HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-4-07
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
APRIL 7, 2010
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
a. Proclamation recognizing April 2010 as Fair Housing Month.
5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
9:30 a.m. - Action Items:
8. PUBLIC HEARING: PROJECT: ZMA 2009-00003 North Hill. PROPOSAL: Rezone .69 acres from HC Highway
Commercial zoning district which allows commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit
(15 units/ acre) to RA Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots); HC zone approved by a conditional rezoning ZMA 87-16. PROFFERS: Yes_ No X.
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X No__. LOCATION: 2042 North Hill/east side of Richmond Rd. (Rt 250) at Inn
Dr./approximately 230 ft. south of I 64 eastbound onramp. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000003400. MAGISTERIAL
DISTRICT: Scottsville.
9. PUBLIC HEARING: Five-Year Plan and Annual Plan for the administration of the Housing Choice Voucher
Program.
10. Set Calendar Year 2010 Tax Levy.
11. Adoption of FY 2010/2011 Operating and Capital Budgets.
10:30 a.m. - Presentations/Discussions:
12. Forestry Presentation, Nelson Shaw.
13. Blue Ridge Committee Annual Report, Joan McDowell.
11:00 a.m. – Transportation Matters
14. a. VDOT Organizational Changes, Jim Utterback., District Administrator.
b. VDOT Monthly Report, Allan Sumpter.
c. Transportation Matters not Listed on the Agenda.
15. Closed Meeting.
16. Certify Closed Meeting.
17. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
18. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
19. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Approval of Minutes: December 2, 2009; and February 3, February 25, and March 10, 2010.
6.2 Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2009-10 Applicant Class.
6.3 FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
FOR INFORMATION:
6.4 Copy of letter dated March 5, 2010 from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning, to Julius L. Lively, Jr., re:
OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 93, Parcels 53, 53C, 53D, 54 &
54C1 (property of Julius L. Lively) Scottsville Magisterial District.
6.5 Copy of letter dated March 5, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Ethel Pugh & Bettie Ann
Stanerson, re: LOD-2009-00025 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map
56, Parcel 25C (Property of Ethel R Pugh & Bettie Ann Stanerson) White Hall Magisterial District.
6.6 Copy of letter dated March 5, 2010 from Francis H. MacCall, Senior Planner, to Martin Violette and Margaret
Nash, re: LOD-2009-00026 – OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS – Tax Map 71,
Parcel 43 (Property of Martin H. Violette or Margaret Nash) White Hall Magisterial District.
6.7 Comparative Report of Local Government Revenues and Expenditures for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009,
in accordance with Section 15.2-2510 of the Code of Virginia, as prepared by the Commonwealth of Virginia
Auditor of Public Accounts (on file in Clerk’s office).
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
WHEREAS, April 2010, marks the forty-second anniversary of the passage of the Fair Housing Act of
1968, which sought to eliminate discrimination in housing opportunities and to
affirmatively further housing choices for all Americans; and
WHEREAS, the ongoing struggle for dignity and housing opportunity for all is not the exclusive
province of the Federal government; and
WHEREAS, vigorous local efforts to combat discrimination can be as effective, if not more so, than
Federal efforts; and
WHEREAS, illegal barriers to equal opportunity in housing, no matter how subtle, diminish the
rights of all;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,
that in the pursuit of the shared goal and responsibility of providing equal housing
opportunities for all men and women, the Board of County Supervisors of Albemarle
County, Virginia, does hereby join in the national celebration by proclaiming
APRIL, 2010
as
FAIR HOUSING MONTH
and encourages all agencies, institutions and individuals, public and private, in
Albemarle County to abide by the letter and the spirit of the Fair Housing law.
Signed and sealed this 7th day of April, 2010.
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking
Order for FY 2009-10 Applicant Class
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request approval of final ranking order and appraisal of
top three properties from FY 2009-10 ACE applicant pool
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Herrick, Cilimberg, Benish,
and Goodall
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 7, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to sections A.1-110(G) and A.1-110(H) of the ACE Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors reviews the list of
ranked parcels submitted by the ACE Committee and identifies on which parcels it desires to acquire conservation
easements. Each conservation easement identified by the Board for purchase is appraised by an independent
appraiser chosen by the County.
Eight (8) applications were submitted for the Round 10 class (FY 2009-2010) by the October 31, 2009 deadline. Four
(4) of the applications (Thurman, Rives, Barksdale and Rushia) were re-enrolled from the previous year because the
County has been unable to acquire easements on those properties due to funding limitations. Staff has evaluated the
properties of each of the Round 10 applicants according to the ACE Ordinance ranking evaluation criteria. These
objective criteria include: open space resources; threat of conversion to developed use; natural, scenic and cultural
resources; and County fund leveraging from outside sources. Based on the results of the evaluation, staff has
determined the eligibility of the properties and has placed them in ranking order (see Attachment A). These results
were presented to the ACE Committee at its March 15, 2010 meeting.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2.1 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s rural character”
Goal 2.2 – “Protect and/or preserve the County’s natural resources”
DISCUSSION:
The evaluation of the eight (8) applications from Round 10 has determined that seven (7) properties scored high
enough to be eligible for ACE funding. With $1,152,749.88 of funding available for this class [$1,008,917.69 from the
FY09-10 allocation and carryover funds from FY08-09 and $143,832.19 in grants from the Office of Farmland
Preservation ($49,900 in 2009 and $93,932.19 in 2010)] (See Attachment B), the ACE Committee believes that the
County can acquire ACE easements on the two or three highest ranked properties. Based on the final ranking order
and eligibility status of the Round 10 properties, the ACE Committee recommends that the Board authorize staff to
order appraisals for the three (3) highest ranked properties: Lively, Stanerson, and Barksdale. Although the total ACE
budget for FY 2009-10 may be insufficient for purchasing easements on all three properties, the ACE Committee
believes it is prudent to obtain appraisals on more properties than funding will allow in the event that additional funding
becomes available or some higher ranking applicants withdraw their application from the Program.
AGENDA TITLE:
Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Ranking Order for FY 2009-10 Applicant Class
April 7, 2010
Page 2
The acquisition of easements on the three highest ranked properties would eliminate 36 development rights and result
in the protection of the following resources:
546 acres of farm and forest land, of which 256 acres are “prime” farm and forest land
3,386 feet of state road frontage (including 1,740 feet on a major Entrance Corridor)
8,129 feet of protected stream and river frontage (including 4,100 feet on the Rivanna River – a state scenic
river)
7,236 feet of common boundary with other protected lands (including 1,076 feet adjoining Walnut Creek Park)
140 acres of land lies within the proposed “mountain overlay district”
2 of 3 properties have significant tourism value
3 of 3 properties are productive, working farms
Lively lies within the primary Monticello viewshed
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no additional request for funding related to this action. The funding for the appraisals and the purchase of
these potential conservation easements would come from both the CIP-Planning-Conservation budget (line-item
#9010-81010-580409) and the CIP-Tourism-Conservation budget (line-item #9010-72030-580416), a budget
previously approved by the Board to fund ACE properties with “tourism value.” Staff will continue to pursue outside
funding sources to supplement the ACE Program funding. Sources of potential outside funding include the Office of
Farmland Preservation, the Preservation Trust Fund, the Virginia Land Conservation Foundation, and the Farm and
Ranchlands Protection Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The ACE Committee and staff recommend that the Board:
1) Approve the final ranking order for Round 10 (FY 2009-10) as shown on Attachment A;
2) Identify the Lively, Stanerson and Barksdale properties as those on which it desires to purchase
conservation easements; and
3) Authorize staff to order appraisals for the Lively, Stanerson and Barksdale properties.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
B – ACE Budget from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
1
Attachment “A”
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Status
Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points yes new
(Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres
TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres
TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres
Total 296.670 acres
Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points yes new
(Ivy)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 28.71 points no re-enrollee
(Walnut Creek)
Thurman, Thelma* TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no re-enrollee
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes re-enrollee
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes re-enrollee
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 21.06 points yes new
(Greenwood)
William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points no new - ineligible
(Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres
Total 40.025 acres
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 8 applicants 862.926 acres
*The possible purchase of the Thurman easement with Round 9 funds is still under review, contingent on the
availability of a federal matching grant.
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed;
adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides
mountaintop protection.
2
Ranking Order of ACE Applicants from Round 10 (FY 2009-10)
(20 points are needed to qualify for ACE Funding)
Applicant Tax Map Acres Points Tourism Easement Value
Lively, Julius TM 93, Parcel 53 90.950 acres 48.45 points yes $ 800,000?
(Simeon) TM 93, Parcel 53C 10.650 acres
TM 93, Parcel 53D 10.500 acres
TM 93, Parcel 54 184.570 acres
Total 296.670 acres
Ethel Pugh/Stanerson TM 56, Parcel 25C 96.220 acres 33.36 points yes $ 315,000?
(Ivy)
Barksdale, John TM 100, Parcel 34 153.010 acres 28.71 points no $ 352,000
(Walnut Creek)
Thurman, Thelma TM 94, Parcel 20A 108.400 acres 25.36 points no $ 245,000
(Milton)
Rives, Barclay TM 65, Parcel 93A1 3.811 acres 24.58 points yes $ 600,000
(Cismont) TM 65, Parcel 94 3.000 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” 1.250 acres
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” 15.950 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95 4.872 acres
TM 65, Parcel 95A 3.978 acres
TM 65, Parcel 121 38.840 acres
Total 71.701 acres
Rushia, Ed & Chris TM 39, Parcel 27 86.700 acres 22.43 points yes $ 235,000
(Crozet)
Nash/Violette TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 21.06 points yes $ 150,000?
(Greenwood)
William Traylor TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 10.27 points no ineligible
(Stony Point) TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres
Total 40.025 acres
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Totals 8 applicants 862.926 acres $2,697,000
Top 3 applicants 545.900 acres $1,467,000
Note: Tourism value is determined by the presence of specific elements from the ranking evaluation criteria
making certain properties eligible for funding from the transient lodging tax. The specific criteria include the
following: contains historic resources or lies in a historic district; lies in the primary Monticello viewshed;
adjoins a Virginia scenic highway, byway or entrance corridor; lies on a state scenic river; provides
mountaintop protection.
Easement Value: The easement values reflect either an estimate from comparable easements (these are
marked with a question mark - ?) or a previous appraisal of a re-enrolled property.
3
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Lively, Julius
Property: TM 93, Parcel 53 ( 90.950 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 53C ( 10.650 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 53D ( 10.500 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 93, Parcel 54 (184.570 acres) 8 DivR’s + 4 DevR’s = 12 DR’s
Total (296.670 acres) 11 DivR’s + 19 DevR’s = 30 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 ¼ mile from Limestone Farm plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 296.670 acres RE Assessor’s Office 5.93
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 24 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 12.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 1,340 feet on Route 53 County tax map/plats 4.23
(Entrance Corridor)
Criteria C.4 yes - in Monticello viewshed PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 2.00
Criteria C.5 yes - Henderson habitat zone DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 102 acres “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 2.04
Criteria C.7 4,100 feet on the Rivanna River County overlay maps 4.10
Criteria C.8 yes - Rivanna River plat/survey/County overlay maps 2.05
Criteria C.9 35 foot buffer on Rivanna River landowner 4.10
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 48.45 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southw est Mountains
Historic District.
4
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Ethel R. Pugh/Bettie Stanerson
Property: TM 56, Parcel 25C (96.220 acres) 4 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 6 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,900 feet on TM 72-20A plats/County overlay maps 8.72
1,450 feet on TM 56-113
Criteria A.2 96.220 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.92
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes (retired, medical issues) landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 5 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 2.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 370’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.21
600’ on SR 683
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes (w/in ¼ mile) DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 49 acres County Soil Survey 0.98
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 4,029’ on Stockton Mill Creek landowner 4.03
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 33.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
5
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Barksdale, John
Property: TM 100, Parcel 34 (153.010 acres) 7 DivR’s + 3 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 1,076 feet on Walnut Creek Park plats/County overlay maps 9.77
2,810 feet on C. Hudson
Criteria A.2 153.010 acres RE Assessor’s Office 3.06
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 7 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.50
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 1,076 feet on SR 631 County tax map/plats 3.08
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 mafic outcrops w/ rare plants? DCR Division of Natural Heritage 3.00
Criteria C.6 105 acres County Soil Survey 2.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 88% funding Based on income grid 1.20
Point Total 28.71 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
6
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Thurman, Thelma
Property: TM 94, Parcel 20A (108.400 acres) 4 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 9 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 w/in ¼ mile of Limestone Farm County overlay map 2.00
Criteria A.2 108.400 acres RE Assessor’s Office 2.17
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria B.3 6 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Department 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 5.00
Criteria C.3 2,647’ on SR 623 County overlay map 4.65
Criteria C.4 no DHR & Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR - Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 55 acres “prime soil” County Soil Survey 1.10
Criteria C.7 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.8 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.9 2,958’ w/ 50-100’ wide buffers landowner 4.44
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay map 0.00
Criteria C.12 no Department of Forestry 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a VOF, PEC, TNC etc. 0.00
Point Total 25.36 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DHR = Department of Historic Resources; DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreatio n
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River Reservoir
7
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rives, Barclay
Property: TM 65, Parcel 93A1 ( 3.811 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 ( 3.000 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “A” ( 1.250 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 94 “B” (15.950 acres) 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95 ( 4.872 acres) 0 DivR’s + 2 DevR’s = 2 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 95A ( 3.978 acres) 0 DivR’s + 1 DevR’s = 1 DR’s
TM 65, Parcel 121 (38.840 acres) 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Total (71.701 acres) 1 DivR’s + 17 DevR’s = 18 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 783 feet on Mirza (TM 65 -93) plats/County overlay maps 3.57
Criteria A.2 71.701 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.43
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 16 DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 8.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 470 feet on Route 231 County tax map/plats 2.92
144 feet on SR 740
Criteria C.4 yes - SWMHD PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 3.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 33 acres County Soil Survey 0.66
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 yes (Kinloch Ag-For) County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 24.58 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoo rs Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation; SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road;
CE = Conservation Easement; SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed; SWMHD = Southwest Mountains
Historic District.
8
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Rushia, Ed & Christina
Property: TM 39, Parcel 27 (86.700 acres) 3 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 8 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 990 feet on Henley plats/County overlay maps 11.54
1,922 feet on Shaw
1,856 feet on Pietsch
Criteria A.2 86.700 acres RE Assessor’s Office 1.73
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 61 acres in MOD County overlay maps 2.97
35 acres in RAB
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 none County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 8 acres County Soil Survey 0.19
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 none landowner 0.00
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 22.43 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
9
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Margaret Nash/Martin Violette
Property: TM 71, Parcel 43 40.160 acres 1 DivR’s + 6 DevR’s = 7 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 none plats/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 6 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 3.00
Criteria C.1 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.2 yes landowner 3.00
Criteria C.3 730’ on I-64 (EC) County tax map/plats 3.87
654’ on SR 824
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 yes - snail on Stockton Creek DCR Division of Natural Heritage 5.00
Criteria C.6 28 acres County Soil Survey 0.56
Criteria C.7 SF Rivanna River Watershed County overlay maps 3.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 1,834’ - 1 side Stockton Mill Creek landowner 1.83
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 n/a Based on income grid 0.00
Point Total 21.06 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
10
ACE Ranking Evaluation Criteria & Points Determination
Owner: Traylor, William
Property: TM 48, Parcel 45 14.569 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
TM 48, Parcel 46 25.456 acres 0 DivR’s + 5 DevR’s = 5 DR’s
Total 40.025 acres 0 DivR’s + 10 DevR’s = 10 DR’s
Ranking Criteria Determination Source for Points Points
Criteria A.1 <¼ mile of Gunn (TM 48-47C) plats/County overlay maps 2.00
Criteria A.2 40.160 acres RE Assessor’s Office 0.80
Criteria B.1 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria B.3 9 usable DR’s eliminated Zoning & Planning Departments 4.50
Criteria C.1 yes - 34 acres in MOD County overlay maps 0.68
Criteria C.2 no landowner 0.00
Criteria C.3 right-of-way County tax map/plats 0.00
Criteria C.4 none PEC/Monticello viewshed maps 0.00
Criteria C.5 no DCR Division of Natural Heritage 0.00
Criteria C.6 39 acres of “prime” farm/forest County Soil Survey 0.78
Criteria C.7 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.8 no plat/survey/County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.9 756’ on perennial, internal stream landowner 1.51
Criteria C.10 n/a County Engineering Department 0.00
Criteria C.11 no County overlay maps 0.00
Criteria C.12 no landowner/DOF 0.00
Criteria D.1 yes - wants to donate some portion Based on income grid ????
Point Total 10.27 points
PEC = Piedmont Environmental Council; VOF = Virginia Outdoors Foundation; TNC = The Nature Conservancy
DCR = Department of Conservation and Recreation
SH = Scenic Highway; EC = entrance corridor; SR = State Road
CE = Conservation Easement
SFRR = South Fork Rivanna River watershed
SWMHD = Southwest Mountains Historic District
11
Sec. A.1-108. Ranking criteria.
In order to effectuate the purposes of the ACE program, parcels for which conservation easement
applications have been received shall be ranked according to the criteria and the point values assigned as
provided below. Points shall be rounded to the first decimal.
A. Open-space resources.
1. The parcel adjoins an existing permanent conservation easement, a
national, state or local park, or other permanently protected open-space: two (2) points, with one additional
(1) point for every five hundred (500) feet of shared boundary; or the parcel is within one-quarter (1/4) mile,
but not adjoining, an existing permanent conservation easement, a national, state or local park, or other
permanently protected open-space: two (2) points.
2. Size of the parcel: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres.
B. Threat of conversion to developed use.
1. The parcel is threatened with forced sale: five (5) points.
2. The parcel is threatened with other hardship: three (3) points.
3. The number of usable division rights to be eliminated on the parcel: one-half (1/2)
point for each usable division right to be eliminated, which shall be determined by subtracting the number of
retained division rights from the number of division rights. A division right includes all by-right divisions of
both 2-acre lots and the 21-acre residual lots. Each right represents the right to build a single dwelling.
C. Natural, cultural and scenic resources.
1. Mountain protection: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres in the mountain overlay
district, as defined in the Comprehensive Plan. An additional one (1) point may be awarded for each twenty
(20) acres within a ridge area boundary. For purposes of this section, the term “ridge area boundary” means
the area that lies within one hundred (100) feet below designated ridgelines shown on county mountain
overlay district elevation maps. If the landowner elects to use these points in the ranking criteria, the Deed of
Easement shall prohibit all construction within the MOD. No farm building or agricultural structure may be
allowed unless prior written approval is obtained from each Grantee”.
2. Working family farm, including forestry: five (5) points if at least one f amily
member’s principal occupation and income (more than half) is farming or foresting the parcel; three (3)
points if one family member has as a secondary occupation working the farm sufficient to qualify for the
land use tax program.
3. The parcel adjoins a road designated either as a Virginia scenic highway or byway,
or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code: two (2) points,
with one (1) additional point for each six hundred (600) feet of road frontage; or the parcel adjoins a public
road: two (2) points, with one (1) additional point for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage; or, the
parcel is substantially visible from, but is not contiguous to, a public road designated either as a Virginia
scenic highway or byway, or as an entrance corridor under section 30.6.2 of Chapter 18 of the Albemarle
County Code: two (2) points. If the landowner elects to use points in the ranking criteria for frontage on a
Virginia scenic highway or byway, any new dwelling shall have a 250’ setback from said roadway or shall
not be visible in any season of the year from the scenic road on a site approved by the Grantee. Otherwise,
one (1) point will be awarded for each one thousand (1000) feet of road frontage.
4. The parcel contains historic resources: three (3) points if it is within a national or
state rural historic district or is subject to a permanent easement protecting a historic resource; two (2) points
12
if the parcel is within the primary Monticello viewshed, as shown on viewshed maps prepared for Monticello
and in the possession of the county; two (2) points if the parcel contains artifacts or a site of archaeological
or architectural significance as determined by a qualified archaeologist or architectural historian under the
United States Department of Interior’s professional qualification standards. If the landowner elects to use
these points in the ranking criteria for artifacts or sites of archaeological or architectural significance, the
Deed of Easement shall require the permanent protection of these resources as designed by Department of
Historic Resources.
5. The parcel contains an occurrence listed on the state natural heritage inventory or a
qualified biologist has submitted documentation of an occurrence of a natural heritage resource to the ACE
Program and the Division of Natural Heritage on behalf of the applicant: five (5) points; or the parcel is
within one-quarter (1/4) mile of an occurrence listed on the State Natural Heritage Inventory: two (2) points.
6. The parcel contains capability class I, II or III soils (“prime soils”) for agricultural
lands or ordination symbol 1 or 2 for forest land, based on federal natural resources conservation service
classifications found in the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Albemarle County,
Virginia: one (1) point for each fifty (50) acres containing such soils to a maximum of five (5) points.
7. The parcel is within the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir Watershed, the Chris Greene
Lake Watershed, or the Totier Creek Reservoir Watershed: three (3) points; or the parcel adjoins the Ivy
Creek, Mechums River, Moormans River, Rocky Creek (of the Moormans River), Wards Creek (of the
Moormans River), Doyles Creek, Buck Mountain Creek, South Fork Rivanna Reservoir River, North Fork
Rivanna River, Totier Creek Reservoir, Swift Run (of the North Fork Rivanna River), Lynch River (of the
North Fork Rivanna River, Rivanna River, Jacob’s Run, or the Hardware River, Rockfish River, James
River, any waters designated as “Exceptional Waters” by the Virginia Water Control Board, any public water
supply reservoir or emergency water supply reservoir: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of
frontage.
8. The parcel adjoins a waterway designated as a state scenic river: one-half
(1/2) point for each one thousand (1000) feet of frontage. If the landowner elects to use these points in the
ranking criteria, any new dwelling shall not be visible from the river or require a 250’ setback from the river
so as to maintain the natural, scenic quality of the property from the river.
9. The parcel is subject to a permanent easement whose primary purpose is to establish
or maintain vegetative forest buffers adjoining perennial or intermittent stre ams, as those terms are defined in
Chapter 17 of the Albemarle County Code: one (1) point for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer
that is between thirty-five (35) and fifty (50) feet wide; one and one-half (1½) points for each one thousand
(1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than fifty (50) feet but not more than one hundred (100) feet wide;
two (2) points for each one thousand (1000) linear feet of buffer that is greater than one hundred (100) feet
wide. If the owner voluntarily offers in his application to place the parcel in such a permanent easement,
then the above-referenced points may also be awarded.
10. The parcel is within a sensitive groundwater recharging area identified in a county-
sponsored groundwater study: one (1) point.
11. The parcel is within an agricultural and forestal district: two (2) points.
12. One (1) point for a professionally prepared Forestry Stewardship Management Plan
approved by the Virginia Department of Forestry.
D. County Fund Leveraging.
1. State, federal, or private funding identified to leverage the purchase of the
conservation easement: one (1) point for each ten (10) percent of the purchase price for which those funds
can be applied.
13
Go to next attachment
Return to exec summary
Attachment B
ACE Budget for Round 10 (FY 2009-10) Applicant Pool
County Funds Available for FY 2009-10 Easements $ 1,008,917.69
Funds from 2009 Farmland Preservation Grant 49,900.00
Funds from 2010 Farmland Preservation Grant 93,932.19
Net Funds Available for FY 2009-10 Easements $ 1,152,749.88
Estimated Acquisition Cost of 3 Highest Ranked Easements:
Lively $ 800,000.00
Pugh 315,000.00
Barksdale 352,000.00
Total Easement Acquisition Cost $1,467,000.00
Appraisals 7,500.00
Title Insurance 1,500.00
Net Cost $1,476,000.00
Net Cost w/out Barksdale $1,121,000.00
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2010069, #2010070, #2010071, #2010072, and
#2010075 for various school and local government
programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 7, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be
appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment
which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by
first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section
applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc.
The total of the new requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below, is $210,827.88. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted
budget.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
This request involves the approval of five (5) FY 2010 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010069) totaling $133,362.00 for various Commission on Children and Families
grants;
One (1) appropriation (#2010070) totaling $15,161.88 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2010071) totaling $43,105.00 for a Virginia Health Care Foundation grant for the
Department of Social Services; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010072) totaling $19,199.00 for the Internet Crimes Against Children grant.
One (1) appropriation (#2010075) transferring $100,559.76 to the Byrom Park Project
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $210,827.88 and the approval of
Appropriations, #2010069, #2010070, #2010071, #2010072, and #2010075.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Description of Appropriations
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010069 $133,362.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 16,526.00
State Revenue $ 918.00
Local Revenue $ 918.00
Grant # 10-L3236JB08: The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $16,526 with a local match of $1,836 for a total appropriation in the amount of
$18,362. This grant will provide training and the implementation of promoting greater accountability in the juvenile
justice system including the increased accountability for juvenile offenders. Local match monies will be provided by
both the County and the City through their contribution s to CCF.
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 50,000.00
Grant # 10-D5194JJ08: The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $50,000. This grant will provide training and the continued s ervices of the
Family Functional Therapy program. This will include staff training, manuals, and treatment services for the
participants. There is no local match.
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 65,000.00
Grant #10-C5424JJ08 : The Department of Criminal Justice Services has awarded the Commission on Children
and Families a grant in the amount of $65,000 with an “in-kind” match of $32,500. This grant will provide training
and continued services to reduce system involvement of truants and juveniles with other negative school related
behaviors. The “in-kind” match will include staff time, staff training, and training materials.
Appropriation #2010070 $15,161.88
Revenue Source: Donations $ 15,161.88
February 25, 2010 School Board Meeting Appropriations:
Albemarle High School received donations totaling $6,165.00 from various cash donations made at Albemarle High
School. These donations were made to help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School.
The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf Project is $29,871.00 including this donation. The
balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of $36,737.66. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in
order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Albemarle High School to raise an additional
$288,262.34 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction is $650,000.00.
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $2,346.88 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support
Organization. This contribution was made to help fund the Enrichment Time before 9 program at Henley Middle
School.
Western Albemarle High School received a donation from Chris and Donna Schuler in the amount of $6,000.00.
This contribution was made to help Western Albemarle High School purchase Lacrosse uniforms.
Western Albemarle High School received donations totaling $650.00. John and Karen Rowlingson donated
$500.00 and Elisabeth and Frans de Jong donated $150.00. These donations were made to help fund the
installation of a synthetic turf field at Western Albemarle High School. The current balance for the FY 09/10 WAHS
Synthetic Turf Project is $1,000.00 including this donation. The balance from FY 07/08 was $8,450.00. The
balance from FY 08/09 was $10,711.66 for a grand total of $20,161.66. The high schools need to raise
$325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous donor, requiring Western Albemarle High
School to raise an additional $304,838.34 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure construction
is $650,000.00.
Appropriation #2010071 $43,105.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 43,105.00
The Department of Social Services in partnership with United Way – Thomas Jefferson Area has been awarded
grant funds from the Virginia Health Care Foundation (VHCF) for the implementation of Project Connect, VHCF's
children's health insurance enrollment initiative. This is a 20-month grant beginning February 1, 2010 through
September 30, 2011. This funding will provide an Eligibility Worker position at UVA Medicaid. This grant is 100%
reimbursable.
Appropriation #2010072 $19,199.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 19,199.00
The Department of Justice awarded Bedford County a grant to assist in the investigations of Internet Crimes
Against Children. Bedford has designated Albemarle County as being an area district in the fight against internet
crime and has awarded Albemarle County $80,000.00. $60,801 has already been appropriated in FY 09/10. An
additional appropriation of $19,199.00 is needed to fulfill the award. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2010075 $100,559.76
Revenue Source: Transfer General Govt CIP Fund $100,559.76
This appropriation will transfer a total of $100,559.76 from the River Access Improvement Project and the Park
Enhancement Project to the Byrom Park Project. Funds will be used to establish a 10% Project contingency and to
pay project management and other necessary construction costs. There will be no impact on the total County
budget as a result of this appropriation.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
February 2, 2010
Washington, Elizabeth J Life Estate C/O Dolores R Wallace
4110 27th Ave
Temple Hills Md 20748
RE: ZMA200900003 North Hill
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000003400
Dear Mrs. Wallace:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on January 12, 2010, by a vote of 6:1,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on March 10, 2010.
View PC staff report and attachments
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner
Planning Division
ZMA200900003 North Hill
PC 1/12/10
Staff Report Page 1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA200900003 North
Hill
Staff: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
January 12, 2009
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
To Be Determined
Owner: Elizabeth J. Washington Life
Estate c/o Delores R. Wallace
Applicant: Delores Wallace
Acreage: 0.69 acres
TMP: 07800000003400
Location: 2042 North Hill / east side of
Richmond Rd. (Rt. 250) at Inn Dr. /
approximately 230 ft. south of I64
eastbound onramp
Existing Zoning and By-right
use:
RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal,
and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre
Magisterial District: Scottsville Proffers: No
DA (Development Area):
RA (Rural Areas): X
Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA
Proposal: Rezone parcel from Highway
Commercial (HC) to Rural Areas (RA)
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and
natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (0.5 unit/ acre)
Character of Property: undeveloped Use of Surrounding Properties:
Comfort Inn
Factors Favorable:
1. The Rural Areas District would be
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The parcel would support one single-
family residence.
Factors Unfavorable:
Staff has not identified any unfavorable
factors.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Zoning Map Amendment.
ZMA200900003 North Hill
PC 1/12/10
Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Joan McDowell, Principal Planner Rural Areas
PLANNING COMMISSION: January 12, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
ZMA200900003 North Hill
Petition:
PROJECT: ZMA 200900003 North Hill
PROPOSAL: Rezone .69 acres from HC Highway Commercial District which allows
commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to RA
Rural Areas which allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5
unit/acre in development lots); HC zone approved by a conditional rezoning ZMA 87-16
PROFFERS: Yes____No__X
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas – preserve
and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/
density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes_X___No____
LOCATION: 2042 North Hill / east side of Richmond Rd. (Rt. 250) at Inn Dr. /
approximately 230 ft. south of I64 eastbound onramp
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000003400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
Applicant's Proposal: Request to rezone a .69 acre undeveloped parcel from Highway
Commercial (HC) to Rural Areas (RA). The RA District would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Character of the Area: The area is a mixture of commercial, rural and residential uses. Over
1,200 acres of land to the south of the subject parcel has been protected through conservation
easements. This area is also the entrance into the Southern Albemarle Historic District and it
is on an Entrance Corridor. The subject parcel is undeveloped. The location map
(Attachment A) and the area zoning map (Attachment B) are included as reference.
Planning and Zoning History:
ZMA-87-16 Seville Associates. Rezoning approved for approximately 1.56 acres from Rural
Areas (RA) to Highway Commercial (HC) for two parcels located between the Quality Inn
(now Comfort Inn) and Route 250. The parcels, Tax Map/Parcel (TMP) 78-34 (ZMA 09-03
subject parcel ) and TMP 78-60A (adjacent parcel) were rezoned to provide parking and
support services for an expansion program of the Quality Inn motel (now Comfort Inn)
located on TMP 58-60. The expansion program included a multi-story parking garage that
would provide two stories of parking and 75,000 square feet of commercial space, as well as a
conference center, a fitness center and a gas station on TMP 78-60. The approved proffers
would restrict the development of the subject parcel (TMP 78-34) to on-grade parking, a pond
with fountain, landscape buffering and other landscape improvements. At the time of the
rezoning, a single-family residence was located on the subject parcel, but it has since been
demolished. Located on the east side of the subject parcel was the residence of the owner of
both parcels, Mrs. Elizabeth Washington. The parcel containing Mrs. Washington’s residence
ZMA200900003 North Hill
PC 1/12/10
Staff Report Page 3
(TMP 78-35) was not part of ZMA 87-16 and remains in the RA District. The subject parcel
was leased to the motel owners, Seville Associates, for 20 years. At the time, Seville
Associates anticipated acquiring ownership of both parcels at some future time. The Board
of Supervisors Action Letter (Attachment C) and minutes of the Board public hearing on
February 17, 1988 (Attachment D) are included as reference.
The motel expansion plan has never been pursued.
SP-87-94 was approved for a 3-story 130’ by 290’ foot structure which would provide first
floor and roof top parking on Tax Map 78 Parcels 60 and 60A (adjacent to the subject parcel).
The second level would be reserved for commercial uses. A condition of approval allowed
public water to be extended to serve the property, with a stipulation that the extension would
not be at public expense. Although not included in the special use permit, the subject parcel
was part of the overall development plans, as described above.
VA-87-75 - the Board of Zoning Appeals granted Variances from Sections 4.12.7.2 and 21.7
to allow reduced setbacks for construction of the proposed parking garage/commercial
structure.
ZMA 2007-21 Cavalier Mini-Storage, a rezoning request for TMP 78-36, the parcel
immediately south of the subject parcel, to change the zoning district from RA to HC was
denied by the Board of Supervisors.
Specifics on the Proposal:
The proffers approved with ZMA 87-16 restricted the future development of this property
(Attachment D) to the plans for the expansion of the motel, which included “parking,
landscaping, buffering, and other landscape improvements.” The applicant has requested that
the property be rezoned to Rural Areas. The rezoning would remove the proffers approved
with ZMA 87-16 that would affect this property but would not affect the other parcel subject
to the rezoning (TMP 78-60A). Under the RA District, one single-family residential dwelling
could be constructed. However, if the applicant were to combine this parcel with TMP 78-35,
an additional residence would not be permitted, as TMP 78-35 contains an existing residence.
Applicant’s Justification for the Request: The applicants have provided a narrative in
support of this rezoning which is included as Attachment E. In general, the rezoning would
provide a reduction of the current commercial tax rate for a property that is encumbered by
proffers approved for a development that has not taken place. Rezoning to the RA District
would allow the construction of a single-family residence. The current owners of the
property, the heirs of Mrs. Washington, intend to sell the property.
By-right Use of the Property: If developed under the current HC zoning, the property could
only be developed under the restrictions of the proffers approved with ZMA 87-16
(Attachment A). The applicant could seek a rezoning to retain the HC zoning but remove the
proffers; however, development under the HC zoning regulations would be very limited by
setback and frontage requirements due to the small size of the parcel.
ZMA200900003 North Hill
PC 1/12/10
Staff Report Page 4
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area is Rural Areas. Approval of a
rezoning application to change the parcel from HC to RA would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Following the 1988 rezoning, future Interchange Development was considered during the
development of the Land Use Plan. The adopted Land Use Plan for Interchange Development
section of the Comprehensive Plan states that “Because Interstate-64 is a limited access
highway, its interchanges may be a focus for development activities. To accommodate
appropriate land uses in the vicinity of interstate interchanges, while maintaining the safety
and functional and aesthetic integrity of such interchanges, the standards and policies set forth
below are recommended.” The Plan further states that urban uses at Route 250 East
(Shadwell) should be developed on the Urban Area side only. Therefore, the Plan has
determined that the south side of the I-64 / Rt. 250 interchange is not to be a focus of
development activities.
In addition, the Pantops Master Plan does not recommend that this portion of the interchange
be incorporated into the Development Areas.
STAFF COMMENT
Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning
district: The RA District was established for the following purposes:
-Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities;
-Water supply protection;
-Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and
-Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.
Residential development not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal use shall be encouraged
to locate in the urban area, communities and villages as designated in the comprehensive plan
where services and utilities are available and where such development will not conflict with
the agricultural/forestal or other rural objective.
While this .69 acre parcel would not support either agricultural or forestal uses and
development of one single-family residence that would be permitted on the parcel does not
directly support the purpose and intent of the RA District, the development that would result
from this rezoning is more in keeping with the Rural Areas designation in the Land Use Plan
than the current HC zoning.
Public need and justification for the change: Amending the zoning map to RA would
provide consistency with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Rural Areas. The
RA district would allow a single-family residence that would be consistent with other
residential dwellings in this area.
ZMA200900003 North Hill
PC 1/12/10
Staff Report Page 5
Anticipated impact on natural, cultural, and historic resources: The site is within the
Monticello viewshed. The property is also across Route 250 from Shadwell, the site of
Thomas Jefferson’s birthplace. Shadwell has been protected by an easement held by the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources. The property is also at the entrance to the
Southern Albemarle Historic District. Both Rt. 250 and I-64 are designated Entrance
Corridors.
A change to the Rural Areas zoning district would be more consistent with these resources
than the current zoning and the development that could result.
Anticipated impact on public facilities and services
Transportation – Under the existing RA District, the one residential dwelling permitted by-
right would generate approximately 10 vehicle trips per day (9.57 vpd), substantially less than
traffic that could be generated under the existing zoning.
Water and Sewer – The parcel is in the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional
Area for water only. The Service Authority has advised that public water is currently
provided to two adjacent parcels: TMP 78-36 and TMP 78-35.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request:
1. Rezoning to Rural Areas District would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The parcel under RA zoning would support one single-family residence which is more
in keeping with Rural Areas designation than the development that could occur under
the current zoning.
Staff has not identified any unfavorable factors.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of ZMA20090003 North Hill. No proffers have been offered or
are deemed necessary to address impacts of the rezoning.
ATTACHMENTS:
A Location Map
B Area Map - zoning / easements
C Board of Supervisors Action Letter (ZMA 87-16) dated February 19, 1988
D Board of Supervisors February 17, 1988, Public Hearing Minutes (ZMA 87-16
and SP 87-94)
E Applicant Justification Letter, dated August 6, 2009
Go to PC minutes
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
January 12, 2010
ZMA-2009-0003 North Hill
PROPOSAL: Rezone .69 acres from HC Highway Commercial zoning district which allows commercial
and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) to RA Rural Areas which
allows agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); HC
zone approved by a conditional rezoning ZMA 87-16. PROFFERS: No
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect
agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density ( .5 unit/ acre in
development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 2042 North Hill / east side of Richmond
Rd. (Rt. 250) at Inn Dr. / approximately 230 ft. south of I 64 eastbound onramp
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 07800000003400. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Joan McDowell)
Ms. McDowell presented a Power-Point presentation and summarized the staff report. (See Staff Report)
This is a request to rezone a .69 acre undeveloped parcel from Highway Commercial (HC) to
Rural Areas (RA). The RA District would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
In 1987, the property was rezoned from Rural Area to Highway Commercial for the expan sion
of the Quality Inn, which is now the Comfort Inn. The expansion included a multi-level
parking garage and to have a middle level with quite a number of things including shops and
facilities for fitness. On the subject parcel they had agreed to have overflow parking, a pond,
and landscaping. But the motel expansion has never been pursued.
In 2007, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors considered a rezoning
application for the property across the street from th e subject property. That applicant was
pursuing rezoning Rural Areas to Highway Commercial, but it was denied by the Board of
Supervisors for basically the reasons as listed in the staff report. It was inconsistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and it would generate traffic above that normally anticipated in the Rural
Areas. There was no identified public need. The property is located at the gateway of the
Southern Albemarle Historic District.
Specifics on the Proposal: This parcel is restricted from future development because of th e
proffers that were approved with the previous rezoning ZMA 87-16 for the proposed motel
expansion, which included “parking, landscaping, buffering, and other landscape
improvements.” The rezoning would remove the proffers on this particular parcel and it could
go back to Rural Areas uses. The applicant intends to sell the property eventually and
perhaps have a single-family residence built on the parcel.
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this area is Rural Areas. Approval of this
rezoning application to change the parcel from HC to RA would be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Again, it would remove the proffers planned for urban uses on Route
250 towards Shadwell.
Following the 1988 rezoning, future Interchange Development was considered during the
development of the Land Use Plan. The adopted Land Use Plan for Interchange
Development section of the Comprehensive Plan states that “Because Interstate-64 is a
limited access highway; its interchanges may be a focus for development activities. To
accommodate appropriate land uses in the vicinity of interstate interchanges, while
maintaining the safety and functional and aesthetic integrity of such interchanges, the
standards and policies set forth below are recommended.” The Plan f urther states that urban
uses at Route 250 East (Shadwell) should be developed on the Urban Area side only.
Therefore, the Plan has determined that the south side of the I-64 / Rt. 250 interchange is not
to be a focus of development activities.
In addition, the Pantops Master Plan has not recommended that this portion of the
interchange be incorporated into the Development Areas.
Staff recommends approval of ZMA-2009-0003 North Hill Based on the findings in the staff
report. There were no unfavorable factors. No proffers have been offered or are deemed
necessary to address impacts of the rezoning.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
2
Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing and invited the
applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission.
Delores Wallace, property owner, said that they would like to have the property put back to Rural Areas
because of the taxes and because it has so many stipulations to sell it as a commercial property. The
property is not big enough to put anything on or to do anything with it. They can’t meet all of
recommendations or the criteria that is needed for it. Therefore, they would like to have the property be
rezoned back to rural like it was in the beginning.
Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant.
Ms. Porterfield asked if she has considered trying to rezone the property to lift the proffers off of the
property and then sell it commercially.
Ms. McDowell noted in other words to leave it zoned Highway Commercial but rezone the property to lift
the proffers. Then they would not be encumbered with proffers.
Ms. Wallace replied that she thought that James Quarles, their real estate person, tried to do it and they
were told that they could not build anything on the property like a gas station or other commercial use.
Ms. Porterfield noted that they would have trouble right now because of the proffers that are on the
property. This property is located in her district. Ever since she has seen this request she has been trying
to figure out if there is something that they can do. This is a tough piece of property for a lot of reasons.
But, because of the proffers on the property it makes it difficult to market the property as Highway
Commercial. It might be better marketed if the property was rezoned to get the proffers off of it. The
property to the east and on the top of the hill as well as the property across the street are zoned Highway
Commercial. The property to the east came in to try to rezone. So the only piece that is left is the house
behind, which they own.
Ms. Wallace pointed out that everything else is zoned rural towards to east.
Ms. Porterfield asked if no one has suggested that to them rather than going through this at this point,
and Ms. Wallace agreed.
Mr. Morris asked if she owned the home directly to the north back between the subject property and the
hotel.
Ms. Wallace replied yes that they own lot 33.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg said it was worth noting that the size of this parcel without the proffers still would present
setback challenges for them. Those are things that cannot be changed in a rezoning because it is a
conventional district, which would require them to get a zoning variance.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the problem with this corner is that it has a lot of old zoning on it. It is truly
not rural and is commercial. The lower portion runs all the way out through the Jarman’s Motorcycle
Store. The gentleman that owns the parcel that is just to the east of this came in when she was very new
on the Planning Commission and wanted to rezone the property to have a storage area on it. It was
discussed here and actually there was some support for rezoning it. Personally, she was not in favor in
that instance because she really opposes spot rezoning and wanted to see if they could bring some more
things in it. That whole area needs work. They had someone else come in a little later that year with the
thought of putting an indoor soccer area across the street. There was talk about the possibility of a hotel
on that side. So there is interest in that area because the transportation is there and it is an interchange.
Currently it is rural according to the Master Plan. They also have the interchange section of the Master
Plan. As she understands, the Board of Supervisors is now going to take a look at the I-64 Corridor
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – JANUARY 12, 2009
DRAFT MINUTES
3
running all the way from Crozet through the Shadwell Interchange an d then possibly over a little farther to
the east. She sympathized with the family, but was not ready to r ezone this property to rural. She did not
see the use for it on that corner because of what else is there. She would rather see them try to solve t he
problem with the corner to make the corner work for the County of Albemarle because it is easily
accessible. The road already exists and is being paid for by our federal taxes. She moved for denial of
this application based on that.
Mr. Loach questioned even if the proffers were removed what the potential would be for commercial
development on this property.
Ms. McDowell replied as Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that she did not believe it could meet all the setbacks
under the HC zone. The application would need a variance for setbacks and would have to go to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the property to the west is on the market and already has a for sale sign
on it. She suggested that if the two properties were combined there was a good possibility of doing
something there. The Planning Commission received an email from the property owner to the east who
would like to not see this property rezoned because he would probably combine his property and see if
something could be done with it that was more useful. The property is located right on 250 coming into
the stop lights. That area is going to only get worse.
Mr. Zobrist noted that obviously if someone wants to do an assembly job there it seemed that is a heavy
burden to have that heavily an assessed piece of land out there that these people can’t use that they
have to pay taxes on. He knows the County needs taxes, but at what cost. Obviously, if this is zoned
back to rural and somebody comes out and does an assembly it can always be rezoned back up again.
He has great respect for staff’s decision on this one. Staff has looked at the request and understands the
fiscal impact on it. He worried about the fiscal impacts on families. These people look to all be retirees
and they have to maintain the taxes on a piece of land they can’t do anything with. He moved to approve
the change in zoning.
Mr. Franco seconded the motion for approval.
Mr. Loach noted that there was already a motion for denial on the floor. He asked if there was a second
to the motion for denial. There being no second, the motion for denial died for the lack of a second.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved and Mr. Franco seconded to recommend approval of ZMA-2009-00003 North
Hill as recommended by staff.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:1. (Porterfield nay)
Mr. Loach noted that ZMA-2009-00003 North Hill would go before the Board of Supervisors on March 3,
2010 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Housing Choice Voucher Program
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing and Approval of the Housing Choice
Voucher Program 5-Year and Annual Plan for FY 10
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Elliott, and White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Albemarle County Office of Housing (“Office”) is the designated local agency for the administration of the Housing
Choice Voucher Program (“Program”), formerly known as the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. The Office is
considered a part of the executive branch of local government and not a public housing authority. Although not a
housing authority, the Office must comply with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”)
requirements for Public Housing Agency (“PHA”) activities, including the development and implementation of Annual
and 5-Year PHA Plans. In accordance with HUD guidelines as revised in 2008, the Office is required to prepare a 5-
Year Plan and FY2010 Annual Plan, make it available for a 45-day public review period, and hold a public hearing.
The Plan must be submitted to HUD, however, because the PHA has fewer than 550 vouchers and is not a troubled
agency, the County’s program does not require HUD approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Objective 1.2: By June 30, 2010, working in partnership with others, increase affordable housing opportunities for
those who work and/or live in Albemarle County.
DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to HUD guidelines, the County is authorized to administer a total of 429 vouchers through its Program . The
Program is currently operating at approximately 98% of its authorized budget, providing assistance to 373 families.
Eighty-five of the authorized vouchers have been designated as project-based vouchers that are designated to specific
units rather than individuals as follows:
Park’s Edge Apartments – 24
Park View Apartments on South Pantops – 22
Treesdale Park – 22
Crozet Meadow – 8
The Crossings at Fourth and Preston - 9
HUD regulations allow a PHA to designate a maximum of twenty percent (20%) of authorized vouchers as project-
based; provided that in no case can the amount of funding used for project-based vouchers exceed twenty percent
(20%) of the annual budget from HUD. With the commitments for Treesdale Park, Crozet Meadows and The
Crossings, the Office has designated 20% of its vouchers as project-based vouchers.
As required by HUD, the proposed 5-Year Plan and FY10 Annual Plan (Attachment A) has been made available to a
Resident Advisory Board (RAB) consisting of families participating in the Program for review and comment. No
comments have been received to date. The Plan’s availability was advertised on March 15, 2010 with the 45-day
public review period commencing on March 16, 2010 and ending April 30, 2010.
AGENDA TITLE: Housing Choice Voucher Program
April 7, 2010
Page 2
Staff is not proposing any changes in the Annual Housing Choice Voucher Plan for FY 10 from the previously
submitted Annual Plan for FY 09. Any comments received from the public during the comment period will be noted in
the final plan, which will be submitted to HUD at the close of the 45-day public review period.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There are no additional budget impacts beyond current FY09 and proposed FY10 appropriations for staffing and
operations of the Office of Housing. Administrative fees from HUD cover most of the operations for this Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the Board receives public comment, staff recommends approval of the attached PHA 5-Year and Annual Plan
(Attachment A). In addition, staff requests that the Board authorize the County Executive to execute the required PHA
Certifications of Compliance and Civil Rights Certification (Attachments B and C).
ATTACHMENTS
A - PHA Plan
B - PHA Certifications of Compliance
C – Civil Rights Certification
Return to regular agenda
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 2 form HUD-50075 (4/2008)
PHA 5-Year and
Annual Plan
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
OMB No. 2577-0226
Expires 4/30/2011
1.0
PHA Information
PHA Name: ______County of Albemarle________________________________________________ PHA Code: __VA036________
PHA Type: Small High Performing Standard X HCV (Section 8)
PHA Fiscal Year Beginning: (MM/YYYY): _07/2010______
2.0
Inventory (based on ACC units at time of FY beginning in 1.0 above)
Number of PH units: _________________ Number of HCV units: __429________
3.0
Submission Type
X 5-Year and Annual Plan Annual Plan Only 5-Year Plan Only
4.0
PHA Consortia PHA Consortia: (Check box if submitting a joint Plan and complete table below.)
Participating PHAs PHA
Code
Program(s) Included in the
Consortia
Programs Not in the
Consortia
No. of Units in Each
Program
PH HCV
PHA 1:
PHA 2:
PHA 3:
5.0
5-Year Plan. Complete items 5.1 and 5.2 only at 5-Year Plan update.
5.1 Mission. State the PHA’s Mission for serving the needs of low-income, very low-income, and extremely low income families in the PHA’s
jurisdiction for the next five years:
To promote opportunities for all county citizens to secure and maintain safe, decent, accessib le, and affordable housing with emphasis given to
those least able to obtain it.
5.2
Goals and Objectives. Identify the PHA’s quantifiable goals and objectives that will enable the PHA to serve the needs of low-income and very
low-income, and extremely low-income families for the next five years. Include a report on the progress the PHA has made in meeting the goals
and objectives described in the previous 5-Year Plan.
Maintaining 98% utilization of budgeting funding serving approximately 92% of allocated vouchers
Maximize use of project-based vouchers to promote projects providing new affordable units including those for the elderly and the homeless
6.0
PHA Plan Update
(a) Identify all PHA Plan elements that have been revised by the PHA since its last Annual Plan submission: NONE
(b) Identify the specific location(s) where the public may obtain copies of the 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan. For a complete list of PHA Plan
elements, see Section 6.0 of the instructions. Albemarle County Office of Housing
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
7.0
Hope VI, Mixed Finance Modernization or Development, Demolition and/or Disposition, Conversion of Public Housing, Homeownership
Programs, and Project-based Vouchers. Include statements related to these programs as applicable.
8.0
Capital Improvements. Please complete Parts 8.1 through 8.3, as applicable.
8.1
Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report. As part of the PHA 5-Year and Annual Plan, annually
complete and submit the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report, form HUD-50075.1, for each current and
open CFP grant and CFFP financing.
8.2
Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan. As part of the submission of the Annual Plan, PHAs must complete and submit the Capital Fund
Program Five-Year Action Plan, form HUD-50075.2, and subsequent annual updates (on a rolling basis, e.g., drop current year, and add latest year
for a five year period). Large capital items must be included in the Five-Year Action Plan.
8.3
Capital Fund Financing Program (CFFP).
Check if the PHA proposes to use any portion of its Capital Fund Program (CFP)/Replacement Housing Factor (RHF) to repay debt incurred to
finance capital improvements.
9.0
Housing Needs. Based on information provided by the applicable Consolidated Plan, information provided by HUD, and other generally available
data, make a reasonable effort to identify the housing needs of the low-income, very low-income, and extremely low-income families who reside in
the jurisdiction served by the PHA, including elderly families, families with disabilities, and households of various races and ethnic groups, and
other families who are on the public housing and Section 8 tenant-based assistance waiting lists. The identification of housing needs must address
issues of affordability, supply, quality, accessibility, size of units, and location.
Affordability of rental units remains fairly stable with minimal vacancy in units considered affordable to low- to moderate-income households. The
high occupancy rate does continue to put some pressure on rents. A concern going forward, however, is the extent that property owners will face a
significant increase in utilities. Quality, accessibility, size, and location have had and will likely to continue to have little impact in meeting the
needs of out clients. Going forward, increasing the supply of affordable units will be a key in maintaining affordable rents and meeting the needs of
both voucher holders and the general public.
The County’s waiting list currently contains over 900 applicants, with over half of these applying for project-based units in three developments. Of
the 400-plus on the Housing Choice Voucher waiting list, approximately 185 meet the County’s preference. Although our waiting list i s not broken
down by categories of age and disability, two of our project-based sites are restricted to elderly and disabled. Those list have a combined number of
applications of approximately 90.
9.1
Strategy for Addressing Housing Needs. Provide a brief description of the PHA’s strategy for addressing the housing needs of families in the
jurisdiction and on the waiting list in the upcoming year. Note: Small, Section 8 only, and High Performing PHAs complete only for Annual
Plan submission with the 5-Year Plan.
Albemarle County continues to support private development activities that produce and preserve affordable rental units by pro viding local
contributions and project-based vouchers. The County has continued to provide local support for developments seeking low income housing tax
credits and has applied for and received numerous Community Development Block Grants to support rehabilitation and new construction of both
rental and owner-occupied housing. These strategies will continue as a part of the County’s adopted Affordable Housing Policy.
10.0
Additional Information. Describe the following, as well as any additional information HUD has requested.
(a) Progress in Meeting Mission and Goals. Provide a brief statement of the PHA’s progress in meeting the mission and goals described in the 5-
Year Plan. Since 2005, Albemarle County has committed 61 project-based vouchers to support developments seeking low income housing tax
credits. Twenty-two of those vouchers are under lease in an elderly-only development with 8 others committed to a development under
construction and rehabilitation also restricted to the elderly. Twenty-two are committed to a development scheduled to begin construction this
spring which will provide 2-br and 3-br units for families. Nine are committed to subsidize rents for single, homeless persons in a proposed single
room occupancy development to be built in the City of Charlottesville,
The County of Albemarle has continued to meet criteria to be deemed a “high performing PHA”.
(b) Significant Amendment and Substantial Deviation/Modification. Provide the PHA’s definition of “significant amendment” and “substantial
deviation/modification”
11.0
Required Submission for HUD Field Office Review. In addition to the PHA Plan template (HUD-50075), PHAs must submit the following
documents. Items (a) through (g) may be submitted with signature by mail or electronically with scanned signatures, but electronic submission is
encouraged. Items (h) through (i) must be attached electronically with the PHA Plan. Note: Faxed copies of these documents will not be accepted
by the Field Office.
(a) Form HUD-50077, PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations (which includes all certifications relating
to Civil Rights)
(b) Form HUD-50070, Certification for a Drug-Free Workplace (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(c) Form HUD-50071, Certification of Payments to Influence Federal Transactions (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(d) Form SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(e) Form SF-LLL-A, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities Continuation Sheet (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(f) Resident Advisory Board (RAB) comments. Comments received from the RAB must be submitted by the PHA as an attachment to the PHA
Plan. PHAs must also include a narrative describing their analysis of the recommendations and the decisions made on these recommendations.
(g) Challenged Elements
(h) Form HUD-50075.1, Capital Fund Program Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
(i) Form HUD-50075.2, Capital Fund Program Five-Year Action Plan (PHAs receiving CFP grants only)
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Previous version is obsolete Page 1 of 2 form HUD-50077 (4/2008)
PHA Certifications of Compliance
with PHA Plans and Related
Regulations
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
PHA Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plans and Related Regulations:
Board Resolution to Accompany the PHA 5-Year and Annual PHA Plan
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its Chairman or other
authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioners, I approve the submission of the___ 5-Year and/or___ Annual PHA
Plan for the PHA fiscal year beginning ________, hereinafter referred to as” the Plan”, of which this document is a part and make
the following certifications and agreements with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in connection with the
submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
1. The Plan is consistent with the applicable comprehensive housing affordability strategy (or any plan incorporating such
strategy) for the jurisdiction in which the PHA is located.
2. The Plan contains a certification by the appropriate State or local officials that the Plan is consistent with the applicable
Consolidated Plan, which includes a certification that requires the preparation of an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing
Choice, for the PHA's jurisdiction and a description of the manner in which the PHA Plan is consistent with the applicable
Consolidated Plan.
3. The PHA certifies that there has been no change, significant or otherwise, to the Capital Fund Program (and Capital Fund
Program/Replacement Housing Factor) Annual Statement(s), since submission of its last approved Annual Plan. The Capital
Fund Program Annual Statement/Annual Statement/Performance and Evaluation Report must be submitted annually even if
there is no change.
4. The PHA has established a Resident Advisory Board or Boards, the membership of which represents the residents assisted by
the PHA, consulted with this Board or Boards in developing the Plan, and considered the recommendations of the Board or
Boards (24 CFR 903.13). The PHA has included in the Plan submission a copy of the recommendations made by the
Resident Advisory Board or Boards and a description of the manner in which the Plan addresses these recommendations.
5. The PHA made the proposed Plan and all information relevant to the public hearing available for public inspection at least 45
days before the hearing, published a notice that a hearing would be held and conducted a hearing to discuss the Plan and
invited public comment.
6. The PHA certifies that it will carry out the Plan in conformity with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing
Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.
7. The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing by examining their programs or proposed programs, identify any
impediments to fair housing choice within those programs, address those impediments in a reasonable fashion in view of the
resources available and work with local jurisdictions to implement any of the jurisdiction's initiatives to affirmatively further
fair housing that require the PHA's involvement and maintain records reflecting these analyses and actions.
8. For PHA Plan that includes a policy for site based waiting lists:
• The PHA regularly submits required data to HUD's 50058 PIC/IMS Module in an accurate, complete and timely manner
(as specified in PIH Notice 2006-24);
• The system of site-based waiting lists provides for full disclosure to each applicant in the selection of the development in
which to reside, including basic information about available sites; and an estimate of the period of time the applicant
would likely have to wait to be admitted to units of different sizes and types at each site;
• Adoption of site-based waiting list would not violate any court order or settlement agreement or be inconsistent with a
pending complaint brought by HUD;
• The PHA shall take reasonable measures to assure that such waiting list is consistent with affirmatively furthering fair
housing;
• The PHA provides for review of its site-based waiting list policy to determine if it is consistent with civil rights laws and
certifications, as specified in 24 CFR part 903.7(c)(1).
9. The PHA will comply with the prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of age pursuant to the Age Discrimination Act
of 1975.
10. The PHA will comply with the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and 24 CFR Part 41, Policies and Procedures for the
Enforcement of Standards and Requirements for Accessibility by the Physically Handicapped.
11. The PHA will comply with the requirements of section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, Employment
Opportunities for Low-or Very-Low Income Persons, and with its implementing regulation at 24 CFR Part 135.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Previous version is obsolete Page 2 of 2 form HUD-50077 (4/2008)
12. The PHA will comply with acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and implementing regulations at 49 CFR Part 24 as applicable.
13. The PHA will take appropriate affirmative action to award contracts to minority and women's business enterprises under 24
CFR 5.105(a).
14. The PHA will provide the responsible entity or HUD any documentation that the responsible entity or HUD needs to carry
out its review under the National Environmental Policy Act and other related authorities in accordance with 24 CFR Part 58
or Part 50, respectively.
15. With respect to public housing the PHA will comply with Davis-Bacon or HUD determined wage rate requirements under
Section 12 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act.
16. The PHA will keep records in accordance with 24 CFR 85.20 and facilitate an effective audit to determine compliance with
program requirements.
17. The PHA will comply with the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act, the Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard
Reduction Act of 1992, and 24 CFR Part 35.
18. The PHA will comply with the policies, guidelines, and requirements of OMB Circular No. A-87 (Cost Principles for State,
Local and Indian Tribal Governments), 2 CFR Part 225, and 24 CFR Part 85 (Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal Governments).
19. The PHA will undertake only activities and programs covered by the Plan in a manner consistent with its Plan and will utilize
covered grant funds only for activities that are approvable under the regulations and included in its Plan.
20. All attachments to the Plan have been and will continue to be available at all times and all locations that the PHA Plan is
available for public inspection. All required supporting documents have been made available for public inspection along with
the Plan and additional requirements at the primary business office of the PHA and at all other times and locations identified
by the PHA in its PHA Plan and will continue to be made available at least at the primary business office of the PHA.
21. The PHA provides assurance as part of this certification that:
(i) The Resident Advisory Board had an opportunity to review and comment on the changes to the policies and programs
before implementation by the PHA;
(ii) The changes were duly approved by the PHA Board of Directors (or similar governing body); and
(iii) The revised policies and programs are available for review and inspection, at the principal office of the PHA during
normal business hours.
22. The PHA certifies that it is in compliance with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements.
_________________________________________ __________________________________________
PHA Name PHA Number/HA Code
_____ 5-Year PHA Plan for Fiscal Years 20____ - 20____
_____ Annual PHA Plan for Fiscal Years 20____ - 20____
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will
prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official Title
Signature Date
Civil Rights Certification U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
Expires 4/30/2011
form HUD-50077-CR (1/2009)
OMB Approval No. 2577-0226
Civil Rights Certification
Annual Certification and Board Resolution
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the Public Housing Agency (PHA) listed below, as its Chairman or other
authorized PHA official if there is no Board of Commissioner, I approve the submission of the Plan for the PHA of which this
document is a part and make the following certification and agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) in connection with the submission of the Plan and implementation thereof:
The PHA certifies that it will carry out the public housing program of the agency in conformity with title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and will affirmatively further fair housing.
________________________________________ __________________________________________
PHA Name PHA Number/HA Code
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith, is true and accurate. Warning: HUD will
prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official
Title
Signature
Date
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Calendar Year 2010 Tax Rate Resolution
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Approval of the Calendar Year 2010 Tax
Rates
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 31, 2010, a public hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ proposed budget for FY 10/11. A public
hearing also was held on the calendar year 2010 tax rates.
The attached resolution to set the calendar year 2010 (tax year) tax rates must be approved by April 15, 2010,
however, adoption of the tax rate at the April 7th meeting would assist in the timely printing and mailing of the tax bills
that are due on or before June 5th.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
5.1 Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The attached resolution sets the tax rates for calendar year 2010. The proposed rates are set at $0.742/$100
assessed valuation for real estate, public service, and mobile homes and at $4.28/$100 assessed valuation for
personal property, including machinery and tools.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to set the proposed calendar year 2010 tax rates.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Tax Rate Resolution
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
RESOLUTION TO SET
CALENDAR YEAR 2010 TAX RATES
BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby set
the County Levy for Calendar Year 2010 for general County purposes at Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths
Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of real estate; at Seventy-Four and
Two-Tenths Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of manufactured homes; at
Seventy-Four and Two-Tenths Cents ($0.742) on every One Hundred Dollars of assessed value of public
service assessments; at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One Hundred Dollars of
assessed value of personal property; and at Four Dollars and Twenty-Eight Cents ($4.28) on every One
Hundred Dollars of assessed value of machinery and tools; and
FURTHER orders that the Director of Finance of Albemarle County assess and collect the taxes
on all taxable real estate and all taxable personal property.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Adoption of the FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request Board Adoption of the FY 10/11 Operating and
Capital Budgets
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
April 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On February 25th, the County Executive presented his Recommended FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets to the
Board of Supervisors. On March 3rd, the Board held a Public Hearing on the Recommended Budget and then held
four public Work Sessions. On March 17th, the Board authorized the advertising of a $0.742/$100 real estate tax rate
for the 2010 Tax Year. On March 31st, a Public Hearing was held on the Board of Supervisors’ Proposed FY 10/11
Operating and Capital Budgets and on the Calendar Year 2010 Tax Rate.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
5.1 Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The FY 10/11 Operating and Capital budgets total $292,417,560. This amount reflects the County Executive’s
Recommended Budget plus changes made during the Board’s work sessions and a final adjustment to State revenue
estimates based on information provided by the State over the past one to two weeks. Further information regarding
this estimate of state revenues is explained in the final bullet below. The complete changes are summarized below:
Reinstated funding for Virginia Municipal League (VML) membership ($11,000)
Reinstated funding for several agencies
o Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission ($5,415)
o Cooperative Extension ($5,244)
o Offender Aid and Restoration ($8,031)
o Jefferson Area Board of Aging ($14,024)
o Jefferson Madison Regional Library ($158,657)
Reinstated $10,000 for the Emergency Housing Repair program
Reinstated funding in the amount of $188,795 for the Family Support program
Reinstated $36,337 to keep the Scottsville Community Center open
Recognizes additional State funding for the local government and school system. Beyond additional State
revenues for the school system reviewed during the most recent budget hearing, final General Fund revenue
adjustments include $248,837 in additional State funding identified since the Board’s March 17, 2010 work
session. While the County has still experienced significant loss in State funding, some of the projected losses
for constitutional officers, law enforcement and recordation are not as great as originally projected based on
information received over the past one to two weeks. Staff recommends that this additional funding be
included in the Revenue Shortfall Contingency, resulting in a total contingency of $1,048,837 rather than the
$800,000 previously included. This recommendation is reflected in the attached resolution.
The attached resolution formally approves the FY 10/11 Budget. Attachment A to the Resolution details the
adjustments made to the County Executive’s Recommended Budget.
AGENDA TITLE: Adoption of the FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets
April 7, 2010
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends adoption of the attached FY 2010/2011 Budget Resolution approving the FY 10/11 Operating and
Capital Budgets as recommended by the County Executive and amended by the Board of Supervisors.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment – Budget Resolution
Return to regular agenda
FY 2010/2010
BUDGET RESOLUTION
BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia:
1) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2010 is made up of
the County Executive’s Recommended Budget document and the amendments made by the Board of
Supervisors as detailed in Attachment A.
2) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2010 is summarized
as follows:
3) That the budget for the County for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2010 as described in
1) and 2) above is approved.
View attachment
Return to exec summary
FY 10/11 Adopted
Administration $9,920,979
Judicial 3,859,835
Public Safety 28,917,299
General Services 4,498,959
Human Development (including PVCC) 15,964,585
Parks, Recreation, and Culture 6,059,192
Community Development 6,217,415
City/County Revenue Sharing 18,454,658
Revenue Shortfall Contingency 1,048,837
Refunds/Other 860,295
General Government Special Revenue Funds 12,511,387
General Government Capital Projects 2,891,385
Stormwater Improvements 261,250
General Government Debt Service 3,464,460
Education - Capital Projects 4,967,930
Education - Debt Service 13,229,712
Education - School Operations 138,308,070
Education - Self-Sustaining Funds 20,770,940
Board Reserves 210,372
TOTAL $292,417,560
Board of Supervisors' FY 10/11 Operating and Capital Budgets
Changes from Recommended Budget
GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
General Government Operations 79,217,669
Subtotal, General Government Operations 79,217,669
General Government Additions 0
VML Membership 11,000
TJPDC 5,415
Cooperative Extension 5,244
OAR 8,031
Emergency Housing Repair 10,000
JMRL 158,657
Family Support Workers 188,795
JABA 14,024
Scottsville Community Center 36,337
Subtotal, General Government Additions 437,503
Refunds 207,500
Subtotal, Refunds 207,500
City Revenue Sharing 18,454,658
Subtotal, Revenue Sharing 18,454,658
Capital Improvement & Debt Service Transfers 16,979,460
Subtotal, Capital & Debt Transfers 16,979,460
Transfer for School Operations 96,057,504
Subtotal, Transfer for School Operations 96,057,504
Contingency/Other 1,559,550
Board Reserve Adjustment 352,454
Subtotal, Contingency/Other 1,912,004
FY 10/11 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES 212,476,341 213,266,298
GENERAL FUND - REVENUES & FUNDING SOURCES
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S RECOMMENDED BUDGET 212,476,341
REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS
Scottsville Community Center Rent 2,325
Family Support Transfer from Schools 188,795
State Revenue Adjustment 598,837
TOTAL, Revenue & Fund Balance Adjustments 789,957
FY 10/11 GENERAL FUND REVENUES 212,476,341 213,266,298
SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
School Fund Operations 144,896,931*
Revenue/Expenditure Adjustments -2,033,298
Subtotal, School Fund Operations -2,033,298
Self-Sustaining Fund Operations 21,170,940
Subtotal, School Self-Sustaining 21,170,940
FY 10/11 SCHOOL DIVISION BUDGET 166,067,871 164,034,573
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
General Government Projects 3,587,426
Subtotal, General Government Projects 3,587,426
Storm Water Projects 261,250
Subtotal, Storm Water Projects 261,250
School Division Projects 5,111,930
Subtotal, School Division Projects 5,111,930
Debt Service 16,694,172
Subtotal, Debt Service 16,694,172
FY 10/11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET 25,654,778 25,654,778
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
Special Revenue Funds 14,109,326
Subtotal, Other Special Revenue Funds 14,109,326
FY 10/11 SPECIAL REVENUE FUND OPERATIONS 14,109,326 14,109,326
SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
FY 10/11 Recommended
Budget
FY 10/11 Adopted
Budget
General Fund 212,476,341 213,266,298
School Fund/School Self-Sustaining 166,067,871 164,034,573
Capital and Debt Service Funds 25,654,778 25,654,778
Special Revenue Funds 14,109,326 14,109,326
SUBTOTAL - ALL FUNDS 418,308,316 417,064,975
LESS INTERFUND TRANSFERS (124,457,415)(124,647,415)
TOTAL COUNTY BUDGET - ALL FUNDS 293,850,901 292,417,560
*This represents the Superintendent's Request, which was used in the FY 10/11 County Executive's Recommended
Budget. Final adjustments are still being made to the school system's budget.