HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-7-07Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JULY 7, 2010
9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. Recognitions:
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. - Public Hearings:
8. FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
9. PROJECT: SP-2010-00001. Earlysville Service Center. PROPOSED: Amend SP-
2008-00025 to increase the building size from a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. to provide adequate interior space for the
service bays; special use permit would be on approx. 2.17 acre portion of an 11.833 acre parcel. ZONING CATEGORY/
GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in
development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage. 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 density). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: West side of Earlysville Rd (Rt 743) approx 775 ft.
north of Reas Ford Rd (Rt 660). TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03100-00-00-01400. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio.
10. 10-03( ) – Agricultural and Forestal Districts – Ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of
Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County
Code, to add lands to certain districts and to make corrections to certain district ordinances to identify all those tax map
parcels within the districts, as specified below:
a. AFD-2010-6 Fox Mountain AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance
would amend Section 3-212, Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 14-26A, 14-26C and 15-
1 to the district.
b. AFD-2010-2; 2010-5 Hardware AFD – District Additions. The proposed
ordinance would amend Section 3-214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 74-28B, 75-4A,
75-5 and 87-16A to the district, to identify TMPs 86-27A, 88-24B, 99-10(part) and 99-52B as being in the district
(these parcels were created from parcels already in the district), and to identify TMP 73-39C7 as being in the
district (this parcel is currently in the district; this is a correction of the parcel reference from TMP 73-39C to 73-
39C7).
c. AFD-2010-8 Hatton AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance would amend
Section 3-215, Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 136-6B, 136-8H, 136-9A2, 136-9C, 136-9D1
and 136-9E to the district, to identify TMPs 135-13A, 135-13B and 135-15C as being in the district (these parcels
were created from parcels already in the district) and to delete TMP 135-30(part) (this parcel was previously
withdrawn from the district).
d. AFD-2010-7; 2010-10 Jacob’s Run AFD – District Additions. The proposed
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100707/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 12:48:14 PM]
Tentative
ordinance would amend Section 3-218, Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 31-1and 31-
4K to the district.
e. AFD-2010-3 Kinloch AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance would
amend Section 3-220, Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 66-3G to the district and to identify
TMPs 65-94B, 65-94C and 65-121A1as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in
the district).
f. AFD-2010-4 Moorman’s River AFD – District Additions. The proposed ordinance
would amend Section 3-222, Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 41-19 to the district,
to identify TMPs 28-13A, 28-30A1, 29-79E, 29-79F, 30-10C, 30-12C1, 41-50C, 41-65A1, 42-8B, 43-30B1, 43-
30B2, 43-30B3 and 43-30B4 as being in the district (these parcels were created from parcels already in the
district), to identify TMPs 42-42B1 and 43-2B as being in the district (these parcels were inadvertently removed
from the ordinance in a prior amendment; this is a correction), to identify TMP 44-26B as being in the district (this
is a floating tax parcel for an undefined travelway that exists within TMP 44-26C, which is within the district), to
delete TMPs 41-67, 43-3, 43-3C, 43-3D and 43-4C (the land in these parcels was distributed to other parcels in
the district), and to delete TMPs 29-70G and 43-43A1 (these parcels were never in the district; this is a
correction).
10:15 a.m. – Presentations Items
11. Board-to-Board, Monthly Communications Report from School Board, Ron Price, School Board
Chairman.
12. CIT and the Mental Health/Criminal Justice Cross Mapping Project, Tom von Hemert.
13. Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP) Update, Cynthia Adams.
11:00 a.m. – Action Items
14. Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area.
15. Old Jail Reuse Study, Bill Letteri.
16. Closed Meeting.
17. Certify Closed Meeting.
18. Boards and Commissions:
a. Vacancies/Appointments.
2:00 p.m. – Presentations/Action Items (continued):
19. Albemarle County Department of Social Services (ACDSS) Comparative Study.
20. Board Policy Related to Volunteer Fire/Rescue Funding, Dan Eggleston.
21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
22. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100707/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 12:48:14 PM]
Tentative
7.1 Approval of Minutes: April 7, April 14 and May 12, 2010.
7.2 FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations.
7.3 2007 State Homeland Security Grant Program (CFDA # 97.073) Resolution.
7.4 FY 2010/11 Bright Stars Funding Update.
FOR INFORMATION:
7.5 VDOT, Culpeper District Monthly Report, for Albemarle County, July 2010.
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100707/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 12:48:14 PM]
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2010089, #2010090, #201091, #2010092, #2010093 and
#2010094 for various school and local government
programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 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 $304,929.49. A budget amendment public
hearing is not required because the amount of 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 six (6) FY 2010 appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2010089) reallocating $35,168.00 of a Department of Justice grant awarded to the
Police Department to different expenditure lines within the grant;
Two (2) appropriations (#2010090 and #201091) totaling $180,741.49 for various school programs;
One (1) appropriation (#2010092) totaling $53,668.00 for costs associated with the June 8, 2010 primary
elections;
One (1) appropriation (#2010093) totaling $9,800.00 for equipment and training for the Community
Emergency Response Team (CERT), Medical Reserve Corps (MRC), and the Fire Corps from the 2007
Homeland Security reimbursable grant; and
One (1) appropriation (#2010094) totaling $60,720.00 for the ACE program from the Farmland Preservation
Grant
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $304,929.49 and the approval of
Appropriations #2010089, #2010090, #201091, #2010092, #2010093, and #2010094.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2010089 $35,168.00
Revenue Source:
Grant #2009-SB-B9-1924: The Department of Justice has approved an amendment to the grant awarded to the
Albemarle County Police Department in the amount of $113,138.00. The purpose of this amendment is to
reallocate $35,168 of funds currently budgeted for overtime to cover training and additional equipment to suppor t
more Community Policing in problem solving, crime prevention, and safety enhancement through working directly
with citizens. There is no local match.
Appropriation #2010090 $176.548.63
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $108,991.68
Fund Balance $ 67,556.95
Henley Middle School received a donation in the amount of $735.68 from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support
Organization. The donor has requested that the contribution be used to help fund the “Enrichment Time before 9”
program for the month of April at Henley Middle School.
Albemarle High School (“AHS”) received various cash donations totaling $620.00. These donations were made to
help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at AHS. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf
Project is $33,856.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of
$40,722.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous
donor, requiring AHS to raise an additional $284,277.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure
construction is $650,000.00.
Monticello High School was awarded a grant in the amount of $345.00 from the Nest Realty Group. These funds
will be used to build a vegetable garden at the school. The garden will primarily be a project of the school’s
Ecology classes.
Crozet Elementary School was awarded a grant in the amount of $625.00 from the Williams Companies, Inc.
These funds will be used to purchase a pair of lacrosse goals.
Greer Elementary School was awarded a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 from the Junior League of
Charlottesville. These funds will be used to cover the costs of a field trip to Lowes where garden supplies and
materials will be purchased. Remaining funds will be used to purchase books about gardening.
The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local
Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund. The
following donations totaling $410.00 were made to specific options:
$100.00 was donated to Albemarle High School;
$100.00 was donated to Red Hill Elementary School;
$110.00 was donated to School Division Capital Improvements; and
$100.00 was donated to the MESA program at Albemarle High School.
The Special Education Local Improvement Grant (SLIVER) has a fund balance in the amount $2,645.95, which
may be used for FY 09/10. These funds will be used to furnish preschool classrooms.
The Teaching American History Grant is based on a partnership of five public school systems in central Virginia
(Charlottesville City and Albemarle, Madison, Orange and Greene Counties). The City of Charlottesville is the fiscal
agent and Albemarle County Schools will seek reimbursement for salary and compensation expenses incurred.
The purpose of this grant is to create a sustainable, long-term project that will become a model to share both
teaching strategies and content-based activities as well as inform future historical projects. The grant totals
$105,256.00.
Various Miscellaneous Grants have an unexpended fund balance from FY 08/09. H olders of these grants have
been encouraged to expend these balances. This request is to reappropriate available funds totaling $52,078.36
for use in FY 09/10.
Various Shannon Foundation Grants have an unexpended fund balance from FY 08/09. Holders of the se grants
have been encouraged to expend these balances. This request is to reappropriate available funds totaling
$12,832.74 for use in FY 09/10.
Appropriation #2010091 $4,192.86
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 4,192.86
Albemarle High School (“AHS”) received various cash donations totaling $145.00. These donations were made to
help fund the installation of a synthetic turf field at AHS. The current balance for the FY 09/10 AHS Synthetic Turf
Project is $34,001.22 including this donation. The balance from FY 08/09 is $6,866.66 for a grand total of
$40,867.88. The high schools need to raise $325,000.00 in order to receive matching funds from an anonymous
donor, requiring AHS to raise an additional $284,132.12 to secure matching funds. The balance required to secure
construction is $650,000.00.
The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local
Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund. The
following donations totaling $560.00 were made to specific options:
$350.00 was donated to Murray Elementary School;
$10.00 was donated to School Division Capital Improvements;
$100.00 was donated to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School; and
$100.00 was donated to Red Hill Elementary School.
Virginia L. Murray Elementary School received a donation in the amount of $3,487.86 from the Murray PTO. The
donor has requested that this contribution be used to fund the M3 after school enrichment program at Murray
Elementary School.
Appropriation #2010092 $53,668.00
Revenue Source: General Fund Balance $53,668.00
Pursuant to Va. Code § 24.2-518, the Department of Voter Registration and Elections requests an appropriation to
be made for the costs of the June 8, 2010 primary election for the Republican Party nomination for: Member, U.S.
House of Representatives, Virginia 5th District. This primary election included all Albemarle County voting
precincts.
Appropriation #2010093 $9,800.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $9,800.00
This request is for a 2007 Homeland Security reimbursable grant. The funds are being used for equipment and
training for the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) $3,600, Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) $1,370
and the Fire Corps $4,830. The grant is managed through the Regio nal Emergency Management Office. There is
no local match.
Appropriation #2010094 $60,720.00
Revenue Source: State Revenue $60,720.00
Farmland Preservation Grant - The VA Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Office of Farmland
Preservation has awarded Albemarle County an additional amount of $60,720 to preserve farmland through local
Purchase of Development Rights programs, or the County’s ACE program. The funds will be used to compensate
landowners who permanently preserve their land by voluntarily placing a conservation easement on it. The original
grant was received in FY 2008.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
2007 State Homeland Security Grant
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Resolution to Authorize Actions to Obtain Virginia
Department of Emergency Management Grant
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Hanson, and Ms.
Thomas
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) has awarded a $9,800.00 grant through the 2007 State
Homeland Security Grant Program (CFDA # 97.073) to the Emergency Communication Center’s (“ECC”) Regional
Charlottesville-UVA-Albemarle County Emergency Management Office (Emergency Management Office). The
purpose of the Grant is to purchase emergency equipment and training for the Community Emergency Response
Team (CERT), Medical Reserve Corps (MRC) and the Charlottesville Fire Corps.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents
DISCUSSION:
The Emergency Management Office of ECC is designated as the grant administrator for this Homeland Security
Grant. Because the County serves as the fiscal agent for the ECC, the Board must adopt the attached resolution
(Attachment A) authorizing the County Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC
Executive Director to execute all grant-in-aid documents required for the receipt and implementation of this Grant.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County will serve as the fiscal agent for this Homeland Security Grant; however, it is a 100 percent
reimbursable program with no matching funds required by the County.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached resolution (Attachment A) authorizing either the County
Executive, the ECC Emergency Management Coordinator or the ECC Executive Director to execute all VDEM Grant
documents necessary for receipt of the 2007 State Homeland Security Grant.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Resolution
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 10/11 Bright Stars Funding Update
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request restoration of Bright Stars Program employee
positions to 12 month positions for FY 10/11
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: No
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Due to uncertainty in state funding at the time the FY 10/11 Budget was adopted, Bright Stars Program employees in
the Department of Social Services were programmed to be transitioned from 12 to 11 month status. Since adoption of
the budget, the state has revised the VRS and group life insurance benefit rates for certain categories of employees in
the program which has generated additional cost savings. Staff requests and recommends utilizing these savings to
restore the program employee positions to 12 month status for FY 10/11.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Quality of Life: By June 30, 2010, the County will continue to maintain a strong and sustainable economy; increase
the economic vitality of the County's development areas; and increase the ability of those individuals and families,
who are living in lower income households, to become self-sufficient.
DISCUSSION:
The savings from the revised VRS and group life insurance benefit rates more than offsets the increase in salaries if
the Bright Stars program employee positions are restored to 12 month status:
FY 10/11 Adopted Budget
Salaries $733,322 – based on 11 month positions
Benefits $318,075
Total Personnel Costs $1,051,397
FY 10/11 Revised Requested Budget
Salaries $751,598 – based on 12 month positions
Benefits $297,007
Total Personnel Costs $1,048,605
BUDGET IMPACT:
The additional salary and benefit costs associated with restoring these positions to 12 month status will be funded
utilizing the benefit savings from certain employees in the program. Therefore, there will be no budget impact in FY
10/11.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends approval of the restoration of the Bright Stars program employee positions to 12 month positions
for FY 10/11.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
Karen P. Kilby Virginia Department of Transportation
Programming/Investment Management Director 1601 Orange Road
Culpeper, VA 22701
CULPEPER DISTRICT MONTHLY REPORT
Albemarle County
July 2010
New Issues
FY2011-2016 Six-Year Improvement Program - was approved by the
Commonwealth Transportation Board on June 16, 2010. The Approved FY2011-
2016 plan is available at www.VirginiaDOT.org
2010 Final Enhancement Program Allocations - were also approved at the June
16th meeting of the CTB. The 2 approved projects in Albemarle County are
$250,000 for the construction of bike lanes, sidewalks crosswalks, streetlights
and undergrounding of utilities in historic Crozet.
$200,000 for the Construction of the Lewis and Clark Exploratory Center of
Virginia including the visitor, trail connections and ferry crossing.
The University of Virginia has been allocated $35,000 for the development of
a “”Ubikes” bicycle share program on the grounds of UVA.
Preliminary Engineering
Route 691, Jarmin’s Gap Road – Right of Way is complete. 63 parcels – 50
acceptances and 13 certificates of condemnation have been filed. Project
scheduled for Advertisement in January, 2011.
Route 656, Georgetown Road – All appraisals are complete. 13 of 20 offers
have been made and 3 have been accepted.
McIntire Road – Award is still on hold.
Route 708, Dry Bridge Road – Location Survey is complete and design is
progressing on schedule. Design Public Hearing planned for early 2011.
Maintenance Activities
Mowing – Area Headquarters crews continue to mow primary routes. This work
is approximately 75% complete. Secondary routes are expected to be completed
in July.
Four Seasons Drive - Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has been working to
repair low manholes in the roadway that have been perceived as potholes.
West Leigh Subdivision – Crews have been working to remove overhanging
vegetation on Route 1641. At the time this report was written work was expected
to be complete by the end of June.
Pipe Replacements, Route 810 (Browns Gap Turnpike) – Replacement of two
(2) pipes on this route is scheduled in July. One is located near the old Frazier’s
Store and the other just south of Simmons Gap Road. The road at these locations
is expected to be closed 1-2 days while work is completed. A detour will be
provided.
Pipe Replacement, Route 729 (Milton Road) – Replacement of a failing pipe on
Milton Road near Milton Hills Subdivision is scheduled in mid-July. The road at
this location is expected to be closed 4-5 days while work is completed. A detour
will be provided.
Construction Activities
Route 631 – Meadowcreek Parkway - Construction is progressing on schedule.
The contractor will start placing asphalt concrete on the north side of the project
for the traffic switch. Once traffic is switched, demolition of the existing bridge
at Norfolk Southern RR Phase 2 Bridge will begin.
Route I-64 at 5th Street and I-64 at Shadwell – Contractor plans to perform
grade work, install storm drain and signal foundations during the month of July.
Countywide Plant Mix - has been rescheduled to begin mid-July. The Routes
scheduled for paving are: Route 64 EBL from Route 22 to Albemarle/Fluvanna
County Line, Route 29 Business, Fontaine Ave., and Route 29 NBL from Airport
Road to the Greene County Line.
Countywide Surface Treatment - scheduled to begin in late August.
Route 29@ Hydraulic Road – VDOT staff is in discussions with a pavement
contractor to perform repair work at this intersection. When resurfacing is
complete pavement markings will be restored throughout the intersection. Work is
expected to be performed in July.
I-64 Bridge Deck Repairs and Epoxy Overlay - has begun and should be
completed by September 24, 2010.
Traffic Engineering
ROUTE LOCATION REQUEST STATUS
652 (Old Brook and
Westmoreland Road)
From Rio Road East to
Carrsbrook Drive Speed Reduction Approved for 30 MPH. Sign
modifications complete.
1427 (Northfield Road) From Rio Road East to Still
Meadow Avenue Speed Reduction Approved for 30 MPH. Sign
modifications complete.
1428 (Huntington
Road)
From Rio Road East to
Northfield Road Speed Reduction Approved for 30 MPH. Sign
modifications complete.
F-179 (Hansen Mtn.
Road) Intersection of Lego Road Multi-way stop Under Review by Traffic
Engineering Staff
29 (Seminole Trail)
Road intersections at
Timberwood and also,
Ashwood
Pavement markings Complete
663 (Buck Mtn Road) Earlysville Speed Study Ongoing
743 (Hydraulic Road Intersection of Georgetown
Road
Installation of right on
red arrow
Under Review by Traffic
Engineering Staff
20 Stony Point Road
Intersection of Route 250 to
0.26 Miles north of Route
250
Speed Reduction Signing has been
completed.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing on the Proposed FY 2011 Budget
Amendment in the amount of $15,939,815.11 and
approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations
#2011001, #2011002, #2011003, #2011004, #2011005,
#2011006, #2011007, #2011008, and #2011009 for
various school and local government programs
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, and Wiggans
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: 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 2011 appropriations, itemized below, is $15,939,815.11. Because the cumulative
amount of the appropriations exceeds one percent of the currently adopted budget, a budget amendment public
hearing is required.
STRATEGIC PL AN:
Goal 5: Develop a comprehensive funding strategy/plan to address the County’s growing needs.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed increase of this FY 2011 Budget Amendment totals $15,939,815.11. The estimated expenses and
revenues included in the proposed amendment are shown below:
ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES
General Fund $ 28,757.00
Special Revenue Funds $ 3,735,678.13
School Fund $ 4,323.34
Capital Improvements Funds $ 12,171,056.64
TOTAL ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES – All Funds $ 15,939,815.11
ESTIMATED REVENUES
Local Revenues (Fees, Contributions, Donations) $ 59,888.13
State Revenue $ 77,576.00
Federal Revenue $ 517,873.80
Loan Proceeds $ 9,653,839.00
Other Fund Balances $ 5,630,638.18
TOTAL ESTIMATED REVENUES – All Funds $ 15,939,815.11
The budget amendment is comprised of eight (8) separate appropriations as follows:
One (1) appropriation (#2011001) totaling $28,757.00 that will partially fund a position in the Department of
Social Services using federal revenues. This position will primarily work to administer the County’s
Comprehensive
AGENDA TITLE: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations
July 7, 2010
Page 2
Services Act (CSA) funding;
One (1) appropriation (#2011003) totaling $3,675,790.00 for the Belvedere bond funds;
One (1) appropriation (#2011004) totaling $59,888.13 for rental income and expenses related to the Old
Crozet Elementary School;
One (1) appropriation (#2011005) totaling $10,294,455.73, reappropriating general government capital
projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011006) totaling $775,798.23, reappropriating school capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011007) totaling $1,025,922.68, reappropriating stormwater capital projects;
One (1) appropriation (#2011008) totaling $4,323.34 for various education programs and grants; and
One (1) appropriation (#2011009) totaling $74,880.00 for the Downtown Crozet Regional Stormwater project.
A description of this request is provided in Attachment A.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends approval of the FY 2011 Budget Amendment in the amount of
$15,939,815.11 and approval of Appropriations #2011001, #2011003, #2011004, #2011005, #2011006,
#2011007, #2011008, and #2011009 to provide funds for various local government and school projects and
programs as described in Attachment A.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Appropriation #2011001 $28,757.00
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue: $28,757.00
The FY 10/11 Adopted Budget includes transferring the administration of the County’s Comprehensive Services Act
(CSA) from the Commission on Children and Families (CCF) to the Department of Social Services. This program
will be administered by a Child Welfare Services Supervisor and funded through 1) the $50,892 previously
approved for this position in the adopted budget; and 2) this appropriation of $28,757.00, which will be 100%
reimbursed through federal revenues. In addition to managing the County’s CSA funding, this position will provide
supervision and administrative oversight to the department’s child care and independent living programs. This
appropriation will increase the department’s authorized FTE count by 1.0.
Appropriation #2011003 $3,675,790.00
Revenue Source: Other Fund Balance $3,675,790.00
This request is to reappropriate the Belvedere bond funds so that they are available, if needed, in FY 10/11. The
developer of Belvedere Subdivision, Belvedere Station Land Trust (BSLT), provided performance bonds to the
County for Belvedere Phase 1 and Belvedere Phase 1, Blocks 3, 4A, 5A, 6B & 9A covering water protection
(erosion control & stormwater management), roads, drainage and related site work, and water and sewer
improvements. The bonds totaled $3,675,790.00 and were secured by letters of credit from Wachovia Bank. In
November 2008 the County received notice from Wachovia Bank that the letters of credit securing the bonds would
not be renewed beyond their current expiration. Since BSLT was unable to get Wachovia Bank to renew the letters
of credit and did not provide replacement performance bonds, the County demanded payment on the six (6) letters
of credit securing the bonds in January 2009.
BSLT is currently keeping the project area in compliance with County requirements and is seeking a longer term
funding solution for the project. However, the appropriation is necessary for the County to expend the funds should
BSLT be unable to fund critical work. This will assure that the subdivision residents have the required infrastructure
and are protected from any lack of required maintenance.
Appropriation #2011004 $59,888.13
Revenue Source: Rental Income (Local) $59,888.13
This request is to allocate rental revenues generated from the Old Crozet Elementary School leases to fund the
operating costs of the Old Crozet Elementary School and to fund major capital replacements/repairs that may be
necessary in the future (e.g. boiler replacement, roof repairs, asbestos abatement, etc.). It is anticipated that the
County’s leases with the Field School and the Old Crozet School Arts will generate $59,888.13 during FY11.
Appropriation #2011005 $ 10,294,455.73
Revenue Source: State Revenue $ 77,576.00
Federal Revenue $ 435,916.80
Loan Proceeds $ 9,653,839.00
Gen. Govt. CIP Fund Bal. $ 127,123.93
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of active General Government Capital Improvement
projects that were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are several park
projects, several public safety projects, the Access Albemarle project, various maintenance and repair projects, the
Crozet Library, and the Crozet Streetscape project. The remaining project reappropriations will be presented to the
Board in October for consideration.
Appropriation #2011006 $ 775,798.23
Revenue Source: School CIP Fund Balance $ 775,798.23
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of active School Capital Improvement projects that
were uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are various maintenance/repair
projects as well as construction projects at the Crozet Elementary School, Vehicle Maintenance Facility, Brownsville
Elementary School, Greer Elementary School and Albemarle High School. The remaining project reappropriations will
be presented to the Board in October for consideration.
Appropriation #2011007 $ 1,025,922.68
Revenue Source: Federal Revenue $ 53,200.00
Stormwater CIP Fund Bal. $ 972,722.68
This request reappropriates a portion of the remaining balances of Stormwater Management projects that were
uncompleted as of June 30, 2009. Among the projects included in this request are Downtown Crozet, Woodbrook
Lagoon and COB Biofilters. The remaining project reappropriations will be presented to the Board in October for
consideration.
Appropriation #2011008 $4,323.34
Revenue Source: Local Revenue $4,323.34
The recent personal property tax mailing included a form for taxpayers to make a donation to the Local
Government or School Division and included an option for donors to specify what the donation would fund. The
following donations were made to specific options:
$3,650.34 was donated for School Division Instructional Support;
$50.00 was donated to Western Albemarle High School;
$250.00 was donated to Greer Elementary School;
$273.00 was donated for miscellaneous instructional needs within the school division; and
$100.00 was donated to Henley Middle School.
Appropriation #2011009 $74,880.00
Revenue Source: Proffer Fund Revenue: $74,880.00
This request allocates the available Grayrock Proffer revenue of $74,880.00 to the Downtown Crozet Regional
Stormwater project as previously approved by the Board on July 1, 2009.
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
June 21, 2010
David Wyant, PE
4686 Garth Road
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP201000001 Earlysville Service Center
Tax Map 31, Parcel 14
Dear Mr. Wyant:
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 8, 2010, by a vote of 7:0,
recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors.
Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Amendment to
Special Use Permit SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center, 4036 Earlysville Road
Earlysville, VA 22936”, prepared by DW Enterprises and dated April 2, 2010 (hereafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in accord with the Concept Plan, development shall reflect the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
a. The general area designated for the special use (public garage)
b. The size, height and location of the proposed building (no more than 6,200 square
feet / maximum 35’ high)
c. The location of the perimeter landscaping and limits of clearing, with the exception of
minimum clearing possible to install drainfields and utilities
d. The number of parking spaces (maximum 46 spaces) and general location /
arrangement of the parking spaces;
2. A public garage use on the C-1 Commercial district portion of TMP 31-14 shall be
permanently terminated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the garage
constructed with SP-2008-25;
3. Additional landscape materials, either replanted from the area to be cleared for the garage
site or new landscape materials, shall be installed in the undisturbed buffer area inside the
boundary of the special use permit as may be necessary to achieve very little visibility
between the garage site and the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, as depicted on
Attachment B;
4. A minimum six (6) feet high fence shall be constructed in the location shown on Attachment
B (twenty [20] feet inside the special use permit boundary and outside the seventy-five [75]
foot front setback) with the finished side of the fence towards the neighbors, unless the
applicant chooses to put up a two-sided fence, to provide an additional buffer for the adjacent
property (TMP 31-14H); Note: The final language will be worked out prior to it going to the
Board of Supervisors and acknowledging that the fencing adjacent to residential areas is at
the discretion of staff (Fritz).
5. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
6. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
7. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited. All storage shall
take place inside the storage shed and/or inside the building;
8. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage;
9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking
spaces depicted on the Concept Plan;
10. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 A.M. nor later than 10:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday and no earlier than 8:00 A.M. nor later than 1:00 P.M. on Saturdays and the
public garage shall not be open for business on Sunday. These hours do not prohibit
customers from dropping off vehicles before or after the permitted hours of operation;
11. A maximum of twelve (12) employees shall be permitted on-site at any one time;
12. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at the north, west, and south property
lines and the east boundary of the area designated to the special use permit to no greater
than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval;
13. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality shall be required prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy;
14. Approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit;
and
15. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by August
5, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder shall thereupon
terminate.
Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive
public comment at their meeting on July 7, 2010.
View 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,
Eryn Brennan
Senior Planner
Planning Division
Cc: Whyte, M. O.
P.O. Box 197
Earlysville, VA 22936
POLICY
SUBMISSION OF MATERIALS
FOR ZONING APPLICATIONS
It is the Board’s preference that a public hearing should not be advertised until all of the final materials
for a zoning application have been received by the County and are available for public review. To achieve this
preference, applicants should provide final plans, final codes of development, final proffers, and any other
documents deemed necessary by the Director of Community Development, to the County no later than two
days prior to the County’s deadline for submitting the public hearing advertisement to the newspaper. Staff
will advise applicants of this date by including it in annual schedules for applications and by providing each
applicant a minimum of two weeks advance notice of the deadline.
If the applicant does not submit the required materials by this date, the public hearing shall not be
advertised unless the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that
good cause exists for the public hearing to be advertised. If not advertised, a new public hearing date will be
scheduled. If the public hearing is held without final materials being available for review throughout the
advertisement period due to a late submittal of documents, or because substantial revisions or amendments are
made to the submitted materials after the public hearing has been advertised, it will be the policy of the Board
to either defer action and schedule a second public hearing that provides this opportunity to the public or to
deny the application, unless the Board finds that the deferral would not be in the public interest or not forward
the purposes of this policy.
Final signed proffers shall be submitted to the County no later than nine days prior to the date of the
advertised public hearing. This policy is not intended to prevent changes made in proffers at the public hearing
resulting from comments received from the public or from Board members at the public hearing.
This Zoning Policy will be included in the Board’s Rules of Procedure for adoption each year, so that
the policy can be re-examined annually.
SP 2010-1
PC June 8, 2010
Staff Report Page 1
STAFF PERSON: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 8, 2010
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD
SP2010-01 Earlysville Service Center
Petition:
PROJECT: SP201000001 Earlysville Service Center
PROPOSED: Amend SP200800025 to increase the building size from a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. to provide
adequate interior space for the service bays; special use permit would be on approx. 2.17 acre portion of an
11.833 acre parcel
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage
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 density)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: West side of Earlysville Rd. (Rt. 743) approx. 775 ft. north of Reas Ford Rd. (Rt. 660)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03100 -00-00-01400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
Character of the Area:
Located in Earlysville, a former Village Land Use Designation in the Comprehensive Plan, the area
was determined to be suitable for “Commercial development including general stores to serve
convenience shopping for the village and surr ounding area.” The character of the area reflects the
former Village designation through its mixture of commercial, light industrial, and suburban -style
residential development. The parcel is adjacent to Out of the Box furniture store and across the
street from a former small grocery store within a small commercial center. Several parcels located
south of the site are in the Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District, which is located on the
opposite side of Reas Ford Road (Attachment A).
Specifics of the Proposal:
The applicant received approval with conditions from the Board of Supervisors for SP2008-25 on
August 5, 2009 to construct a 5,000 sq uare foot vehicle repair garage with a three-sided covered
storage shed on the rear of the building an d 46 parking spaces on a 2.17 acre portion of the parcel
(Attachment B). The applicant is currently seeking to amend their Special Use Permit to allow an
additional 1,148 square feet to be added to the building, for a total building footprint of 6,148 square
feet (Attachment C).
Planning and Zoning History:
1970 Comprehensive Plan -- Earlysville was one of the original 14 Villages
designated in the Comprehensive Plan (including the subject parcel);
1977 Comprehensive Plan -- Earlysville Village Land Use Designation;
1982 Comprehensive Plan -- South side of Route 743 (including the subject parcel)
was designated Rural Areas and deleted from the Earlysville Village land use
designation because it drains into the South Fork Rivanna River Watershed
1989 Comprehensive Plan -- Earlysville Village (across Earlysville Road from the
subject property) continued as a village designation;
1996 Comprehensive Plan -- all the Villages were removed as land use designations
and became Rural Areas with the exception of Rivanna; and
SP 2010-1
PC June 8, 2010
Staff Report Page 2
ZMA 79-07 -- approved rezoning of a 2-acre portion of the property from A-1
(Agricultural) to B-1 (Commercial); the remaining portion remained in the A-1
(Agricultural) district; the B-1 was later changed to C-1 (Commercial); the existing
garage is in this rezoned 2-acre portion of the property.
SP 08-25 – Special Use Permit approved by Board of Supervisors on August 5, 2009
to allow construction of a vehicle repair garage and 46 parking spaces on 2.17 acre
portion of the parcel.
Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan:
The land uses supported by the Rural Areas chapter of the Comprehensive Plan include
agriculture, forestry, and conservation. The increase in the building size does not directly contribute
to these land uses, but also does not negatively imp act these land uses; therefore, the proposed
expansion would have only a minimal impact on the rural charact er of the area. The proposed
expansion would ensure that the applicant is able to conduct their current business, which provides
an important service to the local community, more efficiently. The properties in the area under
conservation easement and the nearby Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District would not be
negatively impacted by the proposed expansion with the conditions recommended by staff. In
summary, the expansion proposed in this application is such that it would not be detrimental to the
important elements that define Rural Area (agricultural/forestal resources; land
preservation/conservation; water supply resource; natural/scenic/h istoric/cultural resources).
STAFF COMMENT:
Staff will address each provision of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The proposed expansion would only increase the length of the front elevation by 8’ and the length
of the side elevation by 6’; therefore, the proposed increase in the footprint of the building would not
have a significant visual impact on adjacent properties nor constitute a substantial detriment to
adjacent properties.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The area is characterized by a mix of uses and functions as a r ural scale center for essential
services to the surrounding community. The proposed expansion would not change or negatively
impact the character of the district.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
The purpose and intent of the Rural Areas zoning is to preserve agricultural and forestal lands and
activities, to protect the water supply, to limit service to rural areas, and to conserve the natural,
scenic, and historic resources of the County. Although the proposed expansion does not preserve
these resources, public garages are allowed by special use permit in the Rural Areas. Conditions
of approval are intended to keep the scale and intensity of the garage in conformity with the
character of the Rural Areas.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The proposed garage expansion is not anticipated to have a negative impact on the uses permitted
by-right in the district.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no regulations in Section 5.0 of the Ordinance that apply to public garages.
SP 2010-1
PC June 8, 2010
Staff Report Page 3
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
The Building Code and Zoning official, the County Engineer, and the Inspections official have no
objection to the proposed expansion. Current Development also has no objection to the proposed
expansion.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed expansion would only minimally impact the character of the site and area.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the
proposed expansion.
3. The proposed expansion would facilitate the efficient operation of a business that performs a
vital community service.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The proposed expansion does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural
Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff reco mmends approval of SP201000001
Earlysville Service Center, subject to the following conditions:
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Amendment to
Special Use Permit SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center, 4036 Earlysville Road
Earlysville, VA 22936”, prepared by DW Enterprises and dated April 2, 2010 (hereafter, the
“Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator.
To be in accord with the Concept Plan, development shall refle ct the following major
elements within the development essential to the design of the development:
The general area designated for the special use (public garage)
The size, height and location of the proposed building (no more than 6,200
square feet / maximum 35’ high)
The location of the perimeter landscaping and limits of clearing, with the
exception of minimum clearing possible to install drainfields and utilities
The number of parking spaces (maximum 46 spaces) and general location /
arrangement of the parking spaces;
2. A public garage use on the C -1 Commercial district portion of TMP 31 -14 shall be
permanently terminated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the garage
constructed with SP-2008-25;
3. Additional landscape materials, either replanted from the area to be cleared for the garage
site or new landscape materials, shall be installed in the undisturbed buffer area inside the
boundary of the special use permit as may be necessary to achieve very little visibility
between the garage site and the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, as depicted on
Attachment B;
4. A minimum six (6) feet high fence shall be constructed in the location shown on Attachment
B (twenty [20] feet inside the special use permit boundary and outside the seventy-five [75]
foot front setback) to provide an additional buffer for the adjacent property (TMP 31 -14H);
5. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
6. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
7. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machine ry and junk is prohibited. All storage shall
take place inside the storage shed and/or inside the building;
8. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage;
9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall ta ke place only in the parking
SP 2010-1
PC June 8, 2010
Staff Report Page 4
spaces depicted on the Concept Plan;
10. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 A.M. nor later than 10:00 P.M., Monday
through Friday and no earlier than 8:00 A.M. nor later than 1:00 P.M. on Saturdays. These
hours do not prohibit customers from dropping off vehicles before or after the permitted
hours of operation;
11. A maximum of twelve (12) employees shall be permitted on-site at any one time;
12. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all
abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at the north, west, and south property
lines and the east boundary of the area designated to the special use permit to no greater
than 0.3 foot candles shall be sub mitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for
approval;
13. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality shall be required prior to issuance of
the Certificate of Occupancy;
14. Approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to iss uance of a building permit;
and
15. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced
by August 5, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted
thereunder shall thereupon terminate.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A – Site Context
Attachment B – SP2008-25, Earlysville Service Center BOS Approval Letter
Attachment C – Concept Plan
Attachment D – Images of Site
Return to PC actions letter
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 8, 2010
SP-2010-0001 Earlysville Service Center
PROPOSED: Amend SP2008-00025 to increase the building size from a maximum of 5,000 sq. ft. to
provide adequate interior space for the service bays; special use permit would be on approx. 2.17 acre
portion of an 11.833 acre parcel
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses;
residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots)
SECTION: 10.2.2 (37) Public Garage
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
density)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No
LOCATION: West side of Earlysville Rd. (Rt. 743) approx. 775 ft. north of Reas Ford Rd. (Rt. 660)
TAX MAP/PARCEL: TMP 03100-00-00-01400
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Eryn Brennan)
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.
This is an application to amend SP-2008-25. The applicant received approval with conditions
from the Board of Supervisors for SP-2008-25 on August 5, 2009 to construct a 5,000 square foot
vehicle repair garage with a three-sided covered storage shed on the rear of the building and 46
parking spaces on a 2.17 acre portion of the parcel.
The applicant is currently seeking to amend the special use permit to allow an additional 1,148
square feet to be added to the building for a total building footprint of 6,148 square feet as shown
in the revised concept plan for SP-2010-00001.
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application:
1. The proposed expansion would only minimally impact the character of the site and area.
2. There are no anticipated detrimental impacts on adjacent property resulting from the
proposed expansion.
3. The proposed expansion would facilitate the efficient operation of a business that
performs a vital community service.
Staff has identified one factor unfavorable to this application.
1. The proposed expansion does not directly contribute to the goals outlined in the Rural
Areas section of the Comprehensive Plan.
Based on the findings contained in this staff report, staff recommends approval of SP-2010-00001
Earlysville Service Center, subject to the conditions as listed in the staff report.
Mr. Loach invited questions from the Commission.
Ms. Porterfield asked if the current garage will be closed when th e other is built, and Ms. Brennan replied
that is correct.
Ms. Porterfield said that they were not saying that property will be changed, but it is still going to be
commercial property on that corner. So what they have done is extended the commercial look of this area
into rural property.
Ms. Brennan replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the
Commission.
2
Dave Wyant representative for the owner of the property, pointed out that the existing structure will not be
a garage in the future. That was one of the conditions on the previous approval. What happened was the
owner thought he could build this building, but when he went to see the fabricator of the structure the
footprint was bigger in order to care of the bays. That is the reason they have to come back for the
amendment prior to moving forward on the site plan. They have submitted a site plan, but are waiting to
see what happens tonight before resubmitting on the first comment. He would be happy to answer
questions.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they have no Sunday hours, and Mr. W yant replied that is correct
Ms. Porterfield asked if they can put the nice side of the fence towards the residents on the outside that
they are buffering. She asked if there would be a two-sided or one-sided fence.
Mr. Wyant replied that the fence on the west side towards the residence was one of the things he had
overlooked in the submittal. He thought it was brought up at the last meeting. There will be a fence along
that border to screen that residence.
Ms. Porterfield asked if they could give the resident the nice side of the fence.
Mr. Wyant replied yes, but noted that there was a 20’ buffer of existing trees that will have to stay.
Ms. Porterfield reiterated that he said that he would give the people being buffered the nice side of the
fence, which will be great. She asked if they were still working at an August 5, 2016 date for doing this.
Mr. Wyant replied yes, but that times have gotten tough. In the surrounding area Mr. Whyte has lost his
grocery store. He hoped that the economy would turn around. The applicants want to do this, but things
are not falling into place right now. But, they are still moving forward with the site plan.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the addition was not only to the back of the building, but also to the side.
Ms. Brennan replied yes that in the staff report it indicated an additional 6’ in length along the front of the
building and 8’ to the rear.
Mr. Lafferty noted that it was a 25 percent increase to the building size.
Mr. Wyant replied that was correct. He noted that staff suggested that they increase the size a little bit
more in case something else came up. The actual structure is smaller than shown by several feet with 2’
or 4’ in the different directions. He noted that there is a shed on the back for the air compressors, storage
of tires and all of the containers required to be inside an enclosed structure by DEQ, such as oil and
grease.
Mr. Lafferty noted that the lighting is addressed in the document. He assumed that included that no
lighting will have an adverse effect on the road.
Mr. Wyant replied that was correct. They were only asking to put in two lights with one on each side.
Therefore, there is only a minimum amount of lighting.
Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter
before the Planning Commission.
Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded to recommend approval of SP-2010-00001,
Earlysville Service Center subject to the conditions as set forth in the staff report, as amended.
Mr. Kamptner suggested a clarification to condition 10 since the applicant has stated that they will not be
operating on Sundays. He suggested that a clause be added to the first sentence that says that the
public garage shall have no hours of operation on Sunday or the public garage shall not be open for
business on Sunday.
3
Mr. Lafferty asked that to be put in item 10, and Mr. Kamptner agreed.
Ms. Porterfield asked that in item 4 with regard to the fence that the nice side of the fence goes toward
the neighbors unless they want to put up a two-sided fence.
Mr. Franco noted that he preferred not to add that to the condition since he did not necessarily agree.
Ms. Porterfield pointed out that the applicant agreed to that.
Mr. Franco said if the applicant is happy that is fine, but that fence is setting 25 feet off the property.
Therefore, he was less concerned about it.
Ms. Porterfield asked that it go into the conditions since the applicant is happy about it because they need
to protect the residents if they can do it. It would give the neighbors something nice to look at.
Mr. Loach reiterated that there had been a motion with two changes to conditions 10 and 4.
Mr. Morris accepted and Ms. Porterfield seconded the two amendments to the motion.
1. Development of the use shall be in accord with the conceptual plan titled “Amendment to
Special Use Permit SP200800025 Earlysville Service Center, 4036 Earlysville Road
Earlysville, VA 22936”, prepared by DW Enterprises and dated April 2, 2010 (hereafter,
the “Conceptual Plan”), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning
Administrator. To be in accord with the Concept Plan, development shall reflect the
following major elements within the development essential to the design of the
development:
a. The general area designated for the special use (public garage)
b. The size, height and location of the proposed building (no more than 6,2 00
square feet / maximum 35’ high)
c. The location of the perimeter landscaping and limits of clearing, with the
exception of minimum clearing possible to install drainfields and utilities
d. The number of parking spaces (maximum 46 spaces) and general location /
arrangement of the parking spaces;
2. A public garage use on the C-1 Commercial district portion of TMP 31-14 shall be
permanently terminated upon issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the garage
constructed with SP-2008-25;
3. Additional landscape materials, either replanted from the area to be cleared for the
garage site or new landscape materials, shall be installed in the undisturbed buffer area
inside the boundary of the special use permit as may be necessary to achieve very little
visibility between the garage site and the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, as
depicted on Attachment B;
4. A minimum six (6) feet high fence shall be constructed in the location shown on
Attachment B (twenty [20] feet inside the special use permit boundary and outside the
seventy-five [75] foot front setback) with the finished side of the fence towards the
neighbors, unless the applicant chooses to put up a two-sided fence, to provide an
additional buffer for the adjacent property (TMP 31-14H); Note: The final language will
be worked out prior to it going to the Board of Supervisors and acknowledging that the
fencing adjacent to residential areas is at the discretion of staff (Fritz).
5. The sale or rental of vehicles or other motorized equipment is prohibited;
6. Gasoline sales are prohibited;
7. The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is prohibited. All storage
shall take place inside the storage shed and/or inside the building;
8. All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing garage;
9. Parking of vehicles associated with the public garage shall take place only in the parking
spaces depicted on the Concept Plan;
10. The hours of operation shall be no earlier than 7:00 A.M. nor later than 10:00 P.M.,
Monday through Friday and no earlier than 8:00 A.M. nor later than 1:00 P.M. on
Saturdays and the public garage shall not be open for business on Sunday. These
4
hours do not prohibit customers from dropping off vehicles before or after the permitted
hours of operation;
11. A maximum of twelve (12) employees shall be permitted on-site at any one time;
12. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from
all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at the north, west, and south
property lines and the east boundary of the area designated to the special use permit to
no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their
designee for approval;
13. Approval from the Department of Environmental Quality shall be required prior to
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy;
14. Approval from the Health Department shall be required prior to issuance of a building
permit; and
15. If the use, structure, or activity for which this special use permit is issued is not commenced by
August 5, 2016, the permit shall be deemed abandoned and the authority granted thereunder
shall thereupon terminate.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it included the change to condition 4 that Ms. Porterfield requested. Staff will
need to make sure they get the right language there to make that clear. The nice side of the fence is
subjective and staff wants to make sure to get that wording correct before the Board meeting.
Mr. Loach noted that SP-2010-00001, Earlysville Service Center would go before the Board of
Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval.
Return to PC actions letter
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Ordinance No. 10-03(2) Agricultural and Forestal Districts;
additions to multiple districts and corrections of tax map
parcels within the districts
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearings on an ordinance to amend Division 2,
Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of
Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the County
Code pertaining to such AF Districts for additions and
corrections to Fox Mountain, Hardware, Hatton, Jacob’s
Run, Kinloch and Moorman’s River AF Districts
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Cilimberg
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
Having land within an Agricultural and Forestal District (“AFD”) is one of three ways in which a landowner may satisfy one
of the prerequisites for making land eligible for land use valuation as open space under Virginia law. As a result of the
County’s land use taxation revalidation process that took place last year, many landowners have applied to place their
lands within an AFD. These applications would add parcels to the Fox Mountain, Hardware, Hatton, Jacob’s Run, Kinloch
and Moorman’s River AFDs, and would add in the aggregate over 545 acres to the County’s AFD program. Corrections
are simultaneously being proposed to the ordinances for these AFDs to correctly identify all those tax map parcels within
the districts.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 2: Protect the County’s Natural Resources
DISCUSSION:
Virginia Code §§ 15.2-4305 et seq. require that the Board conduct public hearings on proposed additions to AFDs. In
addition, those sections require that proposed additions be reviewed by both the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory
Committee and the Planning Commission for their recommendations. The Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission have reviewed the proposed additions to these AFDs and recommend approval. The AFD-specific staff
reports to the Planning Commission are in Attachments B-G.
The following table summarizes the proposed changes:
District Existing Acres Acres to be Added Resulting Total Acres
Fox Mountain 283.77 32.8 316.57
Hardware 3,001.886 192.544 3,194.43
Hatton 745.207 115.061 860.268
Jacob’s Run 772.531 156.107 928.638
Kinloch 1,682.953 38.85 1,721.803
Moorman’s River 10,980.737 10.5 10,991.237
The proposed corrections are part of staff’s ongoing efforts to assure that the tax parcel references in the district
ordinances are accurate and current. In processing the additions to the six AFD’s under consideration, staff identified
several corrections to be made to the parcel references in the Hardware, Hatton, Kinloch and Moorman’s River AFD’s.
The corrections fall into three categories: (1) updating the references to several parcels resulting from subdivisions and
boundary line adjustments pertaining to lands within a district (Hardware, Hatton, Kinloch and Moorman’s River); (2)
correcting a typographical error in a parcel reference (Hardware, TMP 73-39C/73-39C7); and (3) miscellaneous
corrections, e.g., a parcel was previously withdrawn but the district ordinance had not been amended to reflect the
withdrawal (Hatton, TMP 135-30(part)), parcel references inadvertently dropped from a district ordinance when the
ordinance was amended in the early 1990’s even though withdrawal was never requested (Moorman’s River, TMP 42-
42B1 and TMP 43-2B), and parcels referenced as being within a district, even though they were never within the district
(Moorman’s River, TMP 29-70G and TMP 43-43A1). Staff has confirmed that none of these corrections would change
AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance No. 10-03(2) Agricultural and Forestal Districts
July 7, 2010
Page 2
any district boundaries. The applicable AFD maps and County tax records show that the parcels whose parcel references
would be corrected are either within or not within the respective districts as reflected in the proposed ordinance.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting a combined public hearing on the AFDs, staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Ordinance amending County Code Chapter 3
B – 6/8/10 PC Staff Report for Fox Mountain AFD
C – 6/8/10 PC Staff Report for Hardware AFD
D – 6/8/10 PC Staff Report for Hatton AFD
E – 6/8/10 PC Staff Report for Jacob’s Run AFD
F – 6/8/10 PC Staff Report for Kinloch AFD
G – 6/8/10 PC Staff Report for Moorman’s River AFD
View PC minutes
Return to regular agenda
Draft: June 15, 2010
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10-03(2)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND REORDAIN CHAPTER 3, AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL
DISTRICTS, ARTICLE II, DISTRICTS OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE, DIVISION 2, DISTRICTS,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 3,
Agricultural and Forestal Districts, Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, Division 2, Districts,
of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, is hereby amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District
3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District
3-218 Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District
3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District
3-222 Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District
CHAPTER 3. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICTS
DIVISION 2. DISTRICTS
Sec. 3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 14, parcels 26A, 26C; Ttax map 15, parcels 1,10A. This
district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more than 10 years, shall next be reviewed prior to
December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44; tax map 74,
parcels 6N, 26, 28, 28B; tax map 75, parcels 4A, 5; tax map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 27,
27A; tax map 87, parcels 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of 89.186 acres), 16A; tax map 88, parcels 2A,
3V, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B, 26B, 29, 40, 42; tax map 99, parcels
10(part), 29, 52, 52B. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than 10 years and last
reviewed on September 12, 2007, shall next be reviewed prior to September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A, 30
(part); tax map 136, parcels 2A, 6B, 8H, 9A2, 9B, 9C, 9D1, 9E. This district, created on June 29, 1983
for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001, shall next be reviewed prior to June 29,
2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07)
Sec. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 20, parcel 6J; tax map 30, parcel
Draft: June 15, 2010
2
32B; tax map 31, parcels 1, 1B, 4K, 8, 8E, 16, 16B, 44C, 45, 45B, 45C. This district, created on January
6, 1988 for not more than 6 years, since amended to continue for not more than 10 years and last reviewed
on December 2, 2009, shall next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(3-2-94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 49, parcels 5C, 6A1; tax map 50, parcels 13, 19; tax map 65, parcels 7,
7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89, 90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 94B, 94C, 95, 95A, 100, 121, 121A1; tax map
66, parcels 2, 3C, 3G, 10G1, 32, 32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B. This district, created on
September 3, 1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be
reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-3(3),
11-3-04; Ord. 09-3(5), 12-9-09)
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural- and Forestal District" consists of the
following described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 34A, 40, 40A, 40A1, 42, 42A; tax map 28,
parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 13A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 23B1, 30,
30A, 30A1, 30B 32B, 32D, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 4E, 8, 8B, 8E,
8E1, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C, 40B, 40C, 40D, 45, 45H1, 45H2, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67C,
69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70F1, 70G, 70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76, 78, 78A1,
79C, 79E, 79F, 80, 84, 85; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A, 10C, 12, 12C, 12C1, 12D, 17A, 18E, 23; tax map
41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E, 15, 15A, 17C, 18, 19, 41C, 41H, 44, 50, 50C, 65A1, 67, 67B, 68, 70, 72,
72B, 72C, 72D, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D, 37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C,
40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H2, 41, 42B, 42B1, 43, 43A, 44; tax map 43, parcels 1, 1F, 2A1, 2B, 3, 3A, 3C, 3D,
4C, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B2, 16B3, 18E4, 18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 2l, 21A, 24, 25A, 25B,
30, 30A, 30B, 30B1, 30B2, 30B3, 30B4, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 30N, 32H, 33, 33E, 34D1, 41, 42, 43,
43A1, 44, 45, 45C, 45D; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D,
30, 30A, 30B, 31, 31A, 31A1, 31D, 31F, 31G, 31H; tax map 57, parcel 69; tax map 59, parcels 32, 32A,
34, 35, 82A; tax map 60E3, parcel 1. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than 10
years and last reviewed on December 1, 2004, shall be next reviewed prior to December 1, 2014.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99;
Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 04-3(4), 12-1-04; Ord. 05-3(2), 7-6-05; Ord. 08-3(2), 8-6-08; Ord. 09-3(4),
12-2-09)
Return to exec summary
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-6 Fox Mountain AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 8, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
July 7, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Fox Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
Petition:
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE FOX MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL
AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”)
has been filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to
the Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than April 28, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., April 28, 2010) or, with the consent of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of Supervisors
must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on May 10, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed modifications, on
June 8, 2010.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
3
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “d evelopment to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities . The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the propos ed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one -half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
4
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether
the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisor s, a district is reviewed by
the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the
district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the district. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE FOX MOUNTAIN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-212.5 Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the “Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District” consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 15, parcel 10A. This district, created on December 2, 2009 for not more than 10 years, shall
next be reviewed prior to December 2, 2019.
(Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The District consists of a single parcel located south of Blackwells Hollow Road, east of Browns Gap Turnpike,
and north of Fox Mountain Road (Attachment A).
The District was created in 2009, and currently has one parcel with 283.77 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 283.77 acres that comprise the proposed Fox Mountain
District, 260.741 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, and 23.029 are
enrolled in the Agricultural category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: The Fox Mountain District has no dwellings and is used primarily
as open space.
5
Local Development Patterns: Several parcels adjacent to the proposed District are under conservation easements
(Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The proposed Fox Mountain District is entirely designated
as Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcel included in the District is zoned RA Rural Areas. The
parcels adjoining the parcels in the proposed District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment B).
The parcel is zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and includes
a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel as Rural Areas; focusing on
the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources,
including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Environmental Benefits: The proposed District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and
preserving these properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land,
which the Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area
will help maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surfac e
water, agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The proposed Fox Mountain District is located in the Doyles River
watershed (Attachment B).
Time Period: The proposed Fox Mountain District is under a 10-year review cycle, and is scheduled to be
reviewed on December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add three parcels to the Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Fox Mountain Agricultural and
Forestal District was created on December 2, 2009. The District currently includes 1 parcel and 283.77 acres. The
proposed addition of three parcels totaling 32.8 acres would increase the total number of acres in the Fox
Mountain District to 316.57 acres.
The parcels, Tax Map 14, Parcels 26A and 26C, and Tax Map 15, Parcel 10, adjoin the northwest corner of the
District (Attachment A).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Fox Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Fox Mountain
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Fox Mountain District – Proposed Additions
B. Fox Mountain District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
6
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-2; AFD2010-5 Hardware AFD
Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 8, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
July 7, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
Petition:
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE HARDWARE AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) has
been filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to the
Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than April 28, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., April 28, 2010) or, with the consent of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of Supervisors
must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on May 10, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed modifications, on
June 8, 2010.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
3
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities . The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in whi ch land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one -half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
4
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether
the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a district is reviewed by
the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the
district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the district. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE HARDWARE AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-214 Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 73, parcels 38, 39C7, 41A, 41B1, 41B2, 42, 42A, 43, 44; tax map 74, parcels 6N, 26, 28; tax
map 86, parcels 14, 16A, 16C, 16D, 16E, 16F, 27, 27A; tax map 87, parcels 10, 13A, 13E (part consisting of
89.186 acres); tax map 88, parcels 2A, 3V, 6A, 20A, 20B, 20C, 20D, 20F, 23, 23E, 23F, 24, 24A, 24B, 26B, 29,
40, 42; tax map 99, parcels 10 (part), 29, 52, 52B. This district, created on November 4, 1987 for not more than
10 years and last reviewed on September 12, 2007, shall next be reviewed prior to September 12, 2017.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(h); Ord. No. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(2), 7-12-00; Ord. 07-3(2), 9-12-07; Ord. 09-
3(4), 12-2-09)
The parcel, Tax Map 73, Parcel 39C7, has been included in the Albemarle County Code description as a
correction of the parcel reference since the land is currently in the District.
The Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District is located around the North Garden area of Albemarle County
(Attachment A). The district is characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields,
hedgerows, as well as occasional residential and agricultural buildings.
5
The District was created in 1987, and originally included 52 parcels and 5,947.243 acres. The District now
includes 45 parcels and 3,001.886 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 3,001.886 acres that comprise the Hardware District,
774.766 acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, 605.758 acres are enrolled in
the Agricultural category, and 227.505 are enrolled in the Open Space category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestry uses, the district includes
33 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Hardware District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. A large
cluster of parcels located bear North Garden are zoned Village Residential (Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surfac e water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. Portions of the Hardware District are located in the North Fork Hardware
River, South Fork Hardware River, Moores Creek, Ragged Mountain Reservoir, and Upper Meachums River
watersheds (Attachment B).
Time Period: The Hardware District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on September 12, 2017.
Proposal:
Two applications have been submitted requesting to add four parcels to the Hardware Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Hardware Agricultural & Forestal
District was created on November 4, 1987, and was last reviewed on September 12, 2007. The District currently
includes 45 parcels and 3,001.886 acres. The proposed addition of four parcels totaling 192.544 acres would
increase the total number of acres in the Hardware District to 3,194.43.
The parcels, Tax Map 74, Parcel 28B and Tax Map 75, Parcels 4A and 5, are located to the north and east of
Arrowhead Valley Road. The parcel, Tax Map 87, Parcel 16A, is located west of Red Hill Road and east of
Taylor’s Gap Road (Attachment A).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District.
6
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Hardware
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Hardware District – Proposed Additions
B. Hardware District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-8 Hatton AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 8, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
July 7, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Hatton Agricultural
and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
Petition:
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE HATTON AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) has been
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to the
Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supe rvisors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than April 28, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., October 16, 2009) or, with the consent of
the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of
Supervisors must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on April 28, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed mod ifications, on
May 10, 2010.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
3
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “d evelopment to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities . The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in whi ch land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one -half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
4
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether
the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a district is reviewed by
the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the
district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the district. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE HATTON AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-215 Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 135, parcels 13, 13A, 13B, 14B, 15, 15A, 15C, 17, 18, 19, 22, 22A; and tax map 136, parcels
2A, 9B. This district, created on June 29, 1983 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on June 20, 2001,
shall next be reviewed prior to June 29, 2011.
(Code 1988, § 2.1-4(a); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 01-3(1), 6-20-01; Ord. 07-3(1), 7-11-07)
The Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District is located near Scottsville in southern Albemarle County. The
district is characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields, hedgerows, as well as
occasional residential and agricultural buildings.
The District was created in 1983, and originally included 19 parcels and 2,545.588 acres. The District now
includes 17 parcels and 745.207 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 745.207 acres that comprise the Hatton District, 163.606
acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, and 417.208 acres are enrolled in the
Agricultural category.
5
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestry uses, the district includes
14 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easement (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Hatton District is entirely designated as Rural Areas
in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas (Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surfac e water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Hatton District is located in both the Totier Creek and James River –
Rock Island Creek watersheds (Attachment B).
Time Period: The Hatton District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be reviewed
before June 29, 2011.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add six parcels to the Hatton Agricultural and Forestal District,
in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code, which
allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Hatton Agricultural & Forestal District
was created on June 29, 1983, and was last reviewed on June 20, 2001. The District currently includes 17 parcels
and 745.207 acres. The proposed addition of six parcels totaling 115.061 acres would increase the total number of
acres in the Hatton District to 860.268.
The parcels, Tax Map 136, Parcels 8H, 9A2, 6B, 9E, 9D1, and 9C, are all located south of James River Road and
north of the James River (Attachment A).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Hatton Agricultural
and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Hatton
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Hatton District – Proposed Additions
B. Hatton District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-7; AFD2010-10, Jacob’s Run
AFD Additions
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 8, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
July 7, 2010
Proposal: Additions to the Jacob’s Run
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the additions
to the Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
Petition:
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE JACOB’S RUN AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) has
been filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to the
Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than April 28, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., April 28, 2010) or, with the consent of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of Supervisors
must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on May 10, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed modifications, on
June 8, 2010.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
3
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities . The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural an d forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to d etermine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basi s of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one -half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
4
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether
the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a district is reviewed by
the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the
district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the district. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE JACOB’S RUN AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-218 Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 19, parcels 25, 25A; tax map 20, parcel 6J; tax map 30, parcel 32B; tax map 31, parcels 1B,
8, 8E, 16, 16B, 44C, 45, 45B, 45C. This district, created on January 6, 1988 for not more than 6 years, since
amended to continue for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on December 2, 2009, shall next be reviewed
prior to December 2, 2019.
(3-2-94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(i); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
The parcels in the District are located in three general areas: 1) a cluster of parcels north and east of Quail Ridge
circle; 2) a second large parcel south of the Earlysville Road and Reas Ford Road junction; and 3) a small cluster
of parcels west of the Buck Mountain Road and Advance Mills Road junction (Attachment A).
The District was created in 1988, and originally included 10 parcels and 624.56 acres. The District now includes
13 parcels and 772.531 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 772.531 acres that comprise the Jacob’s Run District,
141.513 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the land-use taxation program, while 369.959 acres are
enrolled in the Forestry category.
5
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Jacob’s Run
District includes approximately 12 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. Two
parcels in the District, and many nearby, are under conservation easements (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Jacob’s Run District is entirely designated as Rural
Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas . Several
tracts of land in between the three clusters of parcels are zoned Village Residential, Planned Unit Development,
and Planned Residential Development (Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surfac e water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. Portions of the Jacob’s Run District are located in the North Fork Rivanna-
Frays Mountain, Chris Greene Lake, and South Fork Rivanna watersheds (Attachment B).
Time Period: The Jacob’s Run District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on December 2, 2019.
Proposal:
Two applications have been submitted requesting to add two parcels to the Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal
District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code,
which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Jacob’s Run Agricultural and
Forestal District was created on January 6, 1988, and was last reviewed on December 2, 2009. The District
currently includes 13 parcels and 772.531 acres. The proposed addition of two parcels totaling 156.107 acres
would increase the total number of acres in the Jacob’s Run District to 928.638 acres.
The parcels, Tax Map 31, Parcels 1 and 4K, are located west and south of Buck Mountain Road and north of Link
Evans Lane (Attachment A).
The parcels are zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and
includes a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas;
focusing on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic
resources, including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Jacob’s Run
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Jacob’s Run
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Jacob’s Run District – Proposed Additions
B. Jacob’s Run District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-3 Kinloch AFD Addition
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 8, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
July 7, 2010
Proposal: Addition to the Kinloch Agricultural
and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition
to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
2
Petition:
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONS TO THE KINLOCH AGRICULTURAL AND
FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District (the “District”) has been
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been referred to the
Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervis ors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than April 28, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., April 28, 2010) or, with the consent of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of Supervisors
must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identifie d in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on May 10, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed modifications, on
June 8, 2010.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
3
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal production, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities . The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the propos ed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one -half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
4
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether
the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisor s, a district is reviewed by
the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the
district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may terminate, modify or continue the district. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE KINLOCH AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-220 Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District" consists of the following described
properties: Tax map 49, parcels 5C, 6A1; tax map 50, parcels 13, 19; tax map 65, parcels 7, 7A, 8, 84A, 86, 89,
90, 91, 91A, 92, 93A, 93A1, 94, 94A, 94B, 94C, 95, 95A, 100, 121, 121A1; tax map 66, parcels 2, 3C, 10G1, 32,
32D, 32E, 34 (Albemarle part only), 34B. This district, created on September 3, 1986 for not more than 10 years
and last reviewed on November 3, 2004, shall next be reviewed prior to November 3, 2014.
(11-17-93; 10-12- 94; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(f); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 00-3(3), 9-13-00; Ord. 04-3(3), 11-3-04;
Ord. 09-3(5), 12-9-09)
The District is located northeast of Cismont (Attachment A). The district is characterized by evergreen and
deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields, hedgerows, as well as occasional residential and agricultural
buildings.
The District was created in 1986, and originally included 1,326.76 acres. The District now includes 33 parcels and
1,682.953 acres.
5
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 1,682.953 acres that comprise the Kinloch District, 71.395
acres are enrolled in the Forestry category of the land-use taxation program, 264.08 acres are enrolled in the Open
Space category, and 94.699 acres are enrolled in the Agriculture category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Kinloch District
includes approximately 42 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels. A
majority of the parcels in the District are under conservation easements. Several parcels in the District are also
located in the Southwest Mountains Rural Historic District (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Kinloch District is entirely designated as Rural Areas
in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The parcels
adjacent to and abutting the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surface water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Kinloch District is in the Mechunk Creek watershed (Attachment B).
Time Period: The Kinloch District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be reviewed
on November 3, 2014.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District,
in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County Code, which
allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Kinloch Agricultural & Forestal District
was created on September 3, 1986, and was last reviewed on November 3, 2004. The District currently includes
33 parcels and 1,682.953 acres. The proposed addition of one parcel totaling 38.85 acres would increase the total
number of acres in the Kinloch District to 1,721.803.
The parcel, Tax Map 66, Parcels 3G, is located south of Gordonsville Road and north of Louisa Road
(Attachment A).
The parcel is zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and includes
a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies these parcels as Rural Areas; focusing
on the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources,
including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Kinloch
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Kinloch
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Kinloch District – Proposed Addition
B. Kinloch District – District Characteristics
6
Return to exec summary
1
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name:
AFD2010-4, Moorman’s River AFD
Addition
Staff: Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 8, 2010
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
July 7, 2010
Proposal: Addition to the Moorman’s River
Agricultural and Forestal District
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Rural Areas
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of the addition
to the Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District.
Petition:
2
NOTICE OF AN APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO THE MOORMAN’S RIVER
AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
Notice is hereby given pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4307, which is part of the Agricultural and Forestal
Districts Act (Chapter 43 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Act”)), that:
1. An application for an addition to the Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District (the
“District”) has been filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the application has been
referred to the Albemarle County Planning Commission pursuant to the Act;
2. The application for this addition to the District, together with descriptive maps, is available for public
inspection in the offices of the Clerk of the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors and the Albemarle
County Community Development Department, Albemarle County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia;
3. Any political subdivision whose territory encompasses or is part of the District may propose a
modification. Any proposed modification must be filed with the Albemarle County Planning
Commission in the Albemarle County Community Development Department within 30 days after the
date that this notice is first published (no later than April 28, 2010);
4. Any owner of additional qualifying land may join the application for the District within thirty days after
the date this notice is first published (no later than 5:00 p.m., April 28, 2010) or, with the consent of the
Albemarle County Board of Supervisors, at any time before the public hearing the Board of Supervisors
must hold on the application;
5. Any owner who joined in the application may withdraw his land, in whole or in part, by written notice
filed with the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors in either office identified in paragraph 2 at any
time before the Board of Supervisors acts pursuant to Virginia Code § 15.2-4309;
6. Additional qualifying lands may be added to an already created district upon separate application
pursuant to the Act at any time following the district’s creation;
7. The application for the District and proposed modifications will be submitted to the Albemarle County
Agricultural and Forestal Advisory Committee on May 10, 2010;
8. Upon receipt of the report of the Advisory Committee, a public hearing will be held by the Albemarle
County Planning Commission on the application for the District, and any proposed mod ifications, on
June 8, 2010.
Purpose
The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies Albemarle County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts Program
(the “AFD Program”) as one of several voluntary programs available to landowners that “encourage the
protection of prime agricultural soils and working farms from nonagricultural development.” The AFD Program
is an important voluntary land protection measure. By State Law and the County Code, the purposes of the AFD
Program are to:
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands for the production of food and other agricultural
and forestal products;
Conserve and protect agricultural and forestal lands as valued natural and ecological resources which
provide essential open spaces for clear air sheds, watershed protection, wildlife habitat, as well as for
aesthetic purposes; and
Provide a means by which agricultural and forestal lands may be protected and enhanced as a viable
segment of the State and local economies, and as important economic and environmental resources.
Effects of an Agricultural and Forestal District
3
The placement of land in an Agricultural and Forestal District has the following effects:
1. Prohibition of development to more intensive use. As a condition to creation of the district, no parcel
within the district may be developed to a use more intensive than that existing on the date of creation
of the district, other than uses resulting in more intensive agricultural or forestal productio n, without
the prior approval of the Board of Supervisors. The meaning of “development to a more intensive
use” is defined in County Code § 3-202.
2. Applicability of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances. The Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances apply within a district to the extent they do not
conflict with any conditions of creation or continuation of the district, or the purposes of the AFD
Program.
3. Limitation on restricting or regulating certain agricultural and forestal farm activities. The County
may not unreasonably restrict or regulate by ordinance farm structures or agricultural and forestal
practices that are contrary to the purposes of the AFD Program unless the restriction or regulation is
directly related to public health and safety. However, the County may regulate the processing or
retail sales of agricultural or forestal products or structures in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan and County ordinances.
4. Consideration of district in taking certain actions. The County must consider the existence of a
district and the purposes of the AFD Program in actions pertaining to the Comprehensive Plan, its
land use ordinances, and other land use-related decisions and procedures affecting parcels of land
adjacent to a district.
5. Availability of land use value assessment. Land within a district devoted to agricultural or forestal
production qualifies for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment under
State law are satisfied. Placing land within a district is one of three ways in which land devoted to
open space use may qualify for land use value assessment if the requirements for such an assessment
under State law are satisfied.
6. Review of proposals by agencies of the Commonwealth, political subdivisions and public service
corporations to acquire land in district. The Board of Supervisors must review any proposal by an
agency of the Commonwealth, political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or public service
corporation to acquire land in a district. The purpose of the Board’s review is to determine: (i) the
effect the action would have upon the preservation and enhancement of agriculture and forestry and
agricultural and forestal resources within the district; and (ii) the necessity of the proposed action to
provide service to the public in the most economical and practicable manner.
7. Parcel created by division remains in district. A parcel created from the permitted division of land
within a district continues to be enrolled in the district.
8. Prohibition of certain service-related assessments and tax levies. Land used primarily for
agricultural or forestal production may not be subjected to benefit assessments or special tax levies by
a special district for sewer, water or electricity or for nonfarm or nonforest drainage on the basis of
frontage, acreage or value. There are two exceptions: (a) the assessment or levy was imposed prior to
the formation of the district; or (b) the assessment or levy is imposed on a lot not exceeding one-half
acre surrounding any dwelling or nonfarm structure located on the land.
In general, a district may have a stabilizing effect on land use. The landowners in the district are making a
statement that they do not intend to develop their property in the near future, and that they would like the area to
4
remain in agricultural, forestal, and open space uses. Adjacent property owners may be encouraged to continue
agricultural, forestal or open space uses if they do not anticipate development of adjacent lands.
Periodic Review of Agricultural and Forestal Districts
A district may continue indefinitely, but it must be reviewed by the County every 10 years to determine whether
the district should be continued. Before being considered by the Board of Supervisors, a district is reviewed by
the County’s Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission. Both the
Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board as to whether the
district should be terminated, modified or continued.
Once it has received the recommendations of the Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission, the Board
conducts a public hearing. After the public hearing, the Board may ter minate, modify or continue the district. If
the Board continues the district, it may impose conditions on the district different from those imposed on the
district when it was created or last reviewed. Landowners within a district receive notice of this process,
including notice of any proposed different conditions.
When a district is reviewed, land within the district may be withdrawn at the owner’s discretion by filing a written
notice with the Board at any time before the Board acts to continue, modify, or terminate the district.
Unless the district is modified or terminated by the Board, the district continues as originally constituted, with the
same conditions and time period before the next review as were established when the district was created or last
reviewed. If the Board terminates the district, the land within the terminated district is subject to and liable for
roll-back taxes under Virginia Code § 58.1-3237 and the lands are no longer subject to the benefits and
obligations described in the “Effects” section above.
THE MOORMAN’S RIVER AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL DISTRICT
The Albemarle County Code currently contains this description of the District:
Sec. 3-222 Moorman's River Agricultural and Forestal District.
The district known as the "Moorman's River Agricultural- and Forestal District" consists of the following
described properties: Tax map 27, parcels 32, 34, 34A, 40, 40A, 40A1, 42, 42A; tax map 28, parcels 2, 2A, 3, 4,
5, 6, 6A, 6B, 7, 7A, 7A1, 7B, 8, 12, 12A, 12B, 13, 13A, 17A, 17C, 18, 23B, 23B1, 30, 30A, 30A1, 30B 32B,
32D, 34B, 35, 35B, 37, 37A, 37B, 37C, 38; tax map 29, parcels 2C, 4E, 8, 8B, 8E, 8E1, 8H, 8J, 8K, 9, 10, 15C,
40B, 40C, 40D, 45, 45H1, 45H2, 49C, 50, 54A, 61, 62, 63, 63A, 63D, 67C, 69D, 69F, 70A, 70B, 70C, 70F, 70F1,
70H1, 70K, 70L, 70M, 71, 71A, 73B, 74A, 76, 78, 78A1, 79C, 79E, 79F, 80, 84, 85; tax map 30, parcels 10, 10A,
10C, 12, 12C, 12C1, 12D, 17A, 18E, 23; tax map 41, parcels 8, 8B, 8C, 8D, 9E, 15, 15A, 17C, 18, 41C, 41H, 44,
50, 50C, 65A1, 67B, 68, 70, 72, 72B, 72C, 72D, 89; tax map 42, parcels 5, 6, 6B, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 8C, 10, 10A, 10D,
37F, 37J, 38, 40, 40C, 40D, 40D1, 40G, 40H2, 41, 42B, 42B1, 43, 43A, 44; tax map 43, parcels 1, 1F, 2A1, 2B,
3A, 4D, 5, 5A, 9, 10, 16B2, 16B3, 18E4, 18G, 18J, 19I, 19N, 19P, 20A, 20B, 20C, 2l, 21A, 24, 25A, 25B, 30,
30A, 30B, 30B1, 30B2, 30B3, 30B4, 30D, 30G, 30H, 30M, 30N, 32H, 33, 33E, 34A1, 34A2, 34D1, 41, 42, 43,
44, 45, 45C, 45D; tax map 44, parcels 1, 2, 24, 26, 26A, 26B, 26C, 27B, 27C, 28, 29, 29A, 29D, 30, 30A, 30B,
31, 31A, 31A1, 31D, 31F, 31G, 31H; tax map 57, parcel 69; tax map 59, parcels 32, 32A, 34, 35, 82A; tax map
60E3, parcel 1. This district, created on December 17, 1986 for not more than 10 years and last reviewed on
December 1, 2004, shall be next reviewed prior to December 1, 2014.
(4-14-93; 12-21-94; 4-12-95; 8-9-95; Code 1988, § 2.1-4(g); Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98; Ord. 99-3(4), 5-12-99; Ord.
00-3(1), 4-19-00; Ord. 04-3(4), 12-1-04; Ord. 05-3(2), 7-6-05; Ord. 08-3(2), 8-6-08; Ord. 09-3(4), 12-2-09)
5
The parcel, Tax Map 44, Parcel 26B, has been included in the Albemarle County Code description as a correction
of the parcel reference since the land is currently in the District.
The District is located in the Whitehall, Owensville, and Free Union area of Albemarle County (Attachment A).
The district is characterized by evergreen and deciduous forest, open pasture, agricultural fields, hedgerows, as
well as occasional residential and agricultural buildings.
The District was created in 1986, and originally included 7,096.16 acres. The District currently includes 231
parcels and 10,980.737 acres.
Agricultural and Forestal District Significance: Of the 10,980.737 acres that comprise the Moorman’s River
District, 2,974.964 acres are enrolled in the Agricultural category of the land-use taxation program, 2,285.764
acres are enrolled in the Forestry category, 228.291 acres are enrolled in the Open Space category, and 23.808
acres are enrolled in the Horticulture category.
Land Use other than Agriculture and Forestry: In addition to agricultural and forestal uses, the Moorman’s River
District includes approximately 235 dwellings.
Local Development Patterns: The District primarily consists of large forested parcels and large farm parcels.
Several parcels in the District are under conservation easements (Attachment B).
Comprehensive Plan Designation and Zoning Districts: The Moorman’s River District is entirely designated as
Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan, and the parcels included in the District are zoned RA Rural Areas. The
primary parcels adjoining the parcels in the District are all zoned RA Rural Areas as well (Attachment B).
Environmental Benefits: The District includes woodland and agricultural fields. Protecting and preserving these
properties in an Agricultural and Forestal District will help protect forest and rich farm land, which the
Comprehensive Plan and Rural Areas Zoning Ordinances seek to preserve. Conservation of this area will help
maintain the environmental integrity of the County and aids in the protection of ground and surfac e water,
agricultural soils, and wildlife habitat. The Moorman’s River District is located in the Meadow Creek, Lower
Mechums River, South Fork Rivanna, and the Moorman’s River-Ward’s Creek watersheds (Attachment B).
Time Period: The Moorman’s River District is currently on a 10-year review cycle. The District is scheduled to be
reviewed on December 1, 2014.
Proposal:
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the Moorman’s River Agricultural and
Forestal District, in accordance with Chapter 3, Sections 3-101, 3-201, 3-203 and 3-215 of the Albemarle County
Code, which allows for additions of land to Agricultural and Forestal Districts. The Moorman’s River
Agricultural and Forestal District was created on December 17, 1986, and was last reviewed on December 1,
2004. The District currently includes 231 parcels and 10,980.737 acres. The proposed addition of one parcel
totaling 10.5 acres would increase the total number of acres in the Moorman’s River District to 10,991.237.
The parcel, Tax Map 41, Parcel 19, is located west of Brown’s Gap Turnpike and north of Cannon Brook Way
(Attachment A).
The parcel is zoned Rural Areas with agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses as the preferred land use and includes
a residential density of .5 unit per acre. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the parcel as Rural Areas; focusing on
the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources,
including a residential density of .5 units per acre.
6
Agricultural and Forestal Districts Advisory Committee Recommendation: On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and
Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended approval of the proposed additions to the Moorman’s River
Agricultural and Forestal District.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed additions to the Moorman’s
River Agricultural and Forestal District.
Attachments:
A. Moorman’s River District – Proposed Addition
B. Moorman’s River District – District Characteristics
Return to exec summary
1
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 8, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, June 8,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice -Chairman; Ed Smith, Thomas
Loach, Chairman; Linda Porterfield, Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land
Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Elizabeth Marotta, Senior Planner; Eryn Brennan, Senior Planner; Summer
Frederick, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning; Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Loach called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items:
SPRING 2010 Additions - PC Public Hearing; Virginia Code § 15.2-4307
Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District
Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District
Hatton Agricultural and Forestal
Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District
Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District
Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District
Ms. Brennan presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the six staff reports for the above
noted Agricultural and Forestal Districts. (See Staff Reports)
Jacob’s Run Additions
The Jacob’s Run Ag For District was created in 1988, and originally included 10 parcels and 624 acres.
The District now includes 13 parcels and 772 acres.
The general location of the district is in the northern part of the county, west of 29 North .
Two applications have been submitted requesting to add two parcels to the Jacob’s Run District .
The proposed addition of these two parcels totaling 156 acres would increase the total number of
acres in the Jacob’s Run District to 928.
Hardware Additions
The Hardware District was created in 1987, and originally included 52 parcels and 5,947 acres.
The District now includes 45 parcels and 3.001 acres.
The general location of the district is south of 64 West along Route 29 South.
Two applications have been submitted requesting to add four parcels to the District. The
proposed additions total 192 acres and would increase the total number of acres in the Hardware
District to 3,194.
Hatton Additions
The Hatton District was created in 1983, and originally included 19 parcels and 2,545 acres. The
District now includes 17 parcels and 745 acres.
The general location of the district is in the southern portion of the County along the James River.
One application has been submitted requesting to add six parcels to the District .
The proposed addition of six parcels totaling 115 acres would increase the total number of acres
in the District to 860.
Moorman’s River Additions
2
The District was created in 1986, and originally included 7,096 acres. The District currently
includes 231 parcels and 10,980 acres.
The general location of the district is west of Route 29 North and north of 64 West.
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the District totaling 10.5
acres, which would increase the total number of acres in the Moorman’s River District to 10,991.
Fox Mountain Additions
The Fox Mountain District was created in 2009, and currently has one parcel with 283 acres.
The general location of the district is in the far northwest section of the County.
One application requesting to add three parcels to the District has been submitted . The proposed
additions totaling 32 acres would increase the total number of acres in the District to 3 16.
Kinloch Additions
The Kinloch District was created in 1986, and originally included 1,326 acres. The District now
includes 33 parcels and 1,682 acres.
The general location of the district is in the northeast corner of the County along Route 231.
One application has been submitted requesting to add one parcel to the District. The proposed
addition of one parcel totaling 38 acres would increase the total number of acres in the District to
1,721.
Spring Addition Stats
Staff reviewed the statistics for the spring round of additions to the Agricultural and Forestal Districts. A
total of eight applications were received to add 17 parcels, constituting 545 acres, to six different districts.
Staff Recommendation
On May 10, 2010, the Agricultural and Forestal District Advisory Committee recommended
approval of all the additions to the Jacob’s Run, Hardware, Hatton, Moorman’s River, Fox
Mountain, and Kinloch Districts.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of all the proposed additions to
the Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicants or other members of the public to address
the Commission. There being no public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter before
the Planning Commission for action.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Zobrist seconded to recommend approval of all the proposed
additions to the following Agricultural and Forestal Districts:
Jacob’s Run Agricultural and Forestal District,
Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District,
Hatton Agricultural and Forestal,
Moorman’s River Agricultural and Forestal District,
Fox Mountain Agricultural and Forestal District,
and the Kinloch Agricultural and Forestal District.
The motion was passed by a vote of 7:0.
Mr. Loach noted that the six Agricultural/Forestal District Reviews will go to the Board of Supervisors on
July 7, 2010 with a recommendation for approval.
Return to exec summary
Local Energy Alliance Program (LEAP)
County and City won $500,000 competitive grant award from
the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance to create a community-
based energy efficiency program or “Local Energy Alliance”
•20-40% efficiency gain per
structure
•30-50% market penetration
(get to scale)
•5-7 year performance period
•Public-private partnership
•Self-sustaining approach
•Replicable model
One Year Ago…
What is LEAP?
Nonprofit energy services organization: energy and water efficiency program
implementer for local community
•Outreach and marketing on the advantages of efficiency
•Financing source for energy and water related improvements
•Quality Assurance provider for property owners and occupants
Workforce development engine to train and grow the performance
contracting industry through our partnership with local community college
Dominion Power partner –SmartGrid technology for energy management
and verification of efficiency gains
Aggregator of energy efficiency benefits
for the community
Alliance Partners
Who are they?
•Local, State, and Federal Government
•UVa (research and outreach) and PVCC (workforce training)
•Electric, Gas, and Water Utilities
•Local Contractors, Realtors, Home and Code Inspectors
•Retail and Vendor Business Partners
•Regional and Local Nonprofits
•Lending Institutions, Foundations
Committee and Board Members
The Alliance Concept
•Local, State, and Federal Government
•UVa (research and outreach) and PVCC (workforce training)
•Electric, Gas, and Water Utilities
•Local Contractors, Realtors, Home and Code Inspectors
•Energy Efficiency + Renewable Companies
•Retail and Vendor Business Partners
•Regional and Local Nonprofits
•Lending Institutions, Foundations
Core Value Propositions
For Customers
We want you to implement the sensible energy improvements that will save
you money. We will provide the delivery system, financing and quality
management to make it safe to invest, to make sure it works and that it pays
for itself.
For Contractors and Trade Partners
We want you to get certified to do the energy audits well, to guarantee your
work, and in return, we will bring you motivated customers that have
prearranged financing.
For Lenders & Financial Partners
We want you to make a market in our community by making low interest
energy loans, enjoy a solid return, and we will take much of the risk off the
table.
Local Opportunity
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
Number of Homes<1939 1940-
1949
1950-
1959
1960-
1969
1970-
1979
1980-
1989
1990-
1999
2000-
2004
>2005
Age of Residential Building Stock
Albemarle County
Charlottesville
Combined
Number of homes built <1970: 21,447 (no insulation standards in code)
Average Homeowner
Concerns:
•Energy costs
•Daughter has allergies
•Drafty/cold in the winter
Savings Health ClimateComfort
National Program from US DOE and EPA
•Recognized brand
•Strong standards and certifications
•Ties in to future legislation, federal grants, tax
credits
•20% Projected
efficiency gain
Home Performance w/ ENERGY STAR
Home Performance w/ ENERGY STAR
Elements of an HPwES Job
•Audit
•Solution
•Retrofit
•Commissioning
•Quality Assurance
The Whole House Approach
Building Load
-Stop Energy Leaks
-Improvement:
20% -40%
Delivery
-Fix Leaky Ducts
-Improvement:
30% -50%
Behavior
-Set Your Stat
-Improvement:
5% -10%
Equipment
-Efficiency / Size
-Improvement:
10% -15%
Whole House vs. Products Savings
Whole House Solution:30% -50%
(Ducts, Insulation, Behavior, 40K BTU 90% Furnace)
High Efficiency Furnace:10% -15%
(100K BTU 96% Furnace)
Performance
-Efficiency
-Health
-Comfort
Loading Order
•Insulation
•Air & Duct Sealing
•Lighting
•Appliances
•Water Conservation
•Plug Loads
Fundamentals plus:
•Heating
•Air Conditioning
•Duct
Reconfiguration
•Solar Thermal
•Water Heating
Fundamentals plus:
•Solar PV
•Geothermal
•Wind
Fundamentals Major Systems Renewables
8%
4%
3%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
Insulation High Efficiency Furnace Solar ElectricAnnual Rate of ReturnFundamentals RenewablesMajor Systems
Cost Effectiveness
The Good News
Costs for New Energy in VA
Projected Costs for New Power Generation cents/kWh
Job Costs
Labor as % of Project CostFundamentals RenewablesMajor Systems
What Scale Looks Like:
30% average efficiency gain
30% market penetration creates:
$5200 savings/household over 7 yrs
$90.4 M community-wide
1500 –2000 jobs
Marketing/Outreach Event
Home Energy Makeover Contest
•Charlottesville or Albemarle
homeowners can enter
•Chance for two homeowners to
receive a professional home
assessment and makeover worth
up to $10,000.
•8 runner’s up also get a
professional home assessment
•Contest open July 1 –August 20
•Winners announced by
September 12th
Rebates and Incentives
Audit Rebates: $250 to the homeowner
Albemarle homeowners receive a rebate when they perform retrofit work
in our Home Performance with Energy Star program.
Incentives for Efficiency
•50% of job cost up to $1000 for Home Performance with Energy Star jobs
(20% efficiency gain).
•For each performance increase of 10%, LEAP will provide an additional
$500 incentive (e.g., 30% efficiency gain = $1500 incentive)
•For residents not doing a whole house job, LEAP will provide a $300
rebate for the installation of an Energy Star furnace or heat pump –when
combined with current state rebate this will pay for 50% of the
incremental cost for purchasing high efficiency equipment
Retrofit Ramp Up Awardees
Retrofit Ramp Up Awardees
LEAP receives $800,000 for its Year 1 allocation, and
SEEA will match $1 for every $1 spent on incentives.
At the end of Year 1, we could receive another $800,000.
Potential is for over $2.5 M in the next three years.
cynthia@leap-va.org
Leading the effort in our local community to conserve water and energy in buildings
to promote cost savings, job creation, sustainability, local economic
development, and environmental stewardship.
www.leap-va.org
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Whittington PRD - Request to amend the Albemarle County
Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for public hearing to amend the Jurisdictional Area
Boundary to provide sewer service to Tax Map 89, Parcel 95
and Tax Map 90, Parcels 3, 45, 46, 47, and 48 located on Old
Lynchburg Road (Route 631) approximately 1 ¼ miles south of
the intersection of Old Lynchburg Road and Interstate 64.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, and Benish
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: x INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Jurisdictional Area designation for sewer
service for six parcels totaling approximately 186 acres located on the west side of Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631),
south of its intersection with Interstate 64. (See Attachment A) The property is located entirely within the Rural Areas
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The parcels are currently served by water only. The applicant is requesting
this service for the Whittington Planned Residential Development (PRD) which was originally approved by the Board
of Supervisors in 1977 and amended in 2007. The properties adjacent to the south, west and northwest of these
parcels are in the Rural Areas and are not included in the Jurisdictional Area. The properties across Old Lynchburg
Road to the southeast are located within the Development Area and are designated “water and sewer.” The parcels
located immediately to the northeast in the Mosby Mountain residential development are located within the Rural
Areas, and are served by both water and sewer. The Mosby Mountain water and sewer service designation is the
result of a Jurisdictional Area approval made by the Board in the 1970s, prior to the establishment of the current
policies for Jurisdictional Areas designation. The water service designation on the Whittington property was also
approved in the 1970s.
The Board considered this same request for sewer service designation on November 1, 2006. The Board did not set
a public hearing on this request, thereby denying the request for sewer service to the development (11/1/06 Executive
Summary, Attachment C). There has been no change in circumstance onsite or in County policies since that action.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal Two: Protect the County's natural resources.
Goal Three: Develop Policies and Infrastructure Improvements to Address the County’s Growing Needs.
Goal Four: Effectively Manage the County’s Growth and Development
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sew er service to the
Development Areas:
General Principle 2: “Serve Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages with public water and sewer.” (p. 114)
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA jurisdictional area.” (p. 128)
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating jurisdictional areas.” (p.128)
AGENDA TITLE: Whittington PRD - Request to amend the ACSA Jurisdictional Area
July 7, 2010
Page 2
“Only allow changes in the jurisdictional areas outside of designated Development Areas in cases where the
property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger.” (p. 130)
Furthermore, providing service to the Rural Areas utilizes valuable treatment capacities which should be reserved to
support the Development Areas and will, over the long term, add to the infrastructure maintenance cost s.
The reason given for this request in the applicant’s justification (See Attachment B) is to reduce the amount of clearing
required per site (approximately 10,000 sq. ft. for a typical septic system according to the State Health Department).
The parcels are currently covered by mature deciduous forest. However, clearing for septic systems is an expected
development requirement in the Rural Areas, and the provision of public sewer service will not guarantee that clearing
will not occur on these lots to accommodate yards or property owner preferences.
The Virginia State Department of Health has indicated that the soils on these parcels are adequate to support septic
systems for the proposed ninety-six (96) 40,000 square foot lots. Because the parcels are located in the Rural Areas
and adequate soils are present for the required septic systems connecting these lots, provision of public sewer would
be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan utility policies noted above, as there is no documented public health or
safety issue on the property.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There would be no immediate cost to the County; t he property owner would bear the costs for sewer hook-up.
However, the expansion of the ACSA Jurisdictional Boundary to include properties in the Rural Areas will utilize the
capacity necessary to serve properties in the Development Areas and may result in the need for expanded capital
investment in infrastructure necessary for the Development Areas.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This request is not consistent with the principles, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the
provision of public sewer service outside of the designated Development Areas. Staff does not recommend approval
of this request and, therefore, recommends that the Board not proceed to public hearing.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Location Map with Jurisdictional Area Designations
B – Applicant’s Request
C – Executive Summary, November 1, 2006
Return to regular agenda
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Tax Map Grid
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Road Bridges
Railroad Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Railroads
Comprehensive Plan Areas
Buildings
Buildings - City
Driveways
Parcels
Lakes and Reservoirs
Ponds
Major Streams
Other Streams
ACSA Jurisdictional Areas
No Service
Water Only
Water and Sewer
Water Only To Existing Structures
Limited Service
City Water and Sewer
Albemarle Boundary
Charlottesville Boundary
Scottsville Boundary
ATTACHMENT A--Whittington ACSA Jurisdictional Area Request, Sewer Service Legend
(Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend)
Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources June 21, 2010
ATTACHMENT C
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to amend
the Albemarle County Service Authority
Jurisdictional Area
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Request for public hearing to amend the
Jurisdictional Area Boundary to provide sewer
service to Tax Map 89, Parcel 95 and Tax Map 90,
Parcels 3, 45, 46, 47, and 48 located on Old
Lynchburg Road (Route 631) approximately 1 ¼
miles south of the intersection of Old Lynchburg
Road and Interstate 64.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Benish;
Ms. Arnold
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
November 1, 2006
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The applicant is requesting ACSA Jurisdictional Area designation for sewer service to six parcels totaling an
approximately 186 acres located on the west side of Old Lynchburg Road (Route 631), south of its intersection with
Interstate 64. (Attachment A) The property is located entirely within the Rural Areas, in the Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. The parcels are currently served by water only. The applicant is requesting sewer service for the Whittington
residential development. Whittington was approved as a Planned Residential Development by the Board of
Supervisors in 1977. Although the applicant prefers to connect to public sewer, the Virginia State Department of
Health has indicated that the soils on the site are adequate to support septic systems for the proposed 96, 40,000
square foot lots. Because the parcels are located in the Rural Areas and adequate soils are present for the required
septic systems connecting these lots, public sewer would be inconsistent with County utility policies. The properties
adjacent to the south, west and northwest of these parcels are in the Rural Areas and are not included in the
Jurisdictional Area. The properties across Old Lynchburg Road to the southeast are located within the Development
Areas and are designated “water and sewer”. The parcels located immediately to the northeast in the Mosby
Mountain residential development are located within the Rural Areas, but are served by both water and sewer. The
Mosby Mountain water service designation is the result of a zoning and Jurisdictional Area action made by the Board
in the 1970’s, prior to the establishment of the current policies for Jurisdictional Areas designation.
The applicant has submitted a zoning map amendment request on this property (Whittington, ZMA-06-11), which is
currently under review by staff. The property has been zoned PRD (or equivalent zoning district) since 1977, with the
original approved application plan showing a total of 104 lots. The current rezoning request is not a new proposal, but
an amendment in response to a Zoning Administrator determination that development plans for the site would be
subject to approval of an application plan that meets the provisions of Section 8 of the Zoning Ordinance. The plan
now under review, which shows a total of 96 lots, is intended to meet the provisions of Section 8 and replace the
original application plan. Nothing in the County’s current ordinance is necessi tating the provision of public sewer to
the site.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
2.2 Protect and/or preserve the County's natural resources.
DISCUSSION:
The Whittington PRD is located outside of the designated Development Area off of Old Lynchburg Road in Rural Area
4. The property is zoned Planned Residential Development, with the Comprehensive Plan land use designated as
AGENDA TITLE:
Whittington PRD Amendment - Request to amend the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area
November 1, 2006
Page 2
Rural Areas. The parcels are currently covered by mature deciduous forest and are located in the Moore’s Creek
watershed.
The Comprehensive Plan provides the following concerning the provision of water and sewer service to the
Development Areas:
“General Principle: Urban Areas, Communities, and Villages are to be served by public water and sewer (p.
114).”
“Provide water and sewer service only to areas within the ACSA Jurisdictional Areas (p. 130).”
“Follow the boundaries of the designated Development Areas in delineating Jurisdictional Areas (p.130).”
“Only allow changes in the Jurisdictional Areas outside of the designated Development Areas in cases where
the property is: 1) adjacent to existing lines; and 2) public health and/or safety is in danger (p. 130).”
The Comprehensive Plan recommends serving only the Development Areas with public water and sewer service;
these parcels are located outside the Development Areas. The Virginia State Department of Health has indicated that
the soils on the site are adequate to support septic systems for the proposed 96, 40,000 square foot lots; therefore,
there does not appear to be any health or safety need to provide public sewer to the site. Sewer system capacity
should be used to serve the designated Development Areas, in support of the County’s growth management policy.
Designating these parcels as part of the ACSA Jurisdictional Area for public water and sewer service would not be
consistent with County policy, particularly with the presence of adequate soils to support the needed septic systems.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The property owner will bear the costs for sewer hook-up.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This request is not consistent with the principles, objectives and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan for the
provision of sewer service outside of the designated Development Area. No verification of endangerment to public
health and safety has been provided. Based on this information, staff does not recommend approva l of this request
and recommends that the Board not proceed to public hearing.
Should the Board wish to consider the proposed amendment in the context of the Whittington ZMA (ZMA-06-11), then
the Board would need to set a public hearing. The Jurisdictio nal Area public hearing could coincide with the Board’s
public hearing for the ZMA (which is not scheduled for Board Review at this time).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Whittington PRD ACSA JA Amendment, Context
B – Whittington PRD ACSA JA Amendment, ACSA JA Areas
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Old Jail Re-Use Study
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Update on Historic Society Proposal
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Letteri B., and Lilley
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The Old Jail and Jailer’s House (“Old Jail”) located adjacent to the new Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
(JDR Court) on E. High Street has been in disrepair for many years. The Old Jail is part of the Court Square District,
which is included in the National Register of Historic Places. The property was used for storage and office space by
contractors during the recent JDR Court Construction Project and is now vacant. The Old Jail is included on
Preservation Virginia’s Top Ten List of Endangered Historic Sites for 2010.
Based on Board discussion and direction, a Steering Committee was formed in the Fall of 2008 to evaluate the
County’s options for reuse or disposition of the Old Jail. The Committee included representatives of the Board of
Supervisors (Sally Thomas), the Historical Society (President Steven Meeks) and County staff. Based on the general
consensus of the Committee, an RFP was issued to solicit proposals for the evaluation, restoration and reuse of the
Old Jail. The scope of work outlined in the RFP (Attachment A) included the following key elements:
1) Assessment of the physical condition of and legal issues related to the Old Jail complex;
2) Development of best use or disposition options based on operational impacts and public input;
3) Evaluation, including a cost/benefit analysis of best use/disposition options and tax credit opportunities;
4) Report and recommendation.
Through the County’s competitive selection process, the local firm of Bushman-Dreyfus was selected to conduct the
study at a cost of $30,000. A contract with this firm is pending.
Subsequent to this selection process, the Steering Committee met with Bushman-Dreyfuss in late October, 2009 to
provide some feedback on the scope of work, timeframe, and expected cost. As contract details were being finalized,
the Historical Society submitted a letter of interest to the County dated February 2, 2010 (Attachment B). At its
February 3, 2010 meeting, the Board acknowledged the interest of the Historical Society in operating the Old Jail as a
museum and directed staff to delay further action on the study until the Board could be provided additional information
and the Society’s proposal could be fully evaluated. Based on follow-up discussions between staff and the Historical
Society, a more detailed proposal was submitted by the Society on April 27, 2010 (Attachment C).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The overall County value of Good Stewardship and Strategic Plan goal of Enhancing the Quality of Life for Citizens
support the effort to maintain County facilities and preserve historic resources.
DISCUSSION:
The study contemplated by the Steering Committee is designed to address the following essential questions:
1) What is the physical condition and precise state of deterioration of the facility?
2) What legal and operational restraints or parameters exist on the site that may impact reuse options?
3) What is the public sentiment regarding reuse or disposition of this property, both from the perspective
of County residents and City neighborhoods, within which the facility is located?
AGENDA TITLE: Old Jail Re-Use Study
July 7, 2010
Page 2
4) What are the long or short-term financial obligations and risks, if any, of the County associated with
the proposal and how does this compare with the benefits derived?
Staff has reviewed the proposal submitted by the Historical Society. While the Society proposes a potentially viable
use as a museum, the Steering Committee had intended to study a variety of potential uses and to ensure competitive
solicitation and an open community engagement process. Additionally, even if the proposal from the Historical Society
were accepted, much of the scope of the study would be necessary to help establish restoration work to be done, likely
costs, and potential funding sources. Staff recommends that the County proceed with executing a contract with
Bushman-Dreyfus to complete the study as originally intended and that the Historical Society’s proposal be evaluated
and considered along with other proposals once the four questions above are addressed. The study results and the
consultant’s recommendations would be presented to the Board for its consideration and approval in approximately six
months.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The cost for a consultant to complete the proposed study was approved in the FY 08 CIP and has previously been
appropriated by the Board. The cost of the study is $30,000 and will take approximately six months to complete.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board direct staff to proceed with the study to be conducted by Bushman-Dreyfus.
ATTACHMENTS
A – RFP for Old Jail Re-Use Study
B – Historic Society Proposal letter 1
C – Historic Society Proposal letter 2
Return to regular agenda
RFP #2008-04233-41
1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
Old Jail Re-Use Study
Charlottesville, Virginia
RFP #2008-04233-41
March 27, 2009
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. INTRODUCTION
The County of Albemarle Virginia, through its Office of Facilities
Development, invites proposals for architectural services to assist the County
in exploring potential re-use options for the County-owned building known as
the Old Jail Facility, located on High Street, Charlottesville, Virginia.
B. BACKGROUND
The Old Jail and Jailer’s House are historic buildings and share a site in
downtown Charlottesville with the City-County Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court. The Old Jail and its surrounding wall are in disrepair.
A General Condition Assessment was completed in September, 2006 and is
available for review.
Before any repairs or restoration are done, the County would like to identify
the best use for the facilities.
C. OLD JAIL RE-USE COMMITTEE
An Old Jail Facility Reuse Committee has been established to provide general
guidance to the decision-making process, review and comment on re-use
proposals and develop recommendations using community input. Additional
persons from within the County government or from the Albemarle and
Charlottesville communities may be added to the committee. The current
committee is as follows:
Sally Thomas, Board of Supervisors
Bryan Elliott, Assistant County Executive
George Shadman, General Services Director
Bill Letteri, Facilities Development Director
Margaret Maliszewski, Architectural Review Board staff
Steven G. Meeks, Historic Resources Commission
Ron Lilley, Facilities Development Project Manager
RFP #2008-04233-41
2
II. QUALIFICATIONS
The successful firm should have extensive experience in the following areas:
Investigating historic buildings conditions, performing assessment of the
structure, mechanical systems, surrounding utilities, fire protection
engineering and overall architectural potential. This includes
environmental/soil evaluations, geotechnical studies, utility studies, structural
testing, masonry testing, etc. if problems are identified in the original
assessment that may cause concern or restrict reuse.
Determining the historic preservation issues that may guide or otherwise
impact redevelopment, including but not limited to a review of local plans,
guidelines and regulations to determine the extent of restrictions and other
relevant considerations based on zoning and historic preservation factors.
Developing a range of options for discussion at public charrettes. Extensive
experience in coordinating public input into such a process is essential. The
firm will be expected to facilitate public charrettes to receive public input and
to developthe ideas that are put forward.
Identifying and securing potential funding sources for adaptive resue projects.
Evaluating, Summarizing, and Presenting options at public meetings.
III. SCOPE OF SERVICES:
Architectural services exploring potential reuse options would include:
Assessment of existing physical and legal conditions of the Old Jail Complex,
development of alternatives for reuse through public input, evaluation of
alternatives including cost/benefit analysis, development of conceptual design,
recommendations on funding sources, provision and presentation of a final
report.
IV. EVALUATION CRITERIA
1. Clarity of the proposal regarding how the Proposer will address the Scope of
Work in a creative and efficient manner.
Highly Advantageous: Proposal is specifically tailored to this project’s
objectives and contains a creative methodology to complete the Scope of
Work in a timely manner. The proposal is well-written and organized.
Advantageous: Proposal is “boilerplate” but contains a methodology to
perform the Scope of Work.
RFP #2008-04233-41
3
Not Advantageous or Unacceptable: Proposal does not demonstrate an
understanding of the project’s objectives or fails to set forth its
methodology in sufficient detail.
2. Experience of the Proposer in designing reuse projects for older or historical
buildings.
Highly Advantageous: Five or more public sector contracts for designing
reuse projects for older or historic buildings
Advantageous: Three or more contracts for designing reuse projects for older
or historic buildings, two of which were for public sector clients.
No Advantage or Unacceptable: Less than three contracts for designing reuse
projects for older or historical buildings with no experience with public sector
clients.
3. Communication Skills.
Highly Advantageous: Demonstrated ability of Proposer to effectively
communicate ideas verbally, as well as in written and graphic form, interact
with community groups and work with public officials.
Advantageous: Demonstrated ability of Proposer to communicate effectively
in written and graphic form and willingness to work with public officials.
No Advantage or Unacceptable: Difficulty of Proposer to effectively
communicate ideas or constraints by key personnel regarding meeting and
consulting with the County.
4. Qualifications of key personnel to be assigned to the project.
Highly Advantageous: Key personnel include a registered architect with AIA
credentials, and have more than 5 years of full time experience in historic
preservation type work and are skilled in facilitating public charrettes.
Advantageous: Key personnel include a registered architect with AIA
credentials and have at least 3 years of full-time experience in historic
preservation type work and are skilled in facilitating public charrettes.
No Advantage or Unacceptable: The Proposer team does not include a
registered architect with AIA credentials or lacks experience in historic type
preservation work.
5. References from clients for similar projects.
Highly Advantageous: Three or more extremely positive references, at least
two of which are related to public sector contracts for designing reuse
projects.
Advantageous: Three or more positive references for work similar to this
project.
No Advantage or Unacceptable: Less than three positive references for work
similar to this project or a negative reference.
RFP #2008-04233-41
4
6. Ability to identify and secure funding sources for adaptive reuse projects.
Highly Advantageous: The proposal includes detailed examples of successful
project funding plans using non-local funding partnerships.
Advantageous: The proposal includes a description of how non-local funding
would be investigated and pursued.
No Advantage or Unacceptable: No indication of creative funding
experience.
7. Demonstrated ability to complete the project in a timely manner.
Highly Advantageous: The proposal includes a detailed organizational chart
that clearly indicates each task to be performed, the responsible person for
completing that task and meets expected completion date.
Advantageous: The proposal includes an organizational chart with expected
completion date for major tasks to complete the Scope of Work.
No Advantage or Unacceptable: No indication of expected time frames are
provided or the expected completion dates are unrealistic.
V. RFP ADMINISTRATION
Communications:
All questions and/or requests for information regarding this RFP shall be
directed in writing to Hugh M. Gravitt III, CPPB, Purchasing Agent, County
of Albemarle, 401 McIntire Road, Room 248, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-
4596; phone (434) 296-5854.
The County will not assume responsibility for any oral instructions.
Submissions:
The proposal submission shall conform to the following items:
Offers must submit a complete response to this RFP. Six (6) sets of the
proposal (one original and five copies) must be submitted prior to 3:00 pm.,
Thursday, April 23, 2009 at the Purchasing Office of the Albemarle County
Office Building, Room 248, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia
22902-4596. No other distribution of the proposal shall be made by the
offerer.
Each Proposal mailed or sent by a parcel service must be addressed to: Mr.
Hugh M. Gravitt III, CPPB, Purchasing Office, Room 248, County of
Albemarle, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596.
Offerers are advised that mail and parcels are received by the County in a
RFP #2008-04233-41
5
central mailroom, and then distributed to the various offices and departments
within the County Office Building. The County makes no assurance that a
proposal will be delivered to the Albemarle County Purchasing Office on the
same date that it is received in the mailroom. It shall be the sole responsibility
of each offerer to assure that its proposal is timely delivered. A proposal that
is received by the mailroom but not received in the Albemarle County
Purchasing Office by the date and time requested, for any reason whatsoever,
will be rejected as untimely.
The proposal must be signed by a person in order to be considered. If the
vendor is a corporation, limited liability company, or other business
organization, the proposal must be submitted in the name of the corporation or
business, not simply the corporation or business’s trade name. The vendor
must state that corporate or other title of the individual signing the proposal,
and shall state that such individual is authorized to act on behalf of the vendor.
The Signature/Certificate of No Collusion sheet attached to this RFP shall
be signed and submitted with the proposal.
Proposals shall be clearly marked:
RFP #2008-04233-41, Architectural Services for Old Jail Re-Use Study,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Fees:
Upon evaluation of all offers, negotiations with the top-ranked offerer will be
pursued in accordance with the competitive negotiation process for
professional services described in the Virginia Code, Section 2.2-4301. The
fees will be a lump sum amount. Professional fees are NOT to be submitted
with the proposal response.
Contract:
County of Albemarle Contract Between Owner and Architect/Engineer will be
used. The scope of services will be as defined by the Commonwealth of
Virginia Construction and Professional Services Manual.
Selection will be in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act in
Virginia Code Section 2.2.4301. The Selection Committee will engage in
individual discussions with one or more offerers deemed fully qualified,
responsible and suitable on the basis of initial responses, and with emphasis
on professional competence to provide the required services.
The County of Albemarle reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to
waive any technicalities in proposals received, to negotiate and to accept the
proposal which may be in the best interest of the County of Albemarle.
RFP #2008-04233-41
6
Attachments:
Insurance Requirements
Certificate of No Collusion
RFP #2008-04233-41
7
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The vendor shall, during the performance of the contract, keep in force at least
the following minimum limits of Insurance:
Workers compensation insurance shall comply with requirements of the laws
of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
General Liability: $1,000,000
Personal Injury
Bodily Injury
Property Damage
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000
Owned
Hired
Non-owned
Bodily Injury and Property Damage Combined
The Vendor shall furnish an original Certificate of Insurance, naming The
County of Albemarle, Virginia as an additional insured. The Certificate of
Insurance shall provide that the County of Albemarle County, Virginia is
given 45 days advance notice of cancellation, nonrenewable or material
change in coverage. Strike out the word “endeavor.”
The County of Albemarle does not discriminate on the basis of race, creed,
sex, national origin, age, or disability, or against faith-based organizations as
defined under the Virginia Public Procurement Act on the basis of such
organization’s religious or charitable character.
RFP #2008-04233-41
8
CERTIFICATE OF NO COLLUSION
The undersigned, acting on behalf of ________________________________, does
herby certify in connection with the procurement and proposal to which this
Certificate of No Collusion is attached that:
This proposal is not the result of, or affected by, any act of collusion with another
person engaged in the same line of business or commerce; nor is this proposal the
result of, or affected by, any act of fraud punishable under Article 1.1 of Chapter 12
of Title 18.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (18.2-498.1 et seq.).
The undersigned declares that the person or persons signing this proposal is/are fully
authorized to sign the proposal on behalf of the firm listed and to fully bind the firm
listed to all conditions and provisions thereof.
Respectfully submitted, this ________ day of ________________, 2009.
Name of Firm of Corporation Submitting Bid:
By: ______________________________________________
Title: _____________________________________________
(Owner, Partner, or Corporation President or Vice-President Only)
Address: ___________________________________________
___________________________________________
Telephone Number: ___________________________________
Fax Number: ________________________________________
E-Mail Address: _____________________________________
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, to-wit
The foregoing Bid and Certificate of No Collusion bearing the signature of
__________________________________ and dated ________________________ was
subscribed and sworn to me, the undersigned Notary Public, on ___________________.
___________________________________
Notary Public
My commission expires: _________________________
Notary Registration ID/Number: ______________________________
County of Albemarle
MEMORANDUM
TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors
FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk
DATE: July 7, 2010
RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions
The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were
received as follows:
Pantops Community Advisory Council: One vacancy.
No applications received.
Route 250 West Task Force: One vacancy.
James Sofka
1 MEMBER
TERM
EXPIRES
NEW TERM
EXPIRES
WISH TO BE
RE-APPOINTED?
DISTRICT IF
MAGISTERIAL
APPOINTMENT
ACE Committee Rob Farrell 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required
ACE Committee James Powell 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required
ACE Committee Joseph Samuels 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required
ACE Committee Richard Keeling 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Terry Rephann 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Eligible No Action Required
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Morgan Butler 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible No Action Required, to be adverised
Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Jamie Spence 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible No Action Required, to be adverised
Historic Preservation Committee Judd Bankert 6/4/2010 6/4/2013 No No Action Required, to be advertised
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Patricia Stevenson 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 No Advertised
Jefferson Area Disability Services Board Michael Peoples 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Eligible No Action Required
Pantops Community Advisory Council Andrew Dracopoli TBD Resigned Advertised, No applications recv'd
Region Ten Community Services Board Barbara Barrett 6/30/2010 6/30/2013 Ineligible Advertised
Route 250 West Task Force Eric Bryerton 4/4/2010 4/4/2013 No No Action required, 1 Recv'd
Revised 06/28/10
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Albemarle County and Charlottesville City Departments of
Social Services
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Information to Consider Regarding Possible Consolidation
of County and City Departments of Social Services
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, and Davis, and Ms. Ralston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: INFORMATION: X
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
At the April 24, 2010 City/County meeting convened by Delegate David Toscano, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors and Charlottesville City Council agreed to further evaluate the possible consolidation of the County and
City Departments of Social Services. Subsequent to this meeting, staff suggested to the Board that prior to
formulating a workgroup to evaluate consolidation, background material and a list of challenges that such a measure
could create for the County should be submitted to the Board. This report provides the Board with information on
previous evaluations on the consolidation of these departments and a list of some of the issues that will need to be
addressed if further study is deemed warranted by the Board.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Albemarle County Residents.
DISCUSSION:
Since 1969, the City and the County have completed three studies that resulted in no action by the Board (1969, 1974
and 1983). The 1969 study concluded that the two departments could operate more effectively as one department
under one governing unit and the 1974 and 1983 studies identified issues and concerns but provided no formal
recommendations. In 1991, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors adopted a resolution requesting that the
General Assembly defer a decision on the consolidation of social service departm ents until an adequate study could
be prepared and in 1996 another study was considered but not completed.
In reviewing the previous studies, as well as recent studies and actions by Fredrick County/City of Winchester and
Rockingham County/City of Harrisonburg, there are key issues and concerns to consider that impact the delivery of
efficient and effective services. The most challenging issues identified are listed in Attachment A.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The County DSS has discussed the fiscal impact of consolidation with staff involved in the most recent consolidation in
Harrisonburg/Rockingham and found that, at least initially, consolidation increases the cost of program delivery due
mostly to expenses associated with office/facility operations. There has been no analysis done by Harrisonburg/
Rockingham regarding ongoing savings or costs associated with a combined City/County operation. The FY10 and
FY11 budget snapshots of the City and the County indicate that a consolidated department could have an impact on
both the city and county in terms of budgets. Both could have to absorb higher costs. It is unlikely that a consolidation
would result in “increasing the level of services in both jurisdictions at the same cost or providing the same level of
service at a lower cost to the taxpayers of both jurisdictions” which is a key working principle established by Delegate
Toscano for the April 24th City/County meeting.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
This information is being provided to the Board in order to offer some perspective on the scope and magnitude of the
issues that could be confronted if consolidation of the County/City Departments of Social Services is pursued. Given
the inconclusive results of the four previous consolidation reviews by the City/County and the likelihood for increased
costs to County taxpayers for the additional costs associated with the above points and issues identified in Attachment
A, staff recommends that the Board consider these points prior to moving forward with formation of a City/County
workgroup.
ATTACHMENTS:
A – List of Consolidation Issues
Return to regular agenda
Attachment A
Issues Regarding Consolidation of County and City Departments of Social Services
1. Facility
a. Consideration of the importance of staff from both departments being located together for
external customer flow and internal customer alignment with policy and “culture”;
b. Consideration of costs if the building is not County/City owned (If not owned, then
reimbursement for rent/utilities will likely produce greater federal revenue; if owned , then
reimbursement is based on depreciation of building costs and will likely be less);
c. Consideration of increased costs for custodial and maintenance services if not a
County/City-owned building (and possibly security);
d. Consideration of cost of moving and set up in new space;
e. Consideration of cost of parking for employees and external customers;
f. Consideration of location – access to bus line, partner agencies and courts;
g. Consideration of co-locating with other support agencies for greater efficiencies, i.e.
Health Department, Court Services, Mental Health, etc;
h. Consideration of loss of revenue for County/City current space and how current offices
would be utilized; and
i. Consideration of disposition and lost revenue from vacating existing office space.
2. Benefits Package alignment for employees – City DSS employees are currently under the City’s
retirement plan while County employees are under the County/State VRS plan.
3. Information Technology – The two departments use different systems/platforms and have
different levels of support from their IT departments. A determination would have to be made to
go with either the City or County IT support, and may require an increase in staff for that IT
department.
4. Establishing alignment in program differences would cost both localities more money – examples
of this include Companion Services, Family Support and Bright Stars in the County and Foster
Care Prevention services in the City.
5. Standard of Assistance Locality Grouping – The State has a standard used to establish
Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) payments and Medicaid eligibility. The standard is
based on housing costs set in 1973, and at the time Charlottesville was established as a Group III
and Albemarle as a Group II agency. As a result there are differences in TANF payments to
customers (the City is higher) and differences in Medicaid income eligibility standards (the City is
higher). The State will approve a change to align the two departments but will not provide funding
for higher TANF payments or higher Medicaid eligibility unless it is approved by the General
Assembly. Having different standards for customers in a combined agency would result in
confusion for the customer and a fairness issue for the combined agency.
6. Child custody legal requirements – The departments have custody of children based on orders by
their respective local judges. Custody would have to be transferred to the combined agency,
which may be possible through the adoption of a resolution by the Board of Supervisors and City
Council.
7. Outstanding legal issues –If either department has any outstanding legal issues, they would need
to be resolved prior to consolidation or an agreement developed to hold the other locality
harmless in the event of a judgment that goes against the locality.
8. There are requirements of the State Board of Social Services and Virginia Code Section 63.2-
306, which outline the legal requirements and options for consolidating two or more departments
of social services and which are required to be followed.
9. If a consolidation study is initiated, guiding principles for any work group would have to be
established (examples might include no negative impacts to residents, no loss of benefits,
Attachment A
services or programs, no loss of benefits or salary to employees, combined facility, active
participation in design by staff, HPO focus, etc).
10. Governance Structure – There are two types of boards that govern Social Service Departments.
Both the City and County currently have Advisory Boards and would have to agree on a
Management or Advisory Board if there is a consolidated Board.
11. Personnel – the City DSS is a “jurisdiction-wide” organization, meaning that they completely
follow the City’s Human Resource (“HR”) policies including HR management, hiring, recruitment,
classification and pay standards. The County DSS is “deviating,” meaning that it follows most of
the County HR policies and completely deviates in classification and pay standards. The County
DSS follows State hiring, recruitment, standards of conduct, lay off and EEO polic ies, as the State
will not approve local polices as being in alignment with State policies. The determination of a
personnel system for the combined agency may require additional staffing for HR management to
support the combined agency.
12. Finances – the Virginia Code states “Administrative costs of a district board shall be borne by the
participating local governments on the basis of population and caseload with equal weight being
given to each factor or in such a manner as the respective governing bodies provide by
agreement.” (reference # 8 above). The table below provides a snapshot of both budgets and
FTE counts for FY 2010 and FY 2011.
Budget Charlottesville City Albemarle County
FY 10 $14,156,263
FTE 97.375
$12,367,001
FTE 95.2
FY 11 $14,295,792
FTE 99.85
$12,633,700
FTE 100.2
13. Judicial oversight – currently the cases of the two departments are heard in the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations District Court by two different judges with differing philosophies. It is unclear
at this time what the impact of consolidation would mean for this process.
14. A consolidated department would not decrease the legal support required for a combined
caseload.
15. Comparing January –April 2010 Benefit Program applications shows that there are similar
numbers of SNAP (formally Food Stamp) applications but higher TANF applications in the County
than the City.
16. Comparing January – April 2010 Benefit Program caseloads shows that the City has a higher
SNAP and TANF caseload while the County has a higher FAMIS and Medicaid caseload.
17. Comparing January – April 2010 Child Welfare caseloads (foster care, child protection and
adoption) shows that the largest differences are in adoption, foster care and family assessments.
The City has greater adoption and foster care caseloads while the County has a much higher
number of family assessments completed for child protective services.
18. Comparing January – April 2010 Adult Service caseloads shows that the County has a much
higher caseload overall.
19. Comparing January – March 2010 transfer in and out caseloads shows that the County had a
higher number of cases transfer in from the City than transferred out to the City. By far the
greatest numbers of cases affected by transfers are between the City and the County compared
to surrounding localities.
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Board Policy Related to Funding Volunteer Fire/Rescue
Apparatus
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Funding Appeals from Volunteer Fire Rescue Agencies
for Apparatus
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Eggleston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 7, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On March 1, 2006 the Board of Supervisors, by unanimous vote, adopted the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory
Board’s Policy SAP-DEP-007, “Volunteer Funding”, as official policy of the County (Attachment A). In addition to
providing direction for determining eligible annual County funding support for volunteer fire/rescue station operations,
this policy establishes protocol for the acquisition of apparatus to support volunteer fire/rescue departments. The
intent of this action was to ensure that all future capital purchases for volunteer fire/rescue stations would be handled
by the County, prioritized in the Board’s adopted Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and that all such acquired equipment
would be co-titled in the County and volunteer station’s name. Because the Board took this action, and has
subsequently appropriated public funds through its adopted CIP, all apparatus purchased for the system are required
to comply with the Virginia Public Procurement Act (VPPA).
In May 2010, Western Albemarle Rescue Squad (WARS) submitted an appeal to the Board of Supervisors
(Attachment B) for a reimbursement totaling $91,186 for funds it expended to re-chassis an existing ambulance unit,
remove and replace radio systems and recondition a monitor/defibrillator. The procurement of this work was self-
initiated, did not follow the VPPA and the unit is not co-titled to the County.
Also in May, East Rivanna Volunteer Fire Department (ERVFD) requested that the County allocate $75,169 to provide
supplemental resources to match insurance proceeds to enable the Department to replace a Tanker truck totaled
during a recent vehicular accident (Attachment C).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
By June 30, 2014, enhance the safety of the County by improving emergency response times and increasing
prevention activities and services.
DISCUSSION:
The primary issues for the Board’s consideration involving these matters include adherence to previously established
Board policy regarding the purchase of major capital items in the CIP and the need for volunteer agencies to follow
best management practices and maintain up-to-date replacement values for County funded insurance coverage for
apparatus.
The adopted FY2009-10 CIP included an appropriation totaling $165,000 for replacement of Ambulance 504 for
WARS. In the fall of 2009, the Board of Directors for WARS chose to re-chassis and refurbish a 2001 ambulance
instead of purchasing a new unit. WARS presented their proposal to refurbish the ambulance at the October 2009
ACFRAB meeting and ACFRAB concurred with their recommendation. Although WARS was familiar with the County’s
procurement procedures and had just recently engaged with County Purchasing and County Fire/Rescue staff for the
procurement of a WARS command vehicle, WARS opted to not use the County’s procurement process for the re-
chassis work. WARS independently obtained three (3) vendor quotes and subsequently contracted with Southern
Specialty Company to perform the work. In April 2010, WARS submitted an invoice from Southern Specialty to staff
seeking payment of the invoice directly to this vendor. Because the ambulance work was ordered directly by WARS,
without following County procurement procedures, it is not possible for the County to legally pay this invoice. Staff
believes the Board’s 2006 policy was clear regarding the requirement that all purchases follow procurement law and in
co-titling of vehicles. As evidence of this, it is important for the Board to know that numerous major capital purchases
have been made by other volunteer agencies that clearly understood and followed these requirements. In essence,
following these requirements has been a condition of receiving County funding since adoption of the policy in 2006.
AGENDA TITLE: Board Policy Related to Funding Volunteer Fire/Rescue Apparatus
July 7, 2010
Page 2
Earlier this year, ERVFD’s Tanker 26 was involved in a traffic accident and damage to the apparatus was to such a
degree that the County’s insurance carrier deemed it to be a total loss. ERVFD estimates that cost of replacing the
Tanker in-kind will be $395,169. Lee Insurance Company, the firm that the County has retained to provide vehicle
insurance on all co-titled apparatus as well as units purchased exclusively by volunteer departments, has advised that
ERVFD listed the replacement value of Tanker 26 as $320,000. Accordingly, this sum of money is available to offset
the $395,169 cost of obtaining a new Tanker unit, which leaves a balance of $75,169 that ERVFD is requesting from
the County to purchase the replacement vehicle. It should be noted that Tanker 26 was purchased by ERVFD in 1997
and was scheduled to be replaced in fy2014 through the County’s Volunteer Apparatus Replacement Program
included it in its 5-year Capital Improvement Plan. The request for funding is being made because the value of the
vehicle that was totaled was not updated with the County’s insurance carrier. Because this information was not
provided, the apparatus was undervalued and the coverage on the apparatus is not adequate to cover replacement
cost.
BUDGET IMPACT:
To honor the requests of WARS and ERVFD, an appropriation totaling $166,355 is required. While the funding for
the WARS apparatus was appropriated by the Board for FY10, these resources are not available since VPPA
procedures were not followed and the vehicle is not co-titled to the County. In the case of ERVFD, it is possible to
consider realigning the adopted 5 year CIP to accommodate this request.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Because the Board’s 2006 policy, which provided conditions for the provision of capital funds, was not followed by
WARS, staff does not recommend the reimbursement as requested; however, the Board does have the option of
making a one-time cash donation to WARS. Staff is hesitant to recommend a donation because it could be perceived
as establishing a precedent to allow consideration of future requests that fail to follow the Board’s policy. Moreover,
providing a cash donation raises issues for the vast majority of the volunteer agencies that have followed the policy
over the past several years. Should the Board choose to respond by providing funding to WARS, it is staff’s
recommendation that such a donation be made contingent upon WARS co-titling the ambulance with the County prior
to release of the cash donation and a much more extensive and formal policy be established by the Board to clarify
expectations. Staff believes it is vital to establish clear and consistent guidelines with respect to the use of County
funds for the purchase or restoration of apparatus. All purchases should be based on a carefully prepared and
consistently applied fleet replacement policy procured in strict accordance with County and State procurement
guidelines and policies. Specific to this aim, staff recommends that regardless of whether the Board agrees to make a
$91,186 cash donation to WARS that it direct the County Fire/Rescue Chief and Director of the Office of Facilities
Development (OFD), working in conjunction with ACFRAB, to update SAP-DEP-07 and SAP-DEP-026 to clarify, that
County Procurement Policy shall be adhered to whenever any County funding is to be utilized in acquisition or
rehabilitation of apparatus.
With regards ERVFD, staff recommends that the County initiate procurement for the immediate replacement of the
tanker truck in accordance with County policy as well as eliminate planned funding for this vehicle in the out years of
the CIP. It is further recommended that the Board direct the County’s Fire/Rescue Chief, acting in conjunction with the
Director of Finance, as well as representatives of ACFRAB, to establish a policy to ensure that apparatus replacement
values are updated annually. This policy should be formulated based upon best management practices (BMPs) used
by peer jurisdictions that retain and pay for all volunteer apparatus insurance. It shall further establish clearer lines of
responsibility/accountability for ensuring replacement values are kept current. In directing this action, the Board hereby
clearly establishes that it will no longer consider funding replacement value “gaps” arising from volunteer fire/rescue
departments having not updated apparatus replacement values in conformance with this needed policy.
Proceeds received from the insurance company should be transferred to the County prior to executing any purchase
order for apparatus and any required balances being debt financed.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy (March 1, 2006)
B – WARS Appeal Letter (May, 2010)
C – ERVFD Funding Request (May, 2010)
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Approval of the Policy to confirm funding
commitments and system expectations
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Tucker, Foley, Davis, Eggleston
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
March 1, 2006
ACTION: INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
During the February 1, 2006 meeting, the Board approved the proposed Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy with two
modifications that are listed below:
1. Titling of County Purchased Apparatus
The original Volunteer Funding Policy as approved by the Volunteer Advisory Board had suggested that County
purchased apparatus shall be titled in the volunteer station’s name. Based on a recommendation by staff, the Board
approved a change to the proposed policy that would co-title County purchased apparatus in the County and Volunteer
station’s name.
2. Proceeds after the sale of County purchased apparatus
The Board also decided that once a County purchased apparatus is sold at the end of its useful life, the proceeds after
the sale will go back to the individual volunteer department. If the volunteer department originally upgraded the
apparatus being sold, the volunteer department will receive the percentage of the proceeds used for the upgrade to
use at their discretion. The remainder of the proceeds will go back to the volunteer department and must be used to
upgrade the new apparatus.
The Board directed staff to revise the proposed Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy and include the revised policy in the
March 2006 consent agenda for final approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Provide effective and efficient County services to the public.
DISCUSSION:
Attached to the executive summary is the revised Volunteer Fire Rescue Funding Policy that reflects the changes
requested by the Board during the February 1, 2006 meeting. Specifically, sections 5.6 and 5.7 were modified to reflect the
changes outlined in items 1 and 2 above.
BUDGET IMPACT:
No additional budget impacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the attached ACFRAB Volunteer Funding Policy be adopted as official county policy.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: ACFRAB Policy SAP-DEP-007 Volunteer Funding Policy
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Fire Rescue
STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Subject: Volunteer Funding
Reference Number: SAP-DEP-007
Effective Date: 1 December 2003
Last Revision Date: 23 February 2005 – approved by Board of Supervisors
Signature of Approval:
J. Dan Eggleston, Chief
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to outline the funding policies for volunteer fire rescue stations.
Background:
This policy was adopted by the Albemarle County Fire Rescue Advisory Board (ACFRAB) at the November 2003 meeting.
Definitions:
Basic Operating Costs – Basic operating costs include building utility costs, buildings & grounds maintenance,
communications, fire suppression, emergency medical & rescue services, vehicle expenses, admi nistrative expenses,
training, and uniforms.
One-Time Costs – One-time costs include major vehicle repair, hoses, nozzles, ladders, self-contained breathing
apparatus, personal protective equipment & gear, radio purchases, pager purchases, defibrillators, cascade equipment &
compressors, kitchen appliances, rescue equipment, building repairs & improvements (paving, HVAC, etc.).
Policy:
1. Basic Operating Costs
1.1. Annual funding of basic operating costs will be provided as a quarterly contribution to each volunteer station.
1.2. The funding will be based on an annual review by ACFRAB and the County of Albemarle.
1.3. An annual audited report will be provided to the County as part of the annual budget process.
1.4. Future adjustments of budgeted operating costs will be based on an audited history of the previous years.
2. One-Time Costs
2.1. One-time costs should be identified separately from operating costs and will be considered for funding separately
from the annual operating contribution.
3. Consolidated Purchase of Goods & Services
3.1. ACFRAB will strive to consolidate the purchase of goods and services to achieve better pricing. As consolidation
occurs, the line items associated with consolidated goods and services will be eliminated or will reflect the
revised price structure.
3.2. Items to be considered for consolidation include the following:
3.2.1. Long Distance Telephone Service
3.2.2. Fuel Oil
3.2.3. Fuel for Apparatus
3.2.4. Trash Disposal
3.2.5. Linen Service
3.2.6. Radio/Pager Repair
3.2.7. Small Tools & Equipment
3.2.8. EMS Supplies
3.2.9. Vehicle Repairs Outside the County
Vehicle Maintenance Facility
3.2.10. Uniforms
3.3. Foam is provided to stations by the County; thus, no additional funds will be provided for such.
3.4. Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) maintenance is funded by the County; thus, no additional funds will
be provided for such.
4. Loan Payments
4.1. Outside loan payments obtained before 2003 are considered a basic operating cost. Outside loans after 2003
will not be considered a basic operating cost.
5. Capital Expenses
5.1. The County will fund the purchase of emergency vehicle replacement based on an adopte d specification.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Department of Fire Rescue Page 2 of 4
5.2. A Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for emergency vehicle replacement that identifies vehicle replacement
needs will be developed and recommended by ACFRAB according to the regular schedule established by the
County.
5.3. Any variation from the adopted specification will be a cost born by the volunteer station.
5.4. A vehicle fleet size will be established for each volunteer station and will be the basis for replacement of
emergency vehicles.
5.5. A vehicle replacement schedule will be established based on consideration of vehicle mileage, age, and
mechanical condition.
5.6. Vehicles will be co-titled in the County and volunteer station’s name. An agreement will be established with the
County stating that the vehicle will not be sold prior to the end of its us eful life.
5.7. Once a County purchased apparatus is sold at the end of its useful life, the proceeds after the sale will go back to
the individual volunteer department. If the volunteer department originally upgraded the apparatus being sold, the
volunteer department will receive the upgraded percentage of the proceeds used for the upgrade to use at their
discretion. The remainder of the proceeds will go back to the volunteer department and must be used to upgrade
the new apparatus.
Example: Apparatus cost at time of purchase is $200,000. The volunteer department added $20,000 in upgrades
(10% of the total price). The apparatus is sold at the end of its useful life for $5,000. The volunteer department will
receive the upgraded percentage (10% or $500) to use at their discretion. The reminder ($4,500) must be used to
upgrade the cost of the new apparatus.
5.7.5.8. The County will consider participating in the construction or improvement of volunteer stations on a case -
by-case basis.
Master Chart of Basic Operating Costs:
Building Utility Costs
Electricity
Fuel Oil or Gas (for heat, cooking, etc.)
Water & Sewer
Cable TV/DSS: Basic level of cable or DSS using $50 per
month as a budget figure.
Trash Disposal
Buildings & Grounds Maintenance
Building Maintenance (routine HVAC, plumbing, generator
repairs, painting, cleaning supplies, paper products, oil
trap service, etc.)
Grounds Maintenance (lawn care, snow removal,
pavement sealing, etc.)
Building Supplies (cleaning supplies, paper products, light
bulbs, etc.)
Linen Service (only provided for stations with duty crews)
Janitorial Services
Communications
Telephone (land-based) including land-line costs
Mobile Telephone (expense for each front-line apparatus
& two chief officers): Use $40 per month per phone as a
budget figure.
Alphanumeric Pagers (expense for each front-line
apparatus and two chief officers): Use a budget number
of $200 per pager for each front line apparatus and chief
officer.
Front line apparatus includes engines, tankers, brush
trucks, and a first due EMS response vehicle. Although
not further defined by the committee, the volunteer
funding policy implies that ambulances, squads/special
rescue, and first due EMS response vehicles are included
for rescue squads.
Internet Service: Single internet-access point using $50
per month as a budget figure.
Pager Repairs (based on the formula: Number of Active
Members * 20% * $75.) Stations requiring additional
Comment [d1]: New addition to policy
Comment [d2]: Moved this section to the end
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
Department of Fire Rescue Page 3 of 4
funding for pager repair due to age and condition of
current stock will be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Radio Repairs
Fire Suppression
General Supplies (stay-dry, fire-line tape, etc.)
Small Tools (generally, tools and equipment less than
$500)
Maintenance (maintenance and service of portable
pumps, equipment, cascade systems, etc.)
Meals for Duty Crews (allowance for duty crew meals only
provided for stations with duty crews at the cost of $4 per
member per meal.)
One meal per 8 hour shift is to be used as a budget
figure. Although most evening crews are 12 hours, it
usually includes only one meal.
Example 1: one 3-person crew, M-F, 0600-1800 = $60
Example 2: one 3-person crew, S-M, 0600-0600 = $72
Emergency Medical & Rescue Services
General Supplies (generally, cost of disposable supplies)
Small Equipment (generally, tools and equipment less
than $500)
Maintenance (maintenance and service of defibrillators,
etc.)
Vehicle Expenses
Fuel (includes gas & diesel)
Preventative Maintenance (includes funds that were
reimbursed by the County.)
Repairs (Stations shall deduct insurance reimbursements
from repairs to vehicles before declaring repair costs.)
Administrative Expenses
Office Supplies
Postage
Printing
Dues
Professional Services (accounting, etc.) Audit services
only.
Licenses
Training
Training (includes tuition, books, instructor expenses, etc.
estimated by the formula: Number of Active Members *
$120.)
Subscriptions
Travel (includes lodging, meals, and mileage costs
associated with out-of-town training estimated by the
formula: Number of Active Members * $20.)
Uniforms
Uniforms (includes the cost for any station-provided duty
uniforms and dress uniforms for two chief officers based
on the formula: Number of Active Members * $110.)
Some stations may require a one-time amount to outfit
volunteers to a minimum level (e.g. station uniforms such
as boots, pants, tee-shirt, sweat-shirt); then, the $110 per
member will be used as an annual uniform allowance.
Fundraising Expenses
The following costs associated with fundraising are not
included as a basic operating cost: painting & repairs to
space, expendable items for space, janitorial items for
space, office supplies, postage, printing, professional
services, and/or licenses.
Loans Building
Apparatus