t
F a u q u ie r C o u n ty
5 4 0 /3 4 7 .8 6 6 0
k im b e r le y .f o g le @ f a u q u ie r c o u n ty .g o v
8 . A u g u s ta C o u n ty (7 3 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
M ic h e le L . A s ta r b
S u b d iv is io n A d m in is tr a to r
5 4 0 -2 4 5 -5 7 0 0
m a s ta r b @ c o .a u g u s ta .v a .u s
9 . R o a n o k e C o u n ty (9 2 ,0 0 0 p e o p le )
P h ilip T h o m p s o n , A I C P , C Z A
D e p u ty D ir e c to r o f P la n n in g
R o a n o k e C o u n ty , V A
(5 4 0 ) 7 7 2 -2 0 6 8
p th o m p s o n @ r o a n o k e c o u n ty v a .g o v
ATTACHMENT F
ORDINANCE NO. 09-14( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 14, SUBDIVISION OF LAND, ARTICLE II, ADMINISTRATION
AND PROCEDURE, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 14, Subdivision of
Land, Article II, Administration and Procedure, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 14-203 Fees
Chapter 14. Subdivision of Land
Article II. Administration and Procedure
14-203 Fees.
Each subdivider shall pay a fee upon the submittal of a plat or other application, based on the schedule below;
provided that neither the county nor the county school board shall be required to pay any fee if it is the applicant. The fee
shall be in the form of cash or a check payable to the County of Albemarle.
A. Preliminary plat for subdivision:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00 $3,075.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00 $3.26 0.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00 $3,255.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(2) or if all lots front on an
ex isting public street: $95.00 $36 5.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $36 0.00 $1,575.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00 $1,575.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $6 70.00 $1,575.00.
3. Reinstatement of review: $6 5.00 $750.00.
4. Each filing of a preliminary plat, whether or not a preliminary plat for the same property has been
filed previously, shall be subject to the same requirements applicable fee.
B. Final plat for subdivision:
1. If subject to review by the commission:
(a) 1 to 9 lots: $720.00 $3,150.00.
(b) 10 to 19 lots: $1,100.00 $3,320.00.
(c) 20 or more lots: $1,330.00 $3,48 5.00.
2. If subject to review by the agent:
(a) Two-lot subdivision as described in section 14-232(B)(2) or if all lots front on an
ex isting public street: $95.00 $8 10.00.
(b) 1 to 9 lots: $36 0.00 $1,490.00.
(c) 10 to 19 lots: $550.00 $1,6 70.00.
(d) 20 or more lots: $6 70.00 $1,8 45.00.
3. Final plat for subdivision without approved preliminary plat: The applicable
preliminary plat fee plus the applicable final plat fee.
34. Condominium plat: $100.00.
45. Reinstatement of review: $6 5.00 $750.00.
5. In addition to the foregoing, if the subdivider is required to construct a street, he shall pay to the
county a fee equal to the cost of the inspection of the construction of any such street. These fees
shall be paid prior to completion of all necessary inspections and shall be deemed a part of the
cost of construction of the street for purposes of section 14-435(B).
C. Plat for rural subdivision, family subdivision, resubdivision, or boundary line adjustment: $95.00
$1,010.00.
D. Easement plat: $95.00.
1. Easement plat without a deed: $710.00.
2. Easement plat with a deed: $1,125.00.
E. Streets:
1. Public road plans: $250.00 for each review of a submitted plan, including reviews of
revisions after plan approval.
2. Private road plans: $400.00 for each review of a submitted plan, including reviews of
revisions after plan approval.
3. Authoriz ation for one or more private streets within a subdivision: $1,010.00.
4. W aiver of one or more street standards before approval of preliminary plat: $78 5.00.
5. W aiver of curb and/or gutter requirements before approval of preliminary plat: $78 5.00.
6 . W aiver of street interconnection requirements before approval of preliminary plat:
$78 5.00.
7. If required to construct a street, the subdivider shall pay to the county a fee equal to the cost
of the inspection of the construction of any such street. These fees shall be paid prior to completion
of all necessary inspections and shall be deemed a part of the cost of construction of the street for
purposes of section 14-435(B).
F. Bonds:
1. Bond estimate request for subdivision improvements: $375.00.
2. Bonding inspection for plat: $375.00.
3. Bonding inspection for bond reduction: $375.00
G. Groundwater assessment information required by section 14-308 .1:
1. Tier 1 assessment under section 17-401: $50.00.
2. Tier 2 assessment under section 17-402: $330.00.
3. Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $1,010.00.
4. Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1,140.00.
H. Other matters subject to review:
1. W aiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is authoriz ed after approval of
preliminary plat and before approval of final plat: $18 0.00 $1,240.00.
2. W aiver of any requirement of this chapter for which a waiver is authoriz ed after approval of
final plat: $1,240.00.
23. Relief from plat conditions imposed by commission prior to the date of adoption of this
chapter: $18 0.00 $575.00.
34. Appeal of plat to board of supervisors: $240.00 $405.00.
45. Ex tension of plat approval: $45.00 $18 0.00.
5. Bonding inspection for plat: $6 0.00.
6 . Vacation of plat or part thereof: $170.00 $36 0.00.
7. Review of groundwater assessment information required by section 14-308 .1:
(a) Tier 2 assessment under section 17-402: $250.00 plus $25.00 per lot.
(b) Tier 3 assessment under section 17-403: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot.
(c) Tier 4 assessment under section 17-404: $1,000.00.
I. Notices as required by sections 14-216 and 14-221:
1. Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices: $200.00.
2. Preparing and mailing or delivering, per notice more than fifty (50): $1.00
(9-5-96 , 12-11-91, 6 -7-8 9, 4-17-8 5, 12-1-8 2, 12-14-77, 3-2-77, 11-10-76 , 8 -28 -74 (§ 3); 198 8 Code, § 18 -43; Ord. 98 -
A(1), 7-15-98 ; Ord. 99-14(1), 6 -16 -99; Ord. 02-14(2), 7-3-02; Ord. 04-14(1), adopted 12-8 -04, effective 2-8 -05; Ord.
05-14(1), 4-20-05, effective 6 -20-05)
State law reference--Va. Code § 15.2-2241(9).
I, Ella W . J ordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly adopted by
the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of _____ to _____, as recorded below, at a regular
meeting held on _________________________.
__________________________________
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd ____ ____
Mr. Dorrier ____ ____
Ms. Mallek ____ ____
Mr. Rooker ____ ____
Mr. Slutz ky ____ ____
Ms. Thomas ____ ____
1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 2009
AG E ND A ITE M/ACTION
FOLLOW -U P ACTION
1. C a ll to O r d e r .
• M e e tin g w a s c a lle d to o r d e r a t 6 :0 0 p .m .
b y T o m L o a c h , V ic e -C h a ir m a n . P C
m e m b e r s p r e s e n t w e r e M r . M o r r is , M r .
F r a n c o , M r . L o a c h , M s . P o r te r fie ld , M s .
J o s e p h a n d M r . E d g e r to n . M r . S tr u c k o
a r r iv e d a t 6 :13 p .m . J u lia M o n te ith w a s
a b s e n t.
• S ta ff p r e s e n t w e r e J u a n W a d e , G e r a ld
G a to b u , E r yn B r e n n a n , M a r k G r a h a m ,
B ill F r itz , W a yn e C ilim b e r g , D a v id
B e n is h , S h a r o n T a ylo r a n d G r e g
K a m p tn e r .
2 . F r o m th e P u b lic : M a tte r s N o t L is te d fo r
P u b lic H e a r in g o n th e A g e n d a .
• N o n e
• C le r k : N o A c tio n R e q u ir e d
3 . R e v ie w o f B o a r d o f S u p e r v is o r s M e e tin g
M a r c h 4 , 2 0 0 9 .
• C le r k : N o A c tio n R e q u ir e d
4 . Consent Agend a
M in u te s fo r A p p r o v a l: J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 ,
J a n u a r y 6 , 2 0 0 9 , J u ly 3 1, 2 0 0 7 , O c to b e r 2 3 ,
2 0 0 7 a n d D e c e m b e r 11, 2 0 0 7
TAB LE D TH E CONSE NT AG E ND A.
• C le r k : N o A c tio n R e q u ir e d
5 . R egu lar Items:
H O-2009-00027 K ate W hite
APPR OV E D H O-2009-00027 , a
m o d ific a tio n fo r a H o m e O c c u p a tio n C la s s A
in a c c o r d a n c e w ith S e c tio n 5 .2 o f th e
Z o n in g O r d in a n c e , b y a v o te o f 4 :3 w ith th e
c o n d itio n s r e c o m m e n d e d b y s ta ff, a s
a m e n d e d . (F r a n c o , P o r te r fie ld , M o r r is a n d
L o a c h v o te d a ye ) (J o s e p h , S tr u c k o a n d
E d g e r to n v o te d n a y)
R E Q U E STE D , b y a v o te o f 7 :0 , AN
OFFICIAL D E TE R MINATION b y th e Z o n in g
A d m in is tr a to r a s to w h e th e r th e B e lv e d e r e
p r o ffe r s m a d e a c o m m itm e n t th a t th e
c a r r ia g e h o u s e u n its w o u ld b e a ffo r d a b le
h o u s in g .
R E Q U E STE D , b y a v o te o f 7 :0 , AN
OFFICIAL D E TE R MINATION b y th e Z o n in g
A d m in is tr a to r th a t th is H o m e O c c u p a tio n
q u a lifie s a s a C la s s A r a th e r th a n C la s s B .
If a n o ffic ia l d e te r m in a tio n h a s a lr e a d y b e e n
C le r k :
• A c tio n L e tte r H O -2 0 0 9 -0 0 0 2 7 (d o e s n o t g o to
B o a r d o f S u p e r v is o r s ) m o d ific a tio n fo r th e
n u m b e r o f v e h ic le s tr ip s a llo w e d a n d o ff-s ite
p a r k in g . (Attachment 1 Cond itions of
Ap p rov al)
• S ta ff: R e q u e s t a n o ffic ia l d e te r m in a tio n r e g a r d in g
th e p r o ffe r .
• S ta ff: R e q u e s t a n o ffic ia l d e te r m in a tio n r e g a r d in g
th e H o m e O c c u p a tio n if o n e h a s n o t a lr e a d y
b e e n m a d e . If a n o ffic ia l d e te r m in a tio n h a s
a lr e a d y b e e n m a d e p r o v id e a c o p y o f th e
d e te r m in a tio n le tte r to th e C o m m is s io n .
• P la n n in g C o m m is s io n e r : If th e d e te r m in a tio n
h a s b e e n m a d e w ith in th e la s t 3 0 d a ys th a t th e
H o m e O c c u p a tio n q u a lifie s a s a C la s s A a p p e a l
th e d e te r m in a tio n to th e B o a r d o f Z o n in g
A p p e a ls .
2
m a d e , th e C o m m is s io n r e q u e s te d th a t a
c o p y o f th e d e te r m in a tio n le tte r b e p r o v id e d
to th e C o m m is s io n . If th e d e te r m in a tio n
h a s b e e n m a d e w ith in th e la s t 3 0 d a ys th a t
th e H o m e O c c u p a tio n q u a lifie s a s a C la s s A
th e n th e C o m m is s io n a u th o r iz e d a n a p p e a l
o f th e d e te r m in a tio n b y a m e m b e r o f th e
P la n n in g C o m m is s io n to th e B o a r d o f
Z o n in g A p p e a ls .
6 . SD P-2009-00005 W ood son Prop erty
(AT&T CV 3 8 3 )
• APPR OV E D SD P-2009-00005 , b y
a v o te o f 7 :0 .
• APPR OV E D CR ITICAL SLOPE S
W AIV E R R E Q U E ST, b y a v o te o f
7 :0 fo r S D P -2 0 0 9 -0 0 0 0 5 .
C le r k :
• A c tio n L e tte r A p p r o v a l o f p e r s o n a l w ir e le s s
s e r v ic e fa c ility a t th e p r o p o s e d h e ig h t o f fo u r (4 )
fe e t a b o v e th e r e fe r e n c e tr e e , w ith th e c o n d itio n s
o u tlin e d b y th e A r c h ite c tu r a l R e v ie w B o a r d
• A c tio n L e tte r A p p r o v a l o f C r itic a l S lo p e s
W a iv e r .
7 . SD P-2008 -0018 5 Charlottesv ille H igh
School Softb all Field Lighting - W aiv er
APPR OV E D SD P-2008 -0018 5 , b y a v o te o f
6 :1, to g r a n t a w a iv e r o f th e o u td o o r lig h tin g
r e g u la tio n s in S e c tio n 4 .17 .4 (a ) o f th e
A lb e m a r le C o u n ty Z o n in g O r d in a n c e in
a c c o r d a n c e w ith S e c tio n 4 .17 .5 (a ) w ith
c o n d itio n s . (E d g e r to n v o te d n a y)
C le r k :
• A c tio n L e tte r S D P -2 0 0 8 -0 0 18 5 (Attachment 2
Cond itions of Ap p rov al)
8 . Pu b lic H earing Items
SP-2008 -0006 5 Tand em Friend s School
Classroom Trailer
APPR OV E D SP-2008 -0006 5 , b y a v o te o f
7 :0 , to a llo w a te m p o r a r y m o b ile c la s s r o o m
in th e n o r th e a s t c o r n e r o f th e p a r c e l w ith th e
c o n d itio n s r e c o m m e n d e d b y s ta ff.
C le r k :
• A c tio n L e tte r - S P -2 0 0 8 -0 0 0 6 5 w ill g o b e fo r e
B o a r d o f S u p e r v is o r s o n A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 9 .
(Attachment 3 Cond itions of Ap p rov al)
STA-2008 -00002 Su b d iv ision Fees
R E COMME ND E D APPR OV AL OF STA-
2008 -00002, b y a v o te o f 4 :3 , w ith th e 7 5
p e r c e n t c o s t r e c o v e r y a s s h o w n o n th e
C h a r t k n o w n a s A tta c h m e n t 4 , w ith th e
e x c e p tio n o f th e tw o -lo t fa m ily d iv is io n w ith
th e 5 0 p e r c e n t c o s t r e c o v e r y. (S tr u c k o ,
L o a c h , E d g e r to n a n d P o r te r fie ld v o te d a ye .)
(F r a n c o , M o r r is a n d J o s e p h v o te d n a y.)
C le r k :
• A c tio n L e tte r - S T A -2 0 0 8 -0 0 0 0 2 w ill g o to th e
B o a r d o f S u p e r v is o r s o n A p r il 8 , 2 0 0 9 .
• (Attachment 4 Chart in Staff R ep ort)
8 . • Old B u siness
Consent Agend a
• B y a v o te o f 4 :0 :3 a p p r o v e d th e m in u te s
• C o n s e n t A g e n d a A p p r o v a l (F in a liz e th e
m in u te s )
• Staff N o tify P C o f th e tim e o f th e J u n e 3 B o a r d
o f S u p e r v is o r s h e a r in g o n th e R u r a l A r e a S tr a te g y
3
o f J a n u a r y 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 , J a n u a r y 6 , 2 0 0 9 ,
J u ly 3 1, 2 0 0 7 , O c to b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 a n d
D e c e m b e r 11, 2 0 0 7 .(P o r te r fie ld , L o a c h
a n d F r a n c o a b s ta in e d )
The R u ral Area Strategy Statu s R ev iew
T h e B o a r d o f S u p e r v is o r s is s c h e d u le d to
r e v ie w o n J u n e 3 d u r in g th e d a y m e e tin g
w ith th e e x a c t tim e to b e d e te r m in e d .
S ta tu s R e v ie w .
9 . • New B u siness
B ellair Su b d iv ision D iscu ssion on
Non-conforming b u ild ing site area on
tw o lots
• B y a v o te o f 6 :0 , th e P la n n in g
C o m m is s io n a s k e d s ta ff to c o m e b a c k
w ith a r e s o lu tio n o f in te n t fo r a d o p tio n to
a m e n d th e o r d in a n c e to c la r ify th e
c r ite r ia to b e c o n s id e r e d w h e n
r e v ie w in g a m o d ific a tio n fo r a m e n d m e n t
o f b u ild in g s ite s h a p e .
W ind Tu rb ines D iscu ssion b y Mr.
E d gerton and Ms. J osep h
• T h e C o m m is s io n a s k e d to r e v ie w th e
c o n c e p ts b e fo r e th e M a y 6 J o in t
B o a r d /P C w o r k s e s s io n .
• Staff D r a ft r e s o lu tio n o f in te n t in r e g a r d s to
a d m in is tr a tiv e w a iv e r s a s d is c u s s e d in B e lla ir
S u b d iv is io n .
• Staff - S c h e d u le w o r k s e s s io n o n u p c o m in g P C
a g e n d a o n w in d tu r b in e s .
10 . A d jo u r n to M a r c h 17 , 2 0 0 9 , 6 :0 0 p .m .,
A u d ito r iu m , S e c o n d F lo o r , C o u n ty O ffic e
B u ild in g , 4 0 1 M c In tir e R o a d , C h a r lo tte s v ille ,
V ir g in ia .
• T h e m e e tin g w a s a d jo u r n e d a t 9 :4 9
p .m .
A tta c h m e n t 1 H O -2 0 0 9 -0 0 0 2 7 K a te W h ite - C o n d itio n s o f A p p r o v a l
A tta c h m e n t 2 S D P -2 0 0 8 -0 0 18 5 C h a r lo tte s v ille H ig h S c h o o l S o ftb a ll F ie ld L ig h tin g W a iv e r
C o n d itio n s o f A p p r o v a l
A tta c h m e n t 3 - S P -2 0 0 8 -0 0 0 6 5 T a n d e m F r ie n d s S c h o o l C la s s r o o m T r a ile r C o n d itio n s o f a p p r o v a l
A tta c h m e n t 4 S T A -2 0 0 8 -0 0 3 S u b d iv is io n F e e s C h a r t 4 in E x e c u tiv e S u m m a r y
4
ATTACH ME NT 1
Attachment 1 H O-2009-00027 K ate W hite - Cond itions of Ap p rov al
T h e P la n n in g C o m m is s io n , b y a v o te o f 4 :3 , a p p r o v e d H O -2 0 0 9 -0 0 0 2 7 , B e lv e d e r e In te g r a te d H e a lin g
A r ts H o m e O c c u p a tio n C la s s A M o d ific a tio n in a c c o r d a n c e w ith S e c tio n 5 .2 o f th e Z o n in g O r d in a n c e w ith
th e c o n d itio n s r e c o m m e n d e d b y s ta ff, a s a m e n d e d . T h e m o d ific a tio n is fo r th e n u m b e r o f v e h ic le s tr ip s
a llo w e d a n d o ff-s ite p a r k in g fo r th e r e s id e n c e .
1. C lie n t v is its to th e s ite s h a ll b e lim ite d to th e h o u r s b e tw e e n 9 :0 0 a .m . a n d 5 :3 0 p .m ., M o n d a y
th r o u g h F r id a y. T h e s e h o u r s o f o p e r a tio n s h a ll n o t a p p ly in a n e m e r g e n c y.
2 . C lie n ts s h a ll b e s c h e d u le d w ith a m in im u m o f 10 m in u te s b e tw e e n a p p o in tm e n ts .
3 . T h e c o n d u c t o f th e h o m e o c c u p a tio n s h a ll g e n e r a te n o m o r e th a n fo u r te e n to ta l v e h ic le tr ip s p e r
d a y to th e s ite (o n e c lie n t v is it e q u a ls 2 v e h ic le tr ip s ).
5
ATTACH ME NT 2
SD P-2008 -0018 5 Charlottesv ille H igh School Softb all Field Lighting W aiv er Cond itions of
Ap p rov al
T h e P la n n in g C o m m is s io n a p p r o v e d S D P -2 0 0 8 -0 0 18 5 b y a v o te o f 6 :1 to g r a n t a w a iv e r o f th e o u td o o r
lig h tin g r e g u la tio n s in S e c tio n 4 .17 .4 (a ) o f th e A lb e m a r le C o u n ty Z o n in g O r d in a n c e in a c c o r d a n c e w ith
S e c tio n 4 .17 .5 (a ) w ith th e c o n d itio n s , a s fo llo w s .
1. A n y lig h tin g s o lu tio n s h a ll b e a p p r o v e d b y th e a g e n t fo r A lb e m a r le C o u n ty in th e s ite p la n
a p p r o v a l. T h e a p p lic a n t s h a ll p r o v id e c e r tific a tio n th a t th e lig h ts m e e t IE S N A s ta n d a r d s .
2 . T h e fie ld w o u ld b e u s e d M o n d a y th r o u g h S a tu r d a y a n d th e lig h ts m a y b e o n u p to 10 p .m .
6
ATTACH ME NT 3
SP-2008 -6 5 Tand em Friend s School Mob ile Classroom U nit - Cond itions of Ap p rov al
T h e P la n n in g C o m m is s io n a p p r o v e d S P -2 0 0 8 -0 0 0 6 5 , b y a v o te o f 7 :0 , w ith th e r e c o m m e n d e d c o n d itio n s
to a llo w a te m p o r a r y m o b ile c la s s r o o m in th e n o r th e a s t c o r n e r o f p a r c e l.
1. T h e d e v e lo p m e n t o f th e u s e s h a ll b e in c o n fo r m ity w ith th e c o n c e p t p la n e n title d ,
"T a n d e m F r ie n d s S c h o o l C a m p u s P la n S tu d y S ite P la n , p r e p a r e d b y V M D O
A r c h ite c ts , a n d d a te d 12 /4 /0 8 a s d e te r m in e d b y th e D ir e c to r o f P la n n in g a n d th e
Z o n in g A d m in is tr a to r . T o b e in c o n fo r m ity w ith th e p la n , d e v e lo p m e n t s h a ll r e fle c t th e
fo llo w in g m a jo r e le m e n ts w ith in th e d e v e lo p m e n t e s s e n tia l to th e d e s ig n o f th e
d e v e lo p m e n t, in c lu d in g :
B u ild in g O r ie n ta tio n
B u ild in g S iz e
L o c a tio n o f th e B u ild in g s
L im its o f D is tu r b a n c e
a s s h o w n o n th e p la n . M in o r m o d ific a tio n s to th e p la n w h ic h d o n o t c o n flic t w ith th e
e le m e n ts a b o v e m a y b e m a d e to e n s u r e c o m p lia n c e w ith th e Z o n in g O r d in a n c e ;
2 . A d d itio n a l b u ild in g s o r in c r e a s e in to ta l e n r o llm e n t/s ta ffin g m a y o n ly b e a u th o r iz e d b y
a n e w s p e c ia l u s e p e r m it;
3 . T o ta l s c h o o l e n r o llm e n t a n d o n -s ite s ta ffin g s h a ll b e lim ite d to 2 6 0 p e r s o n s .
7
ATTACH ME NT 4
STA-2008 -003 Su b d iv ision Fees E x ecu tiv e Su mmary Chart 4
ATTACHMENT 4
Su b d iv ision Ty p e Phase
Cou nty
Cost
Cu rrent
Fee
Fee
Stu d y
Staff
R ecommend ed
*
7 5 %
Cost
R ecov ery
100%
Cost
R ecov ery
**
2 Lot Family
D iv ision $1,3 7 7 $9 5 $8 0 0 $6 9 0 $1,0 15 $1,3 5 0
5 Lot Su b d iv ision
Preliminary -
Ad min $2 ,3 0 1 $3 6 0 $1,5 5 0 $1,15 0 $1,5 7 5 $2 ,10 0
- PC $4 ,3 2 2 $7 2 0 $3 ,8 4 0 $2 ,2 0 0 $3 ,0 7 5 $4 ,10 0
Final -
Ad min $1,9 9 0 $3 6 0 $4 3 5 $1,0 0 0 $1,4 6 5 $1,9 5 0
20 Lot Su b d iv ision
Preliminary -
Ad min $2 ,4 6 4 $6 7 0 $1,5 5 0 $1,15 0 $1,5 7 5 $2 ,10 0
- PC $4 ,8 6 2 $1,3 3 0 $4 ,3 8 0 $2 ,2 0 0 $3 ,4 9 0 $4 ,6 5 0
Final -
Ad min $2 ,4 6 4 $6 7 0 $7 4 0 $1,2 3 0 $1,8 4 0 $2 ,4 5 0
* N o te : T h e s ta ff r e c o m m e n d e d fe e s d id n o t in c lu d e a s e p a r a te fe e fo r n o tic e s . T h is c o u ld b e a d d e d w ith o u t c h a n g in g th
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Opportunity Fund Guidelines
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approv al of Economic Opportunity Fund
Guidelines
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Ms.
Stimart
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 8, 2009
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
In December 2006, the Board voted to c reate an Economic Opportunity Fund. In FY 2007 $250,000 in onetime
funds w as designated for this purpose. At the October 2008 Board Retreat, the Board agreed to 1) maintain the
subject fund and 2) have staff prepare guidelines that c ould be used to evaluate future funding requests .
In 2009, the Board held work sessions on January 7 and February 4 to discuss the proposed guidelines . The Board
also heard several potential business ow ners speak to the possible use of these funds. At the conc lusion of the
work sessions, the Board provided staff guidance on a policy for use of this fund.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
Objective 1.3: By June 30, 2010 the County w ill continue to maintain a strong and sus tainable economy; increase
the economic vitality of the C ounty’s development areas and increase the ability of thos e individuals and families,
who are living in lowerinc ome households , to become s elfsufficient.
DISCU SSION :
Staff has amended the attached draft guidelines, (Attachment A – Redline/Strikeout) based on the Board’s input
received in the two work s essions. This includes a minimum requirement, or restric tion, for the fund’s use only as a
local match to federal or state economic development projects, especially those projects qualifying for funding from
the Gov ernors’ Opportunity Fund, a s tate program operated by the Virginia Economic Development Partnership.
Additionally the revised guidelines place more emphasis and scrutiny on a project’s ability to create jobs for local
County res idents.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is c urrently $250,000 in onetime funds available. There are no plans for replenis hing this fund as it is
used.
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached proposed Economic Opportunity Fund Guidelines (Attachment
B).
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – Redline/s trikethrough draft guidelines
Attachment B – Proposed final draft with changes ac cepted
Ret urn t o c ons ent agenda
Ret urn t o regular agenda
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND GUIDELINES
Purpose: The purpose of the Economic Opportunity Fund is to address
unemployment and underemployment of County residents by assisting County
businesses in providing higher wage permanent jobs by providing matching funding
to federal or state economic development projects.
1) Minimum Requirements for Consideration
a) .Approved Application: Prior approval from a state or federal grant program
requiring a local match, such as the Governor’s Opportunity Fund
b) Qualifications: The applicant needs to demonstrate his or her qualifications and
experience in following through on the proposed project.
2) Evaluation Criteria
a) High-wage jobs: An important goal of the Albemarle County Strategic Plan is to
increase the ability of those individuals and families, who are living in lower
income households, to become self-sufficient. Eligible projects should increase
the number of jobs, especially higher-wage jobs. The County has several
important higher-wage industry clusters, such as health care, bio-technology, and
information technology. Additionally, construction and manufacturing skills are
highly valued in this community. Preferred projects add jobs in these industry
sectors.
b) Local Workforce Recruitment and Development : Applicants should describe
the commitment to recruit local residents to fill vacant positions, including the
number of jobs and expected wages, compared to comparable average wages in
the chosen industry. Eligible projects should provide work-force training.
c) Matching Funds: This fund was capitalized on a one-time basis for a maximum
amount of $250,000. To maximize the fund’s impact, projects are considered
more highly if demonstrating the success of the project is tied to other supporting
financial resources. Though not a strict requirement, preferred projects should
require from the Fund less than 20% of total project cost, in keeping with the goal
of providing “gap” funding. Eligible projects will include federal or state
funding..
d) Tangible Benefits to the Community: Each applicant is expected to
demonstrate how the project will provide measureable and tangible benefit to the
community. In order to satisfy this criterion, an applicant must address each of the
following elements:
i.) Capital Investment: Like workforce development, project applications need
to specify and quantify expected capital investment (land purchase, building
development, machinery, tools and equipment).
ii.) Estimated Economic Value/Return on Investment: The applicant is
encouraged to furnish data on anticipated County revenues.. This can include
property taxes, machinery and equipment taxes, and sales taxes.
e) County Goals and Objectives: The County Comprehensive Plan and the
County’s Strategic plan can be accessed online at the following address,
Business Plan and/or
Strategic Plan: Every applicant should
submit a business plan and/or strategic
plan, to demonstrate the planning and
research conducted regarding the project
and to provide a basis to evaluate the
proposal against the evaluation criteria.
This should include a financial plan for a
minimum of five years that demonstrates
the project is economically viable.
Assumptions with respect to anticipated
revenues and expenses should be
supported with data and/or letters of
commitment. This plan should include a
project schedule identifying milestones,
cash flow and time sensitivity for success
(20pts)
(20pts)
(20 pts)
This fund is considered a
source of funding for closing what might
be a gap in commercial lending, venture
capital or non-profit grants.
Preferred
, also tied to local employment
opportunity, such as the Governor’s
Opportunity Fund or UVA research
projects
(20 pts)
a
the County is anticipated to
see with this project
(20 pts)
www.ablemarle.org. A project will receive more favorable consideration where
the project ties to specific goals and objectives of either plan.
3) Conditions for Receipt of Funds
a) .
b) Performance Agreement: Approved projects will be subject to a performance
agreement which will require commitments in the following areas, at a minimum:
i) Total jobs created for local residents
ii) Wage levels for jobs created
iii) Capital investment
iv) Matching funds
c) Performance Surety: An approved project will be required to provide some form
of surety acceptable to the County Attorney guaranteeing the County’s investment
is refunded if agreed upon performance criteria are not met.
All proposals must receive a
total score of no less than 75 points to be
considered for funding
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY FUND GUIDELINES
Purpose: The purpose of the Economic Opportunity Fund is to address unemployment and
underemployment of County residents by assisting County businesses in providing higher wage
permanent jobs by providing matching funding to federal or state economic development projects.
1) Minimum Requirements for Consideration
a) Approved Application: Prior approval from a state or federal grant program requiring a local
match, such as the Governor’s Opportunity Fund
b) Qualifications: The applicant needs to demonstrate his or her qualifications and experience in
following through on the proposed project.
2) Evaluation Criteria
a) Highwage jobs: An important goal of the Albemarle County Strategic Plan is to increase the
ability of those individuals and families, who are living in lowerincome households, to become
selfsufficient. Eligible projects should increase the number of jobs, especially higherwage jobs.
b) Local Workforce Recruitment and Development: Applicants should describe the commitment
to recruit local residents to fill vacant positions, including the number of jobs and expected
wages, compared to comparable average wages in the chosen industry. Eligible projects should
provide workforce training.
c) Matching Funds: This fund was capitalized on a onetime basis for a maximum amount of
$250,000. To maximize the fund’s impact, projects are considered more highly if demonstrating
the success of the project is tied to other supporting financial resources. Though not a strict
requirement, preferred projects should require from the Fund less than 20% of total project cost,
in keeping with the goal of providing “gap” funding. Eligible projects will include federal or state
funding.
d) Tangible Benefits to the Community: Each applicant is expected to demonstrate how the
project will provide measureable and tangible benefit to the community. In order to satisfy this
criterion, an applicant must address each of the following elements:
i) Capital Investment: Like workforce development, project applications need to specify and
quantify expected capital investment (land purchase, building development, machinery, tools
and equipment).
ii) Estimated Economic Value/Return on Investment: The applicant is encouraged to furnish
data on anticipated County revenues. This can include property taxes, machinery and
equipment taxes, and sales taxes.
e) County Goals and Objectives: The County Comprehensive Plan and the County’s Strategic plan
can be accessed online at the following address, www.ablemarle.org. A project will receive more
favorable consideration where the project ties to specific goals and objectives of either plan.
3) Conditions for Receipt of Funds
a) Performance Agreement: Approved projects will be subject to a performance agreement which
will require commitments in the following areas, at a minimum:
i) Total jobs created for local residents
ii) Wage levels for jobs created
iii) Capital investment
iv) Matching funds
b) Performance Surety: An approved project will be required to provide some form of surety
acceptable to the County Attorney guaranteeing the County’s investment is refunded if agreed
upon performance criteria are not met.
Return to exec summary
March 20, 2009
Bill Vincent, Business Manager
279 Tandem Lane
Charlottesv ille, VA 22902
RE: SP200800065 Tandem School
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 091000000002A0
Dear Mr. Vincent:
The A lbe ma rle County Pla nning Commission, at its mee ting on March 10, 2009, una nimously re commended
approva l of the a bovenoted pe tition to the Boa rd of Supervisors.
Plea se note that this a pproval is subjec t to the follow ing conditions:
1. The dev elopment of the use shall be in conformity w ith the concept plan entitled, "Tandem
Friends School Campus Plan Study Site Plan,” prepared by VMDO Architec ts, and dated
12/4/08 as determined by the D irector of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be
in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the follow ing major elements w ithin the
development essential to the design of the development, including:
Building Orientation
Building Size
Location of the Buildings
Limits of Disturbance
as shown on the plan. Minor modific ations to the plan w hich do not conflict with the
elements above may be made to ensure c ompliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing may only be authorized by a new
special use permit;
3. Total school enrollment and onsite staffing s hall be limited to 260 persons.
View st aff report and at tac hment s
View PC minutes
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receiv e public
comment at their meeting on April 8, 2009.
If you should have any questions or c omments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact
me at (434) 2965832.
Sincerely,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning D ivision
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project N ame: SP200865 Tandem Friends School
Mobile Classroom U nit
Staff: Eryn Brennan
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
March 10, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 8, 2009
Owner: Tandem School Applicant: Bill Vincent, Business Manager
Acreage: 24.508 Special Use Permit: Private Schools 18.13.2.2 of the
zoning ordinance applies to this proposal. Amendment to
SP200753.
TMP: 912A
Location: 279 Tandem Lane, approx. 350 feet west of
the intersection with Mill Creek Dr.
Existing Zoning and Byright use:
R1 R esidential 1 unit/acre
Magisterial District: Scottsville Conditions or Proffers: Yes
DA (Development Area): N eighborhood 4 Requested # of D welling Units: N/A
Proposal: Construct a temporary mobile classroom unit
in the northeast corner of parcel.
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Institutional – schools, universities and colleges and ancillary
facilities, and public facilities and utilities
Character of Property: The 24 acre property is largely
undeveloped, but contains several school buildings and
playing fields.
Use of Surrounding Properties: The property is
surrounded by institutional uses to the north and west and
residential uses to the east and south.
Factors Favorable:
1. The addition will continue to provide expanded
educational opportunities to the community.
2. There will be no detrimental impacts to
surrounding properties.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors.
RECOMMEND ATION : Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit, with conditions.
STAFF PERSON: ERYN BREN NAN
PR IVATE PLANNING COMMISSION: March 10, 2009
B OARD OF SUPERVISORS: April 8, 2009
SP 200965 TAND EM FRIEN DS SCHOOL CLASSROOM TRA ILER ADD ITION
PETITION
PR OJECT: SP 200800065 Tandem Friends School
PR OPOSED: Temporary classroom trailer in northeast corner of parcel.
ZON ING C ATEGORY/GENERAL U SAGE: R1 Residential 1 unit/acre.
SEC TION: 18.13.2.2 Private Schools.
C OMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Institutional schools, universities and colleges and ancillary
facilities and public facilities and utilities in Neighborhood 4.
EN TRAN CE CORRIDOR : No
LOCATION: 279 Tandem Lane, approx. 350 feet west of the intersection w ith Mill Creek Dr. TAX MAP/PARCEL:
091000000002A0.
MAGISTER IAL DISTR IC T: Scottsville
C HARACTER OF THE AREA
The school site is located on Tandem Lane near Monticello High School. It consists of 24.5 acres and the school is laid
out in a campustype setting. The U pper School building, Community Building, Middle School building, and Math and
Science Building are clustered around a courtyard area in the northeast portion of the site. An outdoor and indoor
basketball court and parking lot are located in the southern portion of the site, and two soccer fields are located along
the west parcel boundary.
The area surrounding the site to the north and northeast is designated Institutional in the Land Use Plan. Monticello
H igh School and its subsequent parking lots, baseball field, and track are located north of the site, and to the west is the
Monticello Fire Rescue Station. The area northeast and south of the site is zoned R1 and designated U rban Density
R esidential in the Land Use Plan. Several attached singlefamily residential units are located northeast of the site. The
land to the south is mostly undeveloped at this time, with the exception of a few singlefamily residences. Please refer to
the attached location maps for more information (See Attachment A and Attachment B).
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The Tandem Friends School is requesting a Special U se Permit to locate a temporary mobile classroom unit north of
the existing Upper School in order to accommodate additional classroom space. The 20’ x 64’ classroom unit is being
donated to Tandem Friends School. There are currently 5 buildings with 97 parking spaces on the site, and the mobile
classroom unit is not intended to be a permanent structure.
The 1,280 square foot modular wood classroom unit has an occupant load of 194, and will sit on a concrete block
foundation. The modular unit will be located approximately 30’ northwest of the Upper School. Current Development
has indicated that a w alkway from the entrance of the unit to the path circumscribing the Upper School will be required.
The modular unit will be used solely for additional classroom space during normal hours of operation. The school is not
increasing the number of enrolled students.
PLANN IN G AND ZONING HISTORY
The Tandem Friends School property is currently zoned R1 Residential. The School moved into an existing 19th
century farmhouse on their site in 1972. In 1996, SP 966 was approved to allow construction of a 10,000 square foot
C ommunity Hall building on the site. In that same year, SP 9625 allowed an increase in the total enrollment and onsite
staffing from 177 to 200 persons, and SP 9649 allowed the construction of a 15,000 square foot Field
H ouse/Gymnasium. SP 9753 was approved to allow the construction of a 14,000 square foot Math and Science
Building, with the condition that enrollment and onsite staffing would be limited to 260 persons.
C ONFORMITY WITH THE COMPR EH ENSIVE PLAN
Land Use Plan
The property is located in Neighborhood 4 of the Development Area and is designated Institutional in the Land Use
Plan. As determined by previous land use applications (SP 9606, SP 9625, SP 9649, and SP 9753), use of the
property for a private school is consistent with this institutional land use designation, which includes public and private
schools. The addition would continue to provide expanded educational opportunities to the community and is
appropriate in this location.
N eighborhood Model
The N eighborhood Model describes the more "urban" form of development desired for the Development Areas. This
special use permit request is for a temporary classroom trailer addition to a private school, and staff has determined that
of the 12 Principles of the Neighborhood Model, only two apply to this particular application:
Pedestrian Orientation While sidewalks exist on Mill Creek Drive, there are no pedestrian facilities connecting
Tandem Friends School to Mill C reek Drive. However, the proposed building will be required to connect via sidewalks to
other buildings on the site, thus furthering pedestrian orientation within the school complex.
R edevelopment This application constitutes further redevelopment of the site without intensifying the use of the site.
STAFF COMMENT
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of
Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property,
The 20’ x 64’ mobile classroom unit would serve to support existing activities more efficiently. Tandem Friends School
and the parcels to the south are zoned R1 R esidential (See Attachment B). To the north, the site is surrounded by R
15 Zoning, and the area to the east is zoned Planned Residential Development. The uses permitted by right under R1
R esidential include temporary or mobile facilities for public uses such as schools, offices, parks, and playgrounds.
Therefore, the mobile classroom unit is not expected to have any impact on adjacent properties and the use is
considered compatible w ith adjacent uses.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The proposed classroom unit would constitute only a minor site development change. The unit is covered with w ood
cladding and would be screened from public view by existing trees and vegetation. Therefore, the classroom unit is
consistent with the character of the site and surrounding district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The classroom unit will support existing educational activities on the site, w hich is a use permitted in the zoning
ordinance and previously granted on four different occasions by Special Use Permit.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
Private schools are permitted by Special Use Permit in areas zoned R1 Residential, as they can provide support for
byright uses, most particularly residential. This mobile classroom addition to a previously approved private school is
consistent with the uses permitted in this district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in section 5.0 that address private schools.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The public health, safety, and general welfare of the community are protected through the special use permit process
w hich assures that the proposed uses are appropriate in the location requested. The Building Official has verified
acceptability of the mobile unit for use as a classroom and the Fire Marshall offered no objection to the proposal.
In a memo dated January 9, 2009, the Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) indicated that the site is adequately
served by w ater and sewer and that no plans are required.
N o additional traffic is anticipated as this addition will not increase enrollment or staffing at the school.
SU MMAR Y:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The addition will continue to provide expanded educational opportunities to the community.
2. There will be no detrimental impacts to surrounding properties.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors to this application.
R ECOMMENDED ACTION
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 200865 Tandem
Friends School Classroom Trailer U nit, with the following conditions:
1. The development of the use shall be in conformity with the concept plan entitled, "Tandem Friends School
Campus Plan Study Site Plan,” prepared by VMDO Architects, and dated 12/4/08 as determined by the
Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in conformity with the plan, development shall
reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development,
including:
Building Orientation
Building Size
Location of the Buildings
Limits of Disturbance
as shown on the plan. Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be
made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Additional buildings or increase in total enrollment/staffing may only be authorized by a new special use
permit;
3. Total school enrollment and onsite staffing shall be limited to 260 persons.
A TTACH MENTS
A ttachment A – Aerial Map
A ttachment B – Zoning Map
R eturn to PC actions letter
SP 2008-065
PC March 10, 2009
Staff Report Page 6
Attachment A
SP 2008-065
PC March 10, 2009
Staff Report Page 7
Attachment B
Albemarle County Planning Commission
March 10, 2009
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing and meeting on Tuesday, March 10, 2009, at 6:00
p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris , Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield and Thomas
Loach, Vic e Chairman. Eric Strucko, Chairman at 6:13 p.m. Julia Monteith, AIC P, nonvoting representative for the
University of Virginia w as absent.
Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, D irector of Community
Development; Bill Fritz , C hief of C urrent Development, Juan W ade, Transportation Planner; Gerald Gatobu,
Principal Planner; Ery n Brennan, Senior Planner; Dav id Benish, Chief of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy
County Attorney.
C all to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SP200800065 Tandem Friends School Classroom Trailer
PROPOSED : Temporary classroom trailer in northeast corner of parc el
ZONING CATEGORY/GENER AL USAGE: R1 Res idential 1 unit/acre
SECTION: 18.13.2.2 Private Schools
COMPREHEN SIVE PLAN LAND USE/D ENSITY: Institutional schools, univers ities and c olleges and ancillary
facilities and public facilities and utilities
ENTR ANCE CORRIDOR : N o
LOCATION: 279 Tandem Lane, approx . 350 feet wes t of the intersection with Mill C reek D r.
TAX MAP/PAR CEL: 091000000002A0
MAGISTER IAL DISTR ICT: Scottsville
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan summariz ed the staff report. (See Staff Report)
The proposal is for a s pecial use permit to construct a temporary mobile classroom unit in the northeast
corner of parc el. Tandem Friends School moved into a 19th century farm house on the site in 1972.
Additional buildings and increased enrollment required 4 spec ial use permits with 3 being approved in 1996
and one approved in 1997. The current request is an amendment to the 1997 special use permit to allow for
the use of a modular unit on the site. No increase in enrollment is requested. Project details involve the
request to place a 20’ X 64’ mobile classroom unit located approximately 30’ northwest of the main school
building to accommodate additional classroom space. The approximately 1,300 square foot modular unit is
being donated to the school and has an occupant load of 194. The modular unit will be used solely for
clas sroom spac e during regular hours of operation.
On the aerial photo attached to the staff report it shows that the majority of the school buildings are clustered
in the northeast portion of the s ite. The fields are located to the west and the parking area to the south.
Also, included in the staff report is the zoning map. The parcel in question is zoned R1, Residential. Private
schools are permitted by spec ial use permit in areas zoned R 1, Res idential as they can provide support for
byright uses, mos t particularly residential. The proposed mobile classroom unit addition to a previously
approved private s chool is cons istent with the uses permitted in this district.
The building will be located near the main building. Current Development has indicated a sidewalk will be
required to be constructed from the mobile unit to the path circumscribing to the main building.
Staff has identified the follow ing factors fav orable to this application:
1. The addition will continue to provide expanded educational opportunities to the community.
2. There will be no detrimental impacts to surrounding properties.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable fac tors to this application.
Staff recommends approval of the special use permit with the c onditions outlined in the staff report.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for staff.
Ms. Joseph noted that in the ex ecutive summary staff talks about a temporary use but there is no time limitation.
She asked if there was any reason that the use was called temporary.
Ms. Brennan replied that the applicant has indicated that it is temporary .
Mr. Edgerton noted that he had the same question. He looks forward for the applicant to explain w hat they mean by
temporary and if there is a date associated he would like to make that a condition of the approval.
Mr. Struck o opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to addres s the Commiss ion.
Bill D unson, with Tandem School, was pres ent to ans wer questions related to the project. H e explained that
Tandem Friend Sc hool w as a college preparatory school that embraces diversity focused on developing that which
is special and unique within each indiv idual. The s chool w as formed in 1969. It opened its doors in 1970 with 22
students serving the 9th and 10th grades in a location of a small brick building which is now used by Southern
Development on Pantops Mountain Road. In 1972 the school mov ed to the H ill Cres t Estate which at the time w as
entered from Route 20 and was a rural es tate. At that point the school at 67 students was serving the 9th through
12th grade. In the spring of 1973 the s chool had its first commencement with 17 students graduating. Ov er time the
school has continued to grow. In 1976 an 8th grade w as added. In 1983 the school ex panded to a full middle school
with 6th through 8th grade. In 1987 a 5th grade was added, w hich brought about the expansions that staff alluded to
during the 1990’s. First a field house and gy mnasium were added in addition to the soccer fields and field hock ey
field. A community hall with class room space w as added. In 1998 the final building was added, w hich is a mass
science building.
Mr. Dunson explained that currently the school serves approximately 200 students. Over time additional educational
electives have been offered and as time as gone by this has put constraints on the space available. The 2007/2008
school year the Board of Tandem contracted w ith VMD O Architectures to do a space utilization study and analy sis
their needs versus the space available. At that time they identified that they needed two additional class rooms .
Very fortunately they were given the opportunity or donated a modular trailer unit that made up tw o class rooms .
This unit had previously been us ed at the Peabody School. That brings them to the point of needing a special use
perm it to put the modular unit in place and hopefully to put it in use by the fall of this c oming year.
In respons e to Mr. Edgerton’s ques tion Mr. Dunson noted that this request is in response to doing a master campus
plan with the idea that eventually they would hopefully add onto their existing gy mnasium space. Ideally they would
like to add a permanent designated performing arts s pac e. Right now one of the constraints they have is that their
community meeting hall is also their drama space. So every time they have drama class they have to break
everything down for the next class. But more importantly they hope in the near future to add permanent middle
school building that w ould replace a current cinder block structure that they have on campus and would replace the
modular class room unit. They are hoping to do that in the next three to four y ears depending somewhat on the
economy and giving. That is their plan and w hy they refer to this as a temporary struc ture. It is not something as a
community that they want to keep on their campus in the long term. It is just to allev iate short term s pace needs.
Mr. Struck o invited questions for the applicant.
Mr. Loach pointed out that he would reference the modular unit as a “learning cottage.”
Mr. Strucko inv ited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was clos ed and the matter came
back before the Commiss ion.
Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Morris seconded to approve SP200800065, Tandem Friends School
Classroom Trailer with the condition as recommended by staff.
1. The dev elopment of the use shall be in conformity w ith the concept plan entitled, "Tandem
Friends School Campus Plan Study Site Plan,” prepared by VMDO Architec ts, and dated
12/4/08 as determined by the D irector of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be
in conformity with the plan, development shall reflect the follow ing major elements w ithin the
development essential to the design of the development, including:
Building Orientation
Building Size
Location of the Buildings
Limits of Disturbance as show n on the plan.
Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict w ith the elements above may be made
to ens ure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Additional buildings or increas e in total enrollment/staffing may only be authorized by a new
special use permit;
3. Total school enrollment and onsite staffing shall be limited to 260 persons.
The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Strucko said that SP200800065, Tandem Friends School Classroom Trailer would go to the Board of
Supervisors on April 8 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adoption of the FY 09/10 Operating and Capital
Budgets
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Adoption of the FY 09/10
Operating and C apital Budgets
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 8, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On April 1s t, a public hearing w as held on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY 09/10 Operating and Capital
Budgets.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
5.1 Dev elop a comprehens ive funding s trategy/plan to address the C ounty’s growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
The FY 09/10 Operating and Capital budgets total $303,723,333. This amount reflects the C ounty Executive’s
Recommended Budget plus changes made during the Board’s work s ess ions. These changes are s ummarized
below:
Eliminated the 2.5 c ent tax increas e for revenue shortfall contingency funds
Reallocated VD OT revenue sharing funds
$150,950 for JAUNT
$1.35 million for revenue s hortfall contingency
Allocated $40,000 of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund for W oods Edge
Prov ided $3,255 for Mohr Center funding
Froze/eliminated an additional five staff positions due to decreas ed revenues
The attac hed resolution (Attachment A) formally approves the total proposed expenditures of $303,723,333 for FY
09/10. Attachment B details the adjustments made to the C ounty Executive’s Recommended Budget.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Not applicable
RECOMMENDA TION S:
If the Board has no additions or deletions, staff requests adoption of the FY 09/10 Operating and Capital Budgets.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – Budget R esolution
Attachment B – Summary of C hanges
Ret urn t o regular agenda
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT R ESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of A lbemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2009 is made up of the County Executive’s
Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of Superv isors as detailed in Attachment
B of this Executive Summary.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2009 is summarized as follow s:
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2009 as desc ribed in 1) and 2) above be
approved.
Go to next at tac hment
Ret urn t o ex ec summary
Board of Supervisors’ FY 09/10 Operating and Capital Budgets
Changes from Recommended Budget
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY 09/10 Recommended
Budget
FY 09/10 Adopted
Budget
General Government Operations 81,410,231
Subtotal, General Government Operations 81,410,231
General Government Additions 0
Region Ten - Mohr Center 3,255
JAUNT 150,950
Housing Trust Fund -40,000
W oods Edge 40,000
Subtotal, General Government Additions 154,205
Refunds 169,500
Subtotal, Refunds 169,500
City Revenue Sharing 18,038,878
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing 18,038,878
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers 19,842,614
Adjustm ent based on revised revenues -134,857
Reduction in Transfer to CIP (JAUNT)-150,950
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers 19,556,807
Transfer for School Operations 100,688,571
Adjustm ent based on revised revenues -537,994
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations 100,150,577
Contingency/Other 3,662,370
Board Reserve Adjustm ent (Mohr Center)-3,255
Revenue Shortfall Contingency -3,911,424
Additional Anticipated Salary Savings -387,367
Subtotal, Contingency/Other -639,676
FY 09/10 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 223,812,164 218,840,522
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
FY 09/10 Recommended
Budget
FY 09/10 Adopted
Budget
COUNTY EXECUTIVE’S RECOM M ENDED BUDGET 223,812,164
REVENUE ADJUSTM ENTS
Decrease Tax Rate to $0.742 -3,911,424
Revised Revenue Estim ates -1,060,218
TOTAL, Revenue & Fund Balance Adjustments -4,971,642
FY 09/10 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 223,812,164 218,840,522
SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET
FY 09/10 Recommended
Budget
FY 09/10 Adopted
Budget
School Fund Operations 148,194,552
Decrease transfer from General Fund -537,994
State Revenue Increase 877,298
Subtotal, School Fund Operations 148,533,856
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations 16,948,585
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining 16,948,585
FY 09/10 SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET 165,143,137 165,482,441
CAPITAL IM PROVEM ENTS BUDGET
FY 09/10 Recommended
Budget
FY 09/10 Adopted
Budget
General Government Projects 9,492,000
Decrease in Capital Transfer -285,807
Use of Reserves 134,857
Subtotal, General Government Projects 9,341,050
Storm W ater Projects 250,000
Subtotal, Storm W ater Projects 250,000
School Division Projects 7,822,000
Subtotal, School Division Projects 7,822,000
Debt Service 18,242,915
Subtotal, Debt Service 18,242,915
FY 09/10 CAPITAL IM PROVEM ENTS BUDGET 35,806,915 35,655,965
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS
FY 09/10 Recommended
Budget
FY 09/10 Adopted
Budget
Special Revenue Funds 14,372,905
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds 14,372,905
FY 09/10 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS 14,372,905 14,372,905
SUM M ARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 09/10 Recommended
Budget
FY 09/10 Adopted
Budget
General Fund 223,812,164 218,840,522
School Fund/School Self-Sustaining 165,143,137 165,482,441
Capital and Debt Service Funds 35,806,915 35,655,965
Special Revenue Funds 14,372,905 14,372,905
SUBTOTAL - ALL FUNDS 439,135,121 434,351,833
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (131,452,301)(130,628,500)
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET - ALL FUNDS 307,682,820 303,723,333
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2009 Tax Levy R esolution
SUBJECT/PR OPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Approval of the Calendar Year
2009 Tax R ates
STAFF CON TA CT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and W iggans
LEGAL R EVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DA TE:
April 8, 2009
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CON SENT A GEND A:
A CTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACH MEN TS: Yes
REVIEW ED BY:
BACK GROUND :
On April 1, 2008, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ proposed budget for FY 09/10. A public
hearing also was held on the 2009 calendar year tax rates.
The attac hed resolution to set the 2009 tax year or c alendar year tax rates must be approved at the April 8, 2009
meeting in order that the printing and mailing of the tax bills can occ ur in a timely manner.
STRA TEGIC PLAN:
5.1 Dev elop a comprehens ive funding s trategy/plan to address the C ounty’s growing needs.
DISCU SSION :
The attac hed resolution s ets the tax lev y for calendar year 2009. The proposed rates are set at $0.742/$100
assessed v aluation for real estate, public service, and mobile homes for the 2009 tax year and at $4.28/$100
assessed v aluation for the personal property tax rate, including mac hinery and tools .
RECOMMENDA TION S:
Staff recommends approv al of the proposed tax rates.
ATTAC HMENTS
Attachment A – Tax Levy Resolution
Ret urn t o regular agenda
Attachment A
RESOLU TION
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle C ounty, Virginia, does hereby set the
County Lev y for the Calendar Year 2009 for general C ounty purposes at SeventyFour and TwoTenths Cents
($0.742) on ev ery One Hundred D ollars of assessed value of real estate; at SeventyFour and TwoTenths Cents
($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed v alue of manufactured homes; at SeventyFour and TwoTenths
Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public service assess ments; at Four Dollars and
Twenty Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred D ollars of assessed value of personal property; and at Four
Dollars and TwentyEight Cents ($4.28) on every One H undred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools;
and
FU RTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle C ounty asses s and collect the taxes on all
taxable real estate and all taxable pers onal property.
Ret urn t o ex ec summary