HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-7-14Tentative
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
T E N T A T I V E
JULY 14, 2010
6:00 P.M. – LANE AUDITORIUM
COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING
1. Call to Order.
2. Pledge of Allegiance.
3. Moment of Silence.
4. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
5. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
6. Consent Agenda (on next sheet).
7. Appeal of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Decisions
on Singleton (AT&T) Tier II Personal Wireless Facility: ARB-201-002 and SDP-
2010-003. Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel/metal monopole that would
be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the height of the reference tree), within a 20 x 30 foot lease area. This
application is being made in accordance with section 12.2.1. (16) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for Tier II personal
wireless service facilities by right in the (VR) Village Residential zoning district. The site is located on 2856 Morgantown
Road [St Rt 738] approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Morgantown Road [State Route 738] and Ivy Road [State
Route 250]. The property, described as Tax Map 58A1 Parcel 40F1, is 2.089 acres in size, and is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8. Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement for the Meadows
Community Center. To consider leasing to Jordan Development Corporation the Crozet/ Meadows Community
Recreation Building, located at 5735 Meadows Drive, Crozet, Virginia (Parcel 05600-00-00-014B0), for use as a leasing
and management office for the Meadowlands Apartments and as a community center.
9. Oak Hill Sewer Phase 1 Project. To receive comments on the installation of sanitary sewer in the
Oak Hill neighborhood through a Community Improvement Grant.
10. Economic Development Action Plan.
11. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
12. Adjourn.
C O N S E N T A G E N D A
FOR APPROVAL:
6.1 Resolution of intent to amend the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the waiver of standards for private
streets serving 6 or more lots in planned developments under appropriate criteria.
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100714/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 2) [10/1/2020 1:01:04 PM]
Tentative
Return to Top of Agenda
Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page
Return to County Home Page
file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20100714/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 2) [10/1/2020 1:01:04 PM]
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the orderly subdivision and development of land includes requiring a subdivider to
assure that streets are properly designed and constructed for anticipated traffic and to promote public
safety; and
WHEREAS, County Code § 14-412 establishes the standards for private streets and the applicable
standards for private streets serving six or more lots are the public street design standards established by
the Virginia Department of Transportation (hereinafter, the “VDOT design standards”); and
WHEREAS, the VDOT design standards change from time to time and these changes may
discourage a planned development from achieving certain purposes of planned developments identified in
County Code § 18-8.1 including, but not limited to, promoting an appropriate and harmonious physical
development and creative design, when the planned development is built out over a long period of time;
and
WHEREAS, it is desired to amend County Code § 14-412 to allow the standard for private streets
serving six or more lots in a planned development to be waived under appropriate criteria provided that
public safety is assured.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good land development practices, the Board of Supervisors hereby
adopts a resolution of intent to amend County Code § 14-412 and any other regulations of the Subdivision
Ordinance deemed appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on
the subdivision text amendment proposed by this resolution of intent, and make its recommendation to the
Board of Supervisors, at the earliest possible date.
Return to consent agenda
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appeal of Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board Decisions on Singleton (AT&T) Tier II
Personal Wireless Facility.
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of SDP2010-3 and ARB2010-02 to install a 69
foot tall monopole and associated equipment within a 20
x 30 foot lease area. The monopole is requested to be
10 feet above the reference tree.
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham and Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On June 22, 2010 the Planning Commission denied a request to install a Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facility
(“Tier II facility”) with a steel monopole that would be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the height of the
reference tree), within a 20 x 30 foot lease area. The application was made in accordance with section 12.2.1.(16) of
the Zoning Ordinance, which allows Tier II facilities by right in the Village Residential Zoning District. The Planning
Commission denied the application solely based on the technical finding that the Architectural Review Board (“ARB“)
had not issued a certificate of appropriateness for this facility. The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment I)
provides the history and details of the proposal.
Prior to this action, the Board agreed to defer an appeal of the ARB’s denial of the certificate of appropriateness. T he
purpose of that deferral was to allow the Planning Commission to act and have all of the information considered
together by the Board.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
N/A - The County’s new FY 10/11 to FY 12/13 Strategic Action Plan is currently being finalized.
DISCUSSION:
Appeal of the ARB decision under Section 30.6.8
Zoning Ordinance § 30.6.8(c) provides that the Board of Supervisors “may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part
the issuing, the issuing with conditions or modifications, or the denial of the certificate of appropriateness.” In
considering the appeal, section 30.6.8(c) directs the Board to give due consideration to the recommendations of the
ARB together with any other information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal. A certificate of
appropriateness is a certification that a proposed structure and/or site improvements within the Entrance Corridor
Overlay District are consistent with the applicable design guidelines.
The ARB denied the certificate of appropriateness for the proposed Tier II facility because of its visibility from Route
250 West for a relatively short period of time when driving westbound and because the facility’s visibility was not
sufficiently mitigated since the top of the facility was skylighted. However, upon further staff analysis, neither the
zoning regulations applicable to the ARB nor the ARB’s design guidelines provide specific direction as to how the ARB
is to evaluate the visibility of a Tier II facility when considering a certificate of appropriateness. Moreover, the Planning
Commission has been delegated the responsibility for making the relevant determinations regarding the visibility and
the location of Tier II facilities under section 5.1.40(d).
The standards applicable to Tier II facilities under section 5.1.40 establish a number of design standards to reduce the
visibility and visual impacts of a personal wireless service facility. These regulations govern a wide variety of design
issues such as the color of the ground equipment, the screening of the ground equipment and the monopole, the
manner in which antennae are attached to the monopole, the height of the monopole (limited to up to 7 to 10 feet
above the tallest tree within 25 feet), and the location of the Tier II facility on the site. This latter requirement is found
in section 5.1.40(d)(2), which states in relevant part: “The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and
the facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their distance of the
facility.” Some of these standards are further discussed in the context of this proposal in the subsection below
AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Decisions on Singleton (AT&T)
Tier II Personal Wireless Facility
July 14, 2010
Page 2
pertaining to the appeal under section 5.1.40. The standards neither compel invisibility nor prohibit skylighting. Given
the requirements of wireless technology, most Tier II facilities will be visible to some extent. However, the standards
developed for Tier II facilities are a compromise between tall towers, evaluated on a case-by-case basis under a
special use permit procedure and the federal mandate that calls for the rapid deployment of wireless technology.
As noted above, the consideration of these standards has been delegated to the Planning Commission, rather than
the ARB. In its review of the proposed facility under section 5.1.40, staff recommended to the Planning Commission
that the proposed Tier II facility satisfied all of the applicable standards for approval. At its June 22, 2010 meeting, the
Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation, denying the application solely on the basis that the
conditions of the ARB had not been satisfied.
Because the proposed Tier II facility satisfies the governing requirements of section 5.1.40, staff recommends that the
certificate of appropriateness be issued.
Appeal of the Planning Commission decision under Section 5.1.40
The Planning Commission denied the application based on the technical finding that the Architectural Review Board
had not issued a certificate of appropriateness. Per section 5.1.40(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning
Commission can approve an application for a Tier II facility when:
a) Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) are satisfied
b) The applicant demonstrates that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all applicable
provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
c) All conditions of the architectural review board are satisfied
Staff found that the Tier II facility application met the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and would be installed and
operated in compliance with the standards in section 5.1.40.d(1) through (8). Because the ARB had denied the
applicant’s request for a certificate of appropriateness on May 3, 2010 by a vote of 3:1, staff could not recommend
approval of the Tier II facility.
The Tier II facility will not be located in an Avoidance Area, and the lease area is not delineated as a significant
resource on the Open Space Concept Map. The proposed monopole is expected to be visible for a relatively short
period of time at a particular point when traveling west on Ivy Road [State Route 250 west]. Telephone poles, electric
and telephone wires, signs, and buildings also appear in one’s view when descending the hill at Ivy towards the
proposed monopole location. Tier II facilities must be sited to minimize visibility from adjacent parcels and streets. The
applicant will fence and plant trees to limit views from the nearest adjacent property.
The Wireless Policy and Zoning Ordinance aim to mitigate or minimize visual impacts as opposed to making Tier II
facilities disappear from view. The “Java Brown” color of the proposed monopole and flush mounted antennas will
further limit views of the facility. The Wireless Policy states that personal wireless facilities that are well sited will
almost always be less visible, but siting does not guarantee invisibility. Based on the results of the balloon tests, staff
recommends approval of the proposed Tier II facility at 7 feet above the reference tree. The applicant must
demonstrate to the satisfaction of Board of Supervisors that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the
monopole at the proposed height of 10 feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the
reference tree. If the Board of Supervisors chooses to deny the application, it shall identify which requirements were
not satisfied, and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This item has no budget impact
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board take the following actions in the following order:
1. Staff recommends the Board reverse the decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), grant the
certificate of appropriateness without conditions, and clarify that it is the role of the Planning Commission
rather than the ARB to evaluate the visibility of personal wireless service facilities for future Tier II applications.
AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board Decisions on Singleton (AT&T)
Tier II Personal Wireless Facility
July 14, 2010
Page 3
2. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed Tier II facility at 7 feet above the reference tree unless the
applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Board that there is not a material difference in the visibility of
the monopole at the proposed height of 10 feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a height seven (7) feet
taller than the reference tree.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment II: Vicinity Map
Attachment III: ARB March 15th 2010 Action
Attachment IV: ARB May 3rd 2010 Action
Attachment V: March 15th, ARB minutes
Attachment VI: May 3rd, 2010 ARB minutes
Attachment VII: Letter from Mark Graham to Planning
Commission
Attachment VIII: Planning Commission Action 06-22-2010
Attachment IX: Applicants Simulation of proposal
Attachment X: Applicants Simulation of proposal
Attachment XI: June 9th Executive Summary
Return to regular agenda
1
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 2010-3 Singleton
Property (AT&T) Tier II PWSF
Staff: Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner, Brent Nelson-
Senior Planner, ARB.
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
June 22nd, 2010
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
N/A
Owners: Singleton Ann P. Applicant: AT&T, Gerry Sharp
Acreage: 2.089
(Lease Area: 600 square feet)
Rezone from: Not applicable
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Location: 2856 Morgantown Road [State
Route 738] approximately 600 feet from the
intersection of Morgantown Road [State
Route 738] and Ivy Road [State Route 250].
By-right use: VR, Village Residential and EC, Entrance
Corridor Overlay
Magisterial District: Samuel Miller Proffers/Conditions: No
Requested # of Dwelling Units/Lots: N/A DA - RA - X
Proposal: Proposal to install a Tier II
personal wireless service facility. The
proposed facility will consist of a 69-foot
tall monopole and associated
equipment. The monopole will be (10)
ten feet above the reference tree.
Comp. Plan Designation: Rural Area in Rural Area 3
Character of Property: The proposed site is
located on a parcel with an entrance off
Morgantown Road [State Route 738]. The
lease area is wooded and there is an existing
residential structure on the property.
Use of Surrounding Properties:
Single-family Residential Homes
Factors Favorable: Proposal meets the
requirements of Section 5.1.40.a and will be
installed and operated in compliance with
section 5.1.40.d Criteria (1) through (8)
Factors Unfavorable: This personal wireless service facility
has not satisfied all conditions of the Architectural Review
Board.
Recommendation: This proposal meets the requirements of Section 5.1.40.a, and will be installed and
operated in compliance with section 5.1.40.d Criteria (1) through (8), however, Architectural Review Board
conditions have not been satisfied because a certificate of appropriateness for this project has not yet been
approved. A hearing on the appeal of the ARB’s denial of the certificate of appropriateness for this project is
scheduled for July 14th, 2010. Staff cannot recommend approval of this personal wireless facility.
2
STAFF CONTACT: Gerald Gatobu; Brent Nelson
PLANNING COMMISSION: June 22nd, 2010
AGENDA TITLE: SDP 2010-3: Singleton Property – AT&T- Personal
Wireless Service Facility
PROPERTY OWNER: Singleton Ann P.
APPLICANT: Gerry Sharp, AT&T
PROPOSAL:
Request for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel monopole that
would be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the height of the reference tree), within a 20 x
30 foot lease area. This application is being made in accordance with section 12.2.1.(16) of the
Zoning Ordinance, which allows for Tier II wireless facilities by right in the Village Residential
Zoning District.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The proposed site is located on a parcel adjoining the north side of Morgantown Road (State
Route 738), approximately 600’ southwest of the intersection with Route 250. The lease area is
heavily wooded and situated approximately 300’ south of the Route 250 right-of-way. This
section of the Route 250 entrance corridor includes a mix of small commercial businesses, and
patches of mixed hardwood/evergreen forest amongst single family homes. (Attachment B).
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
No planning and zoning history was found for this parcel.
STAFF COMMENT:
Section 3.1 provides the following definitions that are relevant to this proposal:
Tier II personal wireless service facility: A personal wireless service facility that is a treetop
facility not located within an avoidance area.
Treetop facility: A personal wireless service facility consisting of a self-supporting monopole
having a single shaft of wood, metal or concrete no more than ten (10) feet taller than the crown
of the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, measured above sea level (ASL),
and includes associated antennas, mounting structures, an equipment cabinet and other essential
personal wireless service equipment.
3
Avoidance area: An area having significant resources where the siting of personal wireless
service facilities could result in adverse impacts as follows: (i) any ridge area where a personal
wireless service facility would be skylighted; (ii) a parcel within an agricultural and forestal
district; (iii) a parcel within a historic district; (iv) any location in which the proposed personal
wireless service facility and three (3) or more existing or approved personal wireless service
facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle centered anywhere on the ground having
a radius of two hundred (200) feet; or (v) any location within two hundred (200) feet of any state
scenic highway or by-way.
Section 5.1.40(d), “Tier II facilities” states: (Emphasis Added)
“Each Tier II facility may be established upon commission approval of an application satisfying
the requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) and demonstrating that the facility will be installed and
operated in compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
below, and satisfying all conditions of the architectural review board. The commission shall
act on each application within the time periods established in section 32.4.2.6. The commission
shall approve each application, without conditions, once it determines that all of these
requirements have been satisfied. If the commission denies an application, it shall identify
which requirements were not satisfied and inform the applicant what needs to be done to satisfy
each requirement.”
Per section 5.1.40.d above, the Planning Commission can approve each tower application when:
a) Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) are satisfied
b) The applicant demonstrates that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance
with all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
c) All conditions of the architectural review board are satisfied
The Planning Commission shall approve each application, without conditions once it determines
that all of the above requirements have been met.
The applicant has submitted an application that satisfies the requirements set forth in Section
5.1.40(a) and demonstrated that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with all
applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8) shown below. The applicant has not
satisfied all conditions of the Architectural Review Board because a certificate of
appropriateness has not yet been approved.
Several balloon tests were performed at the location of the proposed facility [Attachment C]. On
May 3rd 2010, the Architectural Review Board reviewed this request for compliance with
the County’s design guidelines for the entrance corridor [State Route 250] and denied the
application. [Attachment D].
Section 5.1.40(d)(1): The facility shall comply with subsection 5.1.40(b) and subsection
5.1.40(c)(2) through (9).
Staff has determined that the proposed facility’s location complies with all of the exemptions of
Section 5.1.40(b) and the proposed equipment meets all relevant design, mounting and size
criteria that are set forth in Section 5.1.40(c)(2) and (3). The remainder of subsection (c)
4
provides requirements that are subject to enforcement if the facility is approved.
Section 5.1.40(d)(2): The site shall provide adequate opportunities for screening and the facility
shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets, regardless of their
distance from the facility. If the facility would be visible from a state scenic river or a national
park or national forest, regardless of whether the site is adjacent thereto, the facility also shall
be sited to minimize its visibility from such river, park or forest. If the facility would be located
on lands subject to a conservation easement or an open space easement, the facility shall be
sited to so that it is not visible from any resources specifically identified for protection in the
deed of easement.
The proposed facility includes a monopole that would have a height of approximately 69 feet
above ground level or 662 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is
59 feet above ground level or 652 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and is located within 25 of
feet of the proposed monopole. A balloon test was conducted on February 10th, 2010. The
balloon was flown 14 feet east of the proposed monopole site. Overhead branches prevented the
balloon from being flown at the exact monopole location. The balloon was visible for a distance
of approximately 300’ along the State Route 250 West Entrance Corridor at the proposed
elevation of 69 feet, or 10’ above the top of the reference tree, however it must be noted that as
we drove down the slope towards Ivy and the Exxon gas station, telephone poles, electric and
telephone wires, signs, and buildings also appeared in our view. As a comparison, the balloon
was lowered so that it was only 7’ above the reference tree, or 66 feet. The balloon was visible
for the same distance along the entrance corridor. At both elevations, the balloon was directly
visible along State Route 250 west as one approached the Exxon gas station in Ivy. The balloon
gradually disappeared from view as one drove down towards Duners restaurant and Ivy
Commons on State Route 250 west. The balloon was minimally visible along Morgantown Road.
In an effort to minimize the visibility of the monopole from adjacent parcels and streets and
based on the visibility results of the first balloon test, the applicant decided to conduct a second
balloon test on February 23rd 2010. The balloon was flown to a height of 63 feet (4 feet above the
reference tree), and 14 feet east of the proposed monopole location. The balloon was visible for
the same distance along the entrance corridor as the previous balloon test. At four (4) feet above
the reference tree, the balloon was directly visible along State Route 250 west as we approached
the Exxon gas station in Ivy. Telephone poles, electric and telephone wires, signs, and buildings
also appeared in our view. The balloon gradually disappeared from view we drove down past the
Exxon gas station towards the Ivy Railroad Bridge, Duners restaurant, and Ivy Commons on
State Route 250 west. The balloon was minimally visible along Morgantown Road. The results
of the February 10, 2010 and February 23, 2010 balloon tests were presented to the Architectural
Review Board on March 15, 2010. The Architectural Review Board, by a vote of 4:0, denied the
applicant’s request (Attachment D).
The applicant appealed the ARB decision to the Board of Supervisors, but withdrew the appeal.
A new location 13.5 feet northwest of the proposed monopole location that would simulate a
more accurate representation of the proposed monopole location was chosen as a new launch site
for a third balloon test. A balloon test at this new location had been privately conducted by the
applicant and the results included in the Architectural Review Board appeal to the Board of
Supervisors. Upon recommendation from architectural review board staff, the applicant
withdrew the appeal so that staff could attend a balloon test at the new location cited in the Board
of Supervisors appeal. The project was then referred back to the Architectural Review Board for
5
review and action. To show further effort in reducing the proposed monopoles visibility from
adjacent parcels and streets, the applicant agreed to conduct a third balloon test at the new
location 13.5 feet northwest of the proposed monopole location.
Staff attended a third balloon test on Friday, April 16, 2010. Again, due to existing overhead
branches, the balloon was launched from a location approximately 13.5’ northwest of the
proposed monopole. The balloon was flown to the height of the monopole, 69 feet and 10’ above
the reference tree. The balloon was visible and oriented directly in front of the viewer while
descending the hill on State Route 250 West at Ivy for a distance of approximately 300’. The
balloon was visible in the vicinity of three evergreen trees which appeared to the left and right of
the balloon. Additionally, telephone poles, electric and telephone wires, signs, and buildings also
appeared in our view as we descended the hill at Ivy. The balloon continued to be visible, but to
a lesser degree, as one drove down past the Exxon gas station towards the Ivy Railroad Bridge,
Duners restaurant, and Ivy Commons on state route 250 west [Attachment C]. The balloon was
not visible from other points along Route 250 west. The lease area and associated ground
equipment will not be visible from the entrance corridor or along Morgantown Road. The results
of the April 16th, 2010 balloon test were presented to the Architectural Review Board on May
3rd, 2010. The Architectural Review Board, by a vote of 3:1, denied the applicant’s request
(Attachment D). The applicant appealed the Architectural Review Board decision to the Board of
Supervisors. On June 10th 2010, the Board of Supervisors by a vote of 6:0 deferred the
Architectural Review Board appeal (ARB-2010-02) to their July 14, 2010 meeting
The monopole at the proposed elevation of ten (10) feet above the reference tree will be visible
from State Route 250 west. The Architectural Review Board denied the tower application based
on the degree of visibility at one location along the entrance corridor [State Route 250 west]
(Attachment C). The personal wireless facility must be sited to minimize its visibility from
adjacent parcels and streets. It is important to note that the wireless policy and Zoning
Ordinance aim to mitigate or minimize visual impacts as opposed to making personal
wireless facilities disappear from view. The “Java Brown” color of the monopole and antennas
is expected to further limit views of the facility.
Section 5.1.40(d)(3): The facility shall not adversely impact resources identified in the county’s
open space plan.
The County’s wireless service facilities policy encourages facilities with limited visibility,
facilities with adequate wooded backdrop, and facilities that do not adversely impact Avoidance
Areas. This personal wireless facility is not located in an Avoidance Area. The proposed
monopole is expected to be visible for a relatively short period of time at a particular point when
traveling west on the Ivy Road [State Route 250 west] entrance corridor. The posted speed limit
for State Route 250 west is 35 miles per hour while traveling west towards the proposed
monopole location. The monopole is not visible along other areas of State Route 250 adjacent to
Duners restaurant and Ivy Commons. Similarly, the monopole is minimally visible from most
areas along Morgantown Road.
Staff’s analysis of this request addresses the concern for the possible loss of aesthetic or historic
resources. The proposed lease area is not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space
Concept Map. Staff believes there is no significant loss of resources related to the installation of
the proposed monopole.
6
Section 5.1.40(d)(4): The facility shall not be located so that it and three (3) or more existing or
approved personal wireless service facilities would be within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
There is no existing personal wireless service facility located within an area comprised of a circle
centered anywhere on the ground having a radius of two hundred (200) feet.
Section 5.1.40(d)(5): The maximum base diameter of the monopole shall be thirty (30) inches
and the maximum diameter at the top of the monopole shall be eighteen (18) inches.
Notes on the site plan for this facility propose a monopole diameter not to exceed 30 inches at
the base or 18 inches at the top. These dimensions comply with the maximum width
requirements for treetop monopoles serving Tier II facilities.
Section 5.1.40(d)(6): The top of the monopole, measured in elevation above mean sea level,
shall not exceed the height approved by the commission. The approved height shall not be more
than seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet of the monopole, and
shall include any base, foundation or grading that raises the pole above the pre-existing natural
ground elevation; provided that the height approved by the commission may be up to ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree if the owner of the facility demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
commission that there is not a material difference in the visibility of the monopole at the
proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than the tallest tree; and there is not
a material difference in adverse impacts to resources identified in the county’s open space plan
caused by the monopole at the proposed height, rather than at a height seven (7) feet taller than
the tallest tree. The applicant may appeal the commissioner’s denial of a modification to the
board of supervisors as provided in subsection 5.1.40(d)(12).
As mentioned previously in this report, the proposed monopole would have a height of
approximately 662 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The height of the reference tree is
approximately 652 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). The proposed monopole will be ten (10)
feet taller than the tallest tree within twenty-five (25) feet. Several balloon tests were conducted
in an effort to minimize the visibility of the monopole from adjacent parcels and streets as
indicated above. The wireless policy states that personal wireless facilities that are well sited will
almost always be less visible, but siting does not guarantee invisibility. Based on the results of
the balloon tests, staff would have recommend approval of the proposed personal wireless
facility at 7 feet above the reference tree. The applicant/owner of the facility would have had to
demonstrate to the satisfaction of the commission that there is not a material difference in the
visibility of the monopole at the proposed height of 10 feet above the tallest tree, rather than at a
height seven (7) feet taller than the reference tree. However, because a certificate of
appropriateness for this project has not yet been approved staff cannot recommend approval of
this personal wireless facility. A hearing on the appeal of the ARB’s denial of the certificate of
appropriateness for this project is scheduled for July 14th, 2010
Section 5.1.40(d)(7): Each wood monopole shall be a dark brown natural wood color; each
metal or concrete monopole shall be painted a brown wood color to blend into the surrounding
trees. The antennas, supporting brackets, and all other equipment attached to the monopole
shall be a color that closely matches that of the monopole. The ground equipment, the ground
equipment cabinet, and the concrete pad shall also be a color that closely matches that of the
monopole, provided that the ground equipment and the concrete pad need not be of such a color
7
if they are enclosed within or behind an approved structure, façade or fencing that: (i) is a color
that closely matches that of the monopole; (ii) is consistent with the character of the area; and
(iii) makes the ground equipment and concrete pad invisible at any time of year from any other
parcel or a public or private street.
The applicant is proposing the installation of a facility with a steel monopole. The proposed color
for the tower and equipment cabinets is Sherwin Williams brown paint (Java Brown) to match
existing surroundings.
Section 5.1.40(d)(8): Each wood monopole shall be constructed so that all cables, wiring and
similar attachments that run vertically from the ground equipment to the antennas are placed on
the pole to face the interior of the property and away from public view, as determined by the
agent. Metal monopoles shall be constructed so that vertical cables, wiring and similar
attachments are contained within the monopole’s structure.
A note on the site plan indicates that vertical cables, wiring and similar attachments will be
located inside the monopole.
Section 704(a)(7)(b)(I)(II) of The Telecommunications Act of 1996:
The regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities by
any state or local government or instrumentality thereof shall not prohibit or have the effect of
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.
The Telecommunications Act addresses concerns for environmental effects with the following
language, “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the Commissions’ regulations concerning such emissions.” In order to operate the proposed
facility, the applicant is required to meet the FCC guidelines for radio frequency emissions.
These requirements will adequately protect the public health and safety.
It is staff’s opinion that the denial of this application would not have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless communication services.
RECOMMENDATION: This proposal meets the requirements of Section 5.1.40.a, and will be
operated in compliance with section 5.1.40.d Criteria (1) through (8). A third requirement for
approval, that the applicant satisfy all conditions of the Architectural Review Board, has not
yet been met because a certificate of appropriateness for the project has not yet been
approved. A hearing on the appeal of the ARB’s denial of the certificate of appropriateness for
this project is scheduled for July 14, 2010. Therefore staff cannot recommend approval of this
Tier II personal wireless facility at this time because the Planning Commission can only approve
this application when all of the above requirements, including the conditions of approval of a
certificate of appropriateness have been met.
8
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Site Plan
B. Vicinity Maps
C. Balloon photos at proposed location
D. ARB March 15th and May 3rd 2010 Action
E. ARB March 15th and May 3rd 2010 minutes
F. Letter from Mark Graham (Director of Community Development)
GIS-Web
Geographic Data Services
www.albemarle.org
(434) 296-5832
Lakes and Reservoirs
Major Streams
Other Streams
Overview Roads
Primary Roads
Secondary Roads
Overview Roads - City
Parcels
Ponds
Railroad Bridges
Railroads
Road Bridges
Road Centerlines
Road Centerlines - City
Roads
Roads - City
Tax Map Grid
Y2009 .5-1 ft Orthophotography
SDP2010-3 Singleton Tier II PWSF Aerial Map 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 15, 2010
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
March 19, 2010
Williams Mullen
c/o Kathryn M. Carmichael, Esq.
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Dear Ms. Carmichael:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above-noted item at its meeting on Monday,
March 15, 2010. The Board, by a vote of 4:0 denied the request to construct a treetop personal wireless
service facility with a height of 10’ above the reference tree.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P O Box 58
Ivy Va 22945
Gerald Gatobu, Current Development
File
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 5, 2010
Kathryn M. Carmichael
c/o Williams Mullen
321 E. Main St., Suite 400
Charlottesville, Va. 22902
RE: ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
Tax Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1
Dear Ms. Carmichael:
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board, at its meeting on May 3, 2010, reviewed the above-noted
request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. By a vote of 3:1 the Board affirmed the Architectural Review
Board’s March 15, 2010 decision to deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2010-02, Singleton
(AT&T) Final Review of a Site Development Plan, noting that there was not a sufficient amount of information
or change in information to warrant a change in decision.
This decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors within ten (10) calendar days of the decision.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832 ext. 3272.
Sincerely,
Brent Nelson
Landscape Planner
cc: Singleton, Ann P
P O Box 58
Ivy Va 22945
File
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
March 15, 2010
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, March 15, 2010, 1:00 p.m., Second
Floor, Auditorium, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Bill
Daggett, Vice Chair; Charles T. Lebo, Paul Wright and Bruce Wardell. Fred Missel, Chairman was
absent. Staff members present were Margaret Maliszewski, Eryn Brennan and Brent Nelson. Greg
Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney, was present.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Daggett called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. and established a quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Daggett invited public comment. There being no public comment, the meeting moved to the next
item.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T) - Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan – (Tax Map 58A1,
Parcel 40F1)
Proposal: To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10’ above the
reference tree.
Brent Nelson summarized the staff report.
This is a preliminary review of a telecommunications facility to be located on a parcel adjoining
the north side of Morgantown Road approximately 600 feet southwest of the intersection with US
Route 250. The facility as originally proposed would consist of a 69 foot tall steel monopole with
three antennas all painted Java Brown at a height 10 feet above the 11” caliper Ash reference tree.
One proposed equipment pad and one future generator would be located on the concrete pad
located in the 20’ X 30’ lease area. The lease area is heavily wooded and situated approximately
65’ above and 300’ south of the Route 250 West right-of-way. Access to the site is provided by
an existing paved driveway located within a proposed 20’ wide ingress/egress utility easement.
Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing the applicant AT&T, is present and has
received the staff report.
The ARB staff attended a balloon test on February 4, 2010. The balloon was raised from the
location of the proposed monopole and to the height of the monopole 10’ above the reference
tree. The balloon was highly visible and sky-lit from a section of Route 250 East of the railroad
overpass. The balloon was oriented directly in front of the viewer and visible for a distance of
approximately 650’ while descending down the hill westbound into the village of Ivy. Lowering
the balloon from 10’ to 7’ did not result in a material difference in its visibility. The balloon was
not visible from points along Route 250 west of the site. The balloon’s visibility from points
along Route 250 West adjacent to the site was sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area in
between. That location is directly in front of the Duner’s Restaurant. The lease area and the
associated ground equipment are not expected to be visible.
Due to the balloon’s high degree of visibility at both the 7’ and 10’ elevations the applicant was
asked if reducing the monopole height to 4’ above the reference tree would provide the coverage
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
needed. The applicant indicated that a 4’ height would be acceptable; however, the 7’ or 10’
elevations would be preferable. A second balloon test was conducted on February 23 with the
balloon raised to a height of 4’ above the reference tree. There was not a material difference in
the balloon’s visibility between the 4’, 7’ or 10’ elevations from the section of Route 250 east of
the overpass where it was previously viewable. The balloon continued to be sky -lit and highly
visible.
A photo simulation provided by the applicant, known as attachment D in the report, demonstrates
the high degree of visibility and the sky-lit appearance of this proposal at 4’ above the reference
tree.
The primary issues have to do with:
1. Anticipated visibility of the monopole from the Entrance Corridor; and
2. Impacts, by grading and site design, on the reference tree and other existing trees designated
to remain.
Staff does not recommend approval of the proposed telecommunications facility at the 4’, 7’ and
10’ elevations above the reference tree. If the proposed facility is approved, the following
comments would need to be addressed as outlined in the staff report.
1. Revise all applicable drawings to indicate which type of tree protection is to be temporary,
which is to be permanent and what grading, if any, is proposed. Provide verifi cation from a
certified arborist that the location of the proposed concrete equipment pad, monopole and all
required grading will not harm the existing trees currently designated as remaining. Provide
a tree conservation plan with measures proposed that would limit impacts of this proposal on
all existing trees designated as remaining.
2. Consider replacing the proposed double staggered row of Leyland Cypress trees with
Virginia Red Cedars, 10’ on center, located in an irregular, natural pattern, as permitted by
the limits of the planting area.
Mr. Daggett invited the applicant to address the ARB.
Applicant Presentation:
Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing AT&T, presented a PowerPoint presentation and
explained the proposal.
AT&T is proposing to improve wireless telecommunications coverage in Albemarle County
along Route 250, which is a heavily traveled area as well as a business and residential area.
There are currently locations where customers drop their calls or have no coverage at al l. So
AT&T is proposing this tower in order to provide better quality and reliable service in the area.
The application meets all of the standard requirements contained in the County’s ordinance.
Staff’s recommendations would be addressed at the very end of the presentation. Generally,
AT&T carefully chose this location and went through a number of different evaluations to
determine the location. The location is at the corner of Morgantown Road around Route 250.
She reviewed several photographs taken in the summer when they first evaluated this area to
provide a better idea of the location of the lease area.
The existing driveway will be used for the access route. There will not be any further disturbance
for access. The lease area will be to the right of the driveway. They are proposing, with the
installation of the compound as well as the tower, to remove about seven trees. For the most part
it is a very heavily wooded area and the remainder of the trees is going to stay the same. They
will screen the tower and the compound from both the land owner as well as from the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
neighboring land owner. The application in front of the ARB is proposed for 69’, which is 10’
above the reference tree.
In her PowerPoint presentation Ms. Carmichael reviewed photo simulations from various
locations in both the summer and winter seasons. She explained how the tree coverage in the area
would provide screening to mitigate the visibility of the monopole from Route 250 and several
neighboring properties.
The Wireless Policy for Albemarle County is a compromise system where they traded 200’
towers, which would be visible from more areas, for smaller, less visible towers. But,
unfortunately the way the wireless communications works they cannot make towers invisible.
The towers have to be able to see each other as well as to provide signals in order to provide
coverage to the areas. This is a unique area because the coverage that they are trying to get on
Route 250 is essentially down a hole. The reason this tower is situated where it is, would be to
cover that hole. They cannot make the tower invisible. There are telephone poles right next to
the road that are not screened by trees. The tower is actually screened . They have done a good
job of mitigating the view of the tower by placing it on a heavily wooded area, which also
provides screening for the ground equipment.
The fact that they will see it easier perhaps more than other towers that she has recently brought
before the ARB did not mean that it was not worthy of approval. They can’t always make towers
as short or as invisible as they would like to be. During the winter months there are other trees
around the site including pines and deciduous trees.
As mentioned, they are aware of the concerns of the neighbors to the right of the Singleton’s
property. They met with that neighbor and had discussed planting some landscaping so as to
mitigate their view. There also will be a fence around the compound that will help mitigate the
ground equipment visibility.
In a display she noted the holes in coverage along Route 250 for building and vehicle coverage
used by consumers, which was the coverage they are trying to provide. In street coverage it
basically means that they will have to be standing outside their vehicl e or out of the building on
the street in order to get a signal. In a small area along Route 250 there are three holes that they
are covering. With this tower being built they will gain significant coverage so that Route 250 is
fully covered in buildings and vehicles. They also cover roads that are primarily residential along
Owensville and Morgantown Roads as well as Martha’s Way. Even on Owensville Road and
along the first part of Morgantown Road there is limited to no coverage for AT&T.
She spoke specifically to how this location was chosen. AT&T always first looks to other
buildings that are already built or other towers in the area. In this particular circumstance there
was nothing that worked to cover the area. They approached St. Paul’s Church with a request to
co-locate as they have an Intelos facility in their steeple. Unfortunately, there was not enough
room for AT&T to locate equipment in the building. Therefore, the church was not willing to let
AT&T go in their church facilities. The next best option was this property. They feel this
property meets all of the requirements, provides their coverage and is a good option. They
certainly looked first at buildings in other areas.
In addressing staff’s concerns regarding tree protection they will provide an arborist’s report.
There was a suggestion that a Red Cedar could be used instead of the proposed Leyland Cyprus ,
which they are amendable to. She suggested that Holly or something similar might work. They
are open to the ARB’s suggestions. She stressed that the technology does not allow for towers to
be invisible and they feel that this site is as mitigated as it possibly could be. She would be happy
to answer questions.
Mr. Lebo asked staff if the base of the tower is far enough back so that it will not be visible from the road.
Mr. Nelson replied that the base or ground equipment would not be visible from the road.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 4
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Daggett invited public comment.
Jim Soffit, resident of 2850 Morgantown Road, noted that he appreciates what Ms. Carmichael said about
trying their best to mitigate the scope of the tower. In order to keep this brief he would speak for a
number of his neighbors who were unanimous in opposition to this project on several grounds. They
have collected a number of signatures from County residents concerned about this since this tower request
is not limited to just the intermediate neighbors. They certainly feel that the proposed monopole would be
a very bad idea and recommended its rejection for the following reasons.
1. The first is what they see before the ARB. They have their own photographs taken during the
balloon test at both the 69’ and 63’ height, which demonstrate that this is going to be a radical
change in the sight lines particularly from the western approach on Route 250, but also from
the neighborhood. He felt that speaks for itself in terms of the impact that this is going to
place along the Scenic Route 250 Corridor.
2. The other issue is in regards to the houses being concentrated very closely along Morgantown
Road. Both Mr. Gibson’s and his property share the driveway with Ms. Singleton at 2856
Morgantown Road. The tower is pretty close in the middle of a residential neighborhood and
not something that is simply removed as one is driving in along Route 250. While the base
itself may not be visible further off, it would certainly be visible in the winter months from
2850, from his upstairs and the Gibson property. During the summer Virginia Power did
some pruning along the road that removed a lot of the vegetation that covered up the
driveway to 2856. That is the area where the main power lines run up to the back of the home
and along Morgantown Road. This created a thinned out look in that area prior to the balloon
tests.
3. Generally from an architectural standpoint this is a historic neighborhood where all of the
immediate houses across Ivy Depot Road and along Morgantown Road, except two, were all
built before 1900. Owners such as himself take enormous pains in compliance with the
County’s recommendation that he received when he purchased the house to keep the property
original and to spend a great deal of care in maintaining the historic nature of the Village of
Ivy. To place this type of tower dead center in not only any residential district, but one of this
age, is something they think is a terrible idea. For those reasons and the sight lines they
oppose the request.
Trevor Gibson, resident of 2852 Morgantown Road, said that he moved in about a month ago and found
this request very surprising. He passed out photographs taken from his house from various rooms. This
is a residential neighborhood and not a commercial area. The lots are one and two acre lots. The tower
location simulation is nice, but they all know that in the spring, winter and fall there is no vegetation on
the trees. There is only vegetation on the trees for about seven months of the year and not nine or ten
months. The proposed tower location is in the middle of the residential neighborhood and would have
negative effects. The tower will be considerably visible from everywhere in his yard and from many
other places along Route 250 including the Duner Restaurant. Ms. Singleton does not live on the
property. He would not talk about diminished property value. The proposed monopole would have a
significant impact on sight lines, visibility and the history of the neighborhood. Bringing the c ity out to
the Ivy area is very frustrating. AT&T may have some issues along that way, but they do have some
coverage because his father has been out there and does have some coverage. He and most of his
neighbors are on other networks. In conclusion, he opposed this tower.
Amy Viligente, resident of 2930 Morgantown Road, said she had AT&T. She has been monitoring the
coverage and occasionally drops coverage under the railroad track. She has coverage at this point and
only drops coverage occasionally. It is not as bad as the simulation showed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 5
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
There being no further public comment, Mr. Daggett closed the public hearing to bring the matter before
the ARB.
Board Discussion:
Mr. Wright said that he understood the views from the homes from looking at the pictures. But, legally
he is not allowed to use those in his consideration and can only consider the view on the Entrance
Corridor. The view going west coming into Ivy on Route 250 is a long view and will be seen for quite
some time. Referring to two photographs provided, he noted that long view is what made it unacceptable.
If it were just a brief view for a second or two, he could understand it. He had not seen a cell tower in a
long time that is this prominent visually for such a long period of time . The view coming into Ivy is
prominent for a long period of time. He would be able to see this literally for 30 to 40 seconds, which
makes it unacceptable. The base and how it is seen from the neighbors is not unimportant, but it does not
override that one view. For that one view he could not see the ARB’s approval of the request today.
Mr. Lebo agreed with Mr. Wright. When he first saw this application he thought that the tower would
just be a few feet above the trees and not be visible for a very long period of time. After seeing the
photographs he agreed that this is too large of a project for that area.
Mr. Wardell noted that one speaker referred to Ivy as a historic village. He was unaware of its
designation.
Ms. Maliszewski said that it was not a nationally registered district, but it has historic properties in it. She
did not know if there are any historic properties in the intermediate area that are individually listed on the
National Register list. That also does not mean that they would not be eligible if that work had been
done.
Mr. Wardell noted that this was something that staff might be able to provide. It would be interesting to
see if there was a comprehensive study of that area in terms of what options they have for providing
coverage. He questioned if this just happens to be somebody that is willing to provide a site. He asked to
see a technical study of what other options they have. He had similar kinds of visual concerns, but was
not sure that they could not be overcome. He did not think that view is a significantly offensive view in
terms of the monopole. He would like to see what other options there are. He asked if the applicant has
any information that would help them there.
Ms. Carmichael replied that she could briefly address that. As mentioned this is a small area of coverage
they are trying to get. So the search ring for where they try to find locations for land owners who are
willing is quite small in this area specifically because of the topography of the area. They approached St.
Paul’s Church. They also sent letters to some of the adjacent land owners. She believed Mr. Soffit did
receive one of the letters. Obviously, in this circumstance as soon as they find a property that works with
a willing land owner they stop searching. They were the only ones in the area who were a willing land
owner. Again, because of the topography it is a unique situation where even though there are sites across
the street on the more commercial side, it does not work to cover the area. The higher elevation is what
helps to cover the three areas. Otherwise, they would have multiple poles in the area. As Mr. Nelson
mentioned the visibility was about 650’, which was less than ten seconds where the monopole is seen at
the view he was concerned with. Obviously, the monopole is visible at the bottom at the Exxon Station.
But, it is a short period of time when going the speed limit along that road. She asked that the ARB keep
that in mind.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 6
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Lebo noted that some of the neighbors reported that if they had Verizon or other users that they seem
to have a strong signal. He asked if AT&T might be able to rent a portion of one of the other provider’s
cell tower so they would not need an extra one.
Ms. Carmichael replied that the engineers looked at that at the very beginning. There is no t ower in the
area that AT&T could co-locate on that would get the signal strengths to the area that they were looking
at. Just because Verizon coverage gets to Route 250 their signal strength might be able to reach longer
than what AT&T’s signal would. There is nothing in the area to co-locate on in order for AT&T to fill
those three holes. The simulation provided for the propagation maps showed the coverage, although it
had been mentioned that there are certain areas that do drop the call such as specifically underneath the
bridge. Those are definitely holes. The information provided as to where the holes are is actual
information and not simulated information. They are trying to provide reliable coverage where someone
does not drop a call. That is the whole point.
Mr. Wardell said the most offensive components of this are components that they don’t have under their
jurisdiction. The view from 250 he did not find as a terribly offensive view. If it were a historic district
and they had some control in the historic district, he finds the small views in the introduction of this kind
of facility into this neighborhood more problematic than the view of the monopole from the sky line out
on the street. But, the ARB does not have that jurisdiction. The frustrating thing in this is when he sees
their photographs of what it does to the neighborhood he feels that it is really nasty. When he sees the
view from the highway it is only ten seconds of that which he does not find overly offensive.
Unfortunately, the most distress that this installation would create is something that the ARB does not
have a jurisdiction over.
Mr. Wright felt that the view for ten seconds is wildly optimistic traveling at regular speeds on the road.
He felt that it was a much longer view than that. This tower would be significantly higher above the trees
than anything the ARB has approved in a number of years. It seems to make a mockery of the ten foot
rule. It is ten foot on one side, but it is not ten foot on the side that matters . With the view from the
Entrance Corridor being his purview, he felt that it was going to be very hard to tell the next person yes
that they just did it in this case. He also thinks that a lot of time they never hear if they dropped this down
to a level at which it would conform to what they look at in terms of tree tops. He asked if it would be 80
percent, 60 percent or 50 percent of what they are looking for. It is not his job to make sure that they
have 100 percent of the signal that they are looking for. It is his job to protect the view first and foremost.
He has approved a number of these towers. In fact, they automated this project so they would not have to
do this. But, this request was kicked out of that process for excellent reasons that are substantiated by
photos and by staff.
Mr. Wardell noted that he has only been on the board for a short period of time. He asked if this is in fact
significantly a worse condition than others that have come through before.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that there are very few if any that staff has brought to the ARB and not
recommended approval of or approval with conditions. Therefore, she would say yes.
Mr. Nelson noted that there is one thing that makes this a little bit different, which is the orientation of the
view. One does not have to look to the left or right, which has been the case a number of times before.
Mr. Daggett pointed out that during his time on the board it has been the case where it has not been in the
major sight line of the road, or if it is it was trapped in the visual clutter of the trees. He agreed with Mr.
Wright that because of the way one enters Ivy and the prominence of this view the fact that it is dead
center and sticks out from the trees as far as it is that even at 4’ there was no material difference. He
agreed this particular location is not one that this County needs to encourage for its Entrance Corridors.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 7
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
There will be other locations as they have to look for if this does not pass. But the idea is to place these in
a location where it is not visually disturbing along the Entrance Corridor. It might be measured at ten
seconds, but if one gets the slightest stop in traffic they could be sitting there looking at it for quite some
time. Given what he has seen and the experience that they have had in tower locations normally being off
to the side so that one almost has to strain to find them, he opposed the request.
Motion: Mr. Wright moved for denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2010-02, Singleton
(AT&T) Final Review of a Site Development Plan.
Mr. Lebo seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0. (Missel absent)
Mr. Gatobu pointed out that he was the planner for this project and just wanted to let the neighbors know
that the request will be going to the Planning Commission on April 6th.
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion of tree issues: On-site/off-site protection
Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney, discussed off-site tree issues with the ARB. Mr. Kamptner
reviewed the EC Guidelines that pertain to trees and surrounding character and the parts of the EC se ction
of the zoning ordinance that relate to landscape and buffering. It was clarified that grading and buffering
in a proposed development can be addressed by the ARB if maintaining the character of the corridor
requires it.
EC ZTA: Update
Staff updated the ARB on the status of the EC zoning text amendment, noting that the BOS asked to have
the categories of the county-wide Certificates added to the text of the ordinance, and indicating that staff
would bring to the April 5 ARB meeting some proposed re visions to the list of categories and to the
benchmarks the ARB previously recommended for those Certificates. Staff further noted that they would
be working on a reformatting of the EC Guidelines to renumber the text for easier reference in staff
reports and at meetings.
Staff Reports: Email to ARB?
Staff asked the ARB if they would like to have staff reports sent to them via email. Mr. Lebo and Mr.
Wright said they did not require the email version. Mr. Daggett and Mr. Wardell said they would like to
have the reports emailed. Mr. Wright suggested that the staff reports be made available on line at the
County’s website.
Sign Handout:
Staff presented a handout including twelve photos of freestanding signs in the Entrance Corridors to be
used as examples of designs approved by the ARB. In consensus, the ARB made the following
comments:
1. All of the images need explanatory captions, especially the Southland sign.
2. Remove the McDonald’s sign.
3. Because they are similar, choose the Riverside or Holly Memorial Gardens sign, and remove the
Hess sign.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 8
3-15-2010 DRAFT MINUTES – SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL
4. Because they are similar, choose the Harris Teeter sign or the Chrysler sign.
5. The animal hospital, BMW and Village Green signs are good examples.
6. The lack of planting at the bases is troublesome.
7. Glenwood isn’t complete.
8. The Wachovia sign looks austere.
Brownsville Fence: Security fence
Regarding the proposed security fence around the basketball court at Brownsville Elementary, the ARB
confirmed that the proposed fence without the top rail in the darker green color would be acceptable.
Approval of Minutes: January 19, 2010 and February 16, 2010.
Motion: Mr. Lebo moved for approval of the minutes of January 19, 2010 and February 16, 2010 as
submitted.
Mr. Wright seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.
Other issues from the Board:
1. Mr. Lebo noted that the Sam’s Club railing had been repainted.
2. Mr. Wright noted that the utility enclosures at the Shops at Rio Road still were not revised to meet the
ARB’s approved design. He also noted that one enclosure is left open a significant amount of time.
3. Mr. Wright suggested that ordinance updates be conveyed by email rather than in hard copies.
Next ARB Meeting: April 5, 2010
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:27 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on April 5, 2010 in Room 241, Second
Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m.
Bill Daggett, Vice Chairman
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 1
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
May 3, 2010
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board met on Tuesday, May 3, 2010, 1:00 p.m.,
Room # 241, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were Bill Daggett, Vice Chair; Charles T. Lebo, Bruce Wardell and Fred Missel,
Chairman. Paul Wright was absent. Mr. Wardell arrived at 1:03 p.m. Staff members present
were Margaret Maliszewski and Brent Nelson.
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Missel called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Missel invited public comment. There being no public comment, the meeting moved to the
next item.
REGULAR REVIEW ITEMS
ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T) - Preliminary Review of a Site Development Plan – (Tax
Map 58A1, Parcel 40F1)
Proposal: To construct a treetop personal wireless service facility with a height of 10’ above the
reference tree.
Brent Nelson summarized the staff report.
The applicant proposes to establish a telecommunications facility consisting of a
proposed steel monopole painted java brown 69’ tall, with a height 10’ above the top of
the 11” caliper Ash reference tree in a 20’ x 30’ lease area located on a parcel adjoining
the north side of Morgantown Road approximately 600’ southwest of the intersection
with Route 250 West. The lease area is heavily wooded and situated approximately 65’
above and 300’ south of the Route 250 right-of-way.
Balloon tests for this proposal were conducted on February 10, 2010 and February 23.
The results of both tests were presented to the ARB at the March 15, 2010 review. The
Board, by a vote of 4:0, denied the request. On March 18, the applicant requested an
appeal of the ARB’s decision. An April 5, 2010 letter submitted by the applicant in
support of the appeal referenced another balloon test (conducted on March 31) which
staff had not been invited to view and at which the balloon was flown from a new
location approximately 13.5’ northwest of the proposed monopole location.
With that new information it became evident that the location from which the balloon
was flown in February was also not the proposed monopole location, but approximately
14’ east of the monopole. In each of these tests, it was overhead tree branches at the
location of the monopole that did not permit a balloon launch directly from the monopole
location. The applicant’s April letter states that the launch location for the March test
more accurately represents the proposed location of the monopole as viewed from the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 2
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
westbound lane of Route 250 while descending into the Village of Ivy. That view was the
problematic view in the ARB’s previous review of the proposal.
Staff explained to the applicant that it would not be useful or efficient to present
information to the Board of Supervisors that the ARB had not yet reviewed, so the
applicant agreed to conduct another balloon test that could be attended by staff, using the
March 31 balloon location. That test was performed on April 16 and was attended by
staff. Due to existing overhead branches the balloon was launched from a location
approximately 13.5’ northwest of the monopole location and to the height of the
monopole 10’ above the reference tree. The balloon was highly visible , sky lit and
oriented directly in front of the viewer while descending the hill for a distance of
approximately 350’ westbound into Ivy. The balloon was visible in the vicinity of three
evergreen trees, which appear to the left and right of the balloon and which did not
provide a wooded backdrop for the balloon. The balloon continued to be visible but to a
lesser degree for another 300’ while westbound on Route 250.
The balloon test did not replicate the balloon location shown in the applicant’s photo
renderings from their March 31 test due to the breezy conditions that day with the balloon
consistently appearing to the right, or north, of the location in the photo renderings. The
balloon was not visible from points along 250 west of the site and the balloon’s visibility
from points along 250 adjacent to this site were sufficiently mitigated by the wooded area
between the site and the Entrance Corridor just as in the February balloon test. The lease
area and the ground equipment are not expected to be visible from the Corridor.
Due to the inability to reproduce the March 31st test results it was suggested that the
applicant provide a drawing demonstrating that the balloon location and the resulting
photo rendering was based upon the launch location witnessed by staff on April 16th and
that it was a more accurate representation of the view of the monopole from the
westbound lane of Route 250, the view that was problematic for the ARB’s previous
review. That drawing was provided; it shows the launch locations used for the February,
March and April tests, the proposed monopole location and two evergreen trees that
appear to the left and right of the balloon in the field and in the photo renderings. Those
trees are located to the east of the proposed monopole and are off-site. The drawing does
appear to verify that the balloon location shown in the photo renderings is an accurate
representation of the view of the proposed monopole location viewed while traveling
westbound into Ivy.
The applicant maintains that visibility of the proposed facility is sufficiently mitigated
due to its proximity to existing evergreen trees that appear to be off -site evergreen trees
located on the Sofka property, 2850 Morgantown Road, east of the proposed site.
Whereas, the applicant’s photo rendering does demonstrate that the monopole would rise
between two of these trees, helping to reduce the pole’s noticeability, the small number of
trees and their off-site location is an issue. Typically, off-site vegetation is not relied
upon for mitigation of a proposed development in an Entr ance Corridor due to the lack of
control over off-site resources. However, the ARB has given consideration to off-site
screening for wireless proposals when the number of trees was significantly larger,
creating larger masses of tree canopy and typically an adequate wooded backdrop. This
proposal has no wooded backdrop as viewed from the Route 250 West hill and the
mitigation for this view is provided by only two or three off-site trees. The Entrance
Corridor guidelines specific to this review and how the y are addressed in the proposal are
listed in your report.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 3
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Staff cannot support the proposed monopole due to the degree of visibility as the viewer
descends westbound into Ivy and due to the lack of on-site mitigation. Should this
application be approved as currently proposed the issues relating to grading and tree
protection listed in your report should be addressed.
Staff reviewed the materials on display, which included drawings, photographs and photo
simulations of the various balloon tests.
Mr. Missel invited questions from the ARB. He asked for clarification regarding the
photographs and photo simulations that corresponded to the March 31st balloon test and which
photographs represented the most accurate view from the westbound lane leading into Iv y.
Mr. Nelson provided clarification regarding the photographs and photo simulations and indicated
that the photographs and photo simulations from the March 31st test appear to represent the most
accurate view.
Mr. Missel asked if the reason this view was chosen is due to this being the most significant view
of the monopole.
Mr. Nelson replied that is correct. The monopole is not visible west of the site on Route 250 and
is sufficiently mitigated from the section of Route 250 adjacent to the site, as demonstrated by
the photo taken from Duner’s Restaurant.
Mr. Lebo stated that he viewed the balloon test and asked who else did. Mr. Daggett indicated
that he also viewed the balloon test.
Mr. Missel invited the applicant to address the ARB.
Applicant Presentation:
Kathryn Carmichael, with Williams Mullen representing AT&T, presented a Power-Point
presentation. She noted that her colleague, Valerie Long, was present. She thanked the ARB for
reviewing the application in light of the additional information they have provided.
She started out with a big picture overview with a note on why these facilities are treated
within Albemarle County not as utilities, but treated separately as a wireless facility
subject to the Wireless Policy and the Wireless Ordinance in the County Code. The
standard applied in the staff report by the ARB is incorrect in that they applied the
standards to review a utility and not the standards of the Wireless Policy.
The County Board of Supervisors, when they adopted the Wireless Policy, it was based
on the fact that wireless facilities could not be made invisible, which is why the Wireless
Policy speaks of mitigating the view, limiting the visibility and not making facilities
invisible. The way you mitigate the visibility is through design and siting.
Referencing a photo, she stated that Albemarle County made a policy decision that they
wanted towers to be painted brown, flush mounted, treetop facilities, narrow at the top,
and be no taller than 10’ above the reference tree so as to avoid things like this. In
numerous locations in the Wireless Policy it references minimizing visibility for facilities
where limited visibility is encouraged and that the County would approve those
applications that comply with the adopted plan’s policies and ordinance and deny those
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 4
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
that don’t. The ARB’s role is to confirm that the application before them meets the
design criteria, which this application does.
Numerous balloon tests were conducted on this site. The first two balloon tests were in
March. Those photo simulations were provided at the first hearing. During the last
hearing there was one viewpoint that was the most discussed because that is the one view
where you can see the very top of the tower. In the rest of the views from the Entrance
Corridor, you actually cannot see the tower. As a result of this one view that the ARB
decided to focus on, AT&T met and reevaluated the coverage objective area. During that
time they noted that the balloon location because of the tree coverage over the proposed
tower area, they had to fly the balloon off to the side. It was noted that off to the side
view, which was 14’ off, could have had an impact on the actual perspective from the
photo simulations that they provided. As a result, for their own purposes to see if it had
any impact at all, on March 31 they flew the balloon at the more accurate location to
provide a more accurate perspective from the Entrance Corridor. To their surprise even a
small shift in the location provided a change in the simulation, with the tower getting
closer to the adjacent pine trees.
At Brent’s recommendation they provided an exhibit that showed camera location #1,
which is the furthest to the right, about 1,500’ away from the actual tower location.
Camera location #1 is from the first balloon test done in March. Camera location #2 is
basically where the second photo simulation is from, which is about 1,200’ away from
the site. They think the trees that you are seeing, the pine trees that are located near the
top of the tower, are the ones on the Sofka property. They did not go on the Sofka
property to confirm that those are the trees, but they believe those are the pine trees that
are of question. It is a heavily wooded area. There are significant other trees in the area
as well as on the applicant’s property.
The previous simulated view from 250 is, again, from about 1,500’ away from the tower.
The next view is when they moved for a more accurate perspective. The very top of the
tower is the only part that is visible, and it is visible for a very short period of time. She
took a video of the location with the last balloon test to show that the balloon was only
visible for about nine seconds. Unfortunately, they had some technical difficulties and
she was not able to show the video. She emphasized that it was a very short period of
time, less than nine seconds, and that only the very top of the tower is visible. There was
more than 50’ of the tower mitigated by significant tree cover that is located both on and
off of the applicant’s property.
To address the staff report issues - first the wireless facility is not a utility. The
applicants are tasked with minimizing and mitigating the impact, which they have done
through careful design, siting, and location. This is not new development and they are
not required to comply with historic architecture. This application complies with the
design guidelines that are listed in the Wireless Policy and the Wireless Ordinance. The
proposed development is sensitive to the existing landscape in that it is a tree top facility
no higher than 10’ above the reference tree. It is painted brown, has flush-mounted
antenna and only 18” diameter at the very top of the pole. Again, it is only the very top
of the pole that is even visible from that one vantage point. Applying the standards in the
staff report, no wireless facility would ever be approved. The monopole does not
significantly alter the vista of this area.
She reminded the ARB again what the Wireless Policy indicates as visually intrusive –
guy towers, shiny metal poles, and facilities as shown at the beginning of the presentation
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 5
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
that would be visually intrusive and substantially alter the vista. A flush mounted tree top
brown facility is not visually intrusive.
Another point made by staff is that the applicant is relying on two or three pine trees
located off the site for mitigation. This point is actually inaccurate in that there are over
30 trees on the property in the surrounding 200’ of the site that were surveyed and in the
plan provided. Again, it is only the very top part of the pole that is near the pine trees.
The rest of the entire pole is mitigated through trees that are located on site.
To summarize, as was recognized by the County early on, wireless facilities cannot
remain invisible. Antennas must be visible at the top of the pole and extend above the
height of the trees in order for the signal to be effective. The way wireless works is that
the signal has to bounce off of the other antennas in the area. So in order for the facility
to work they have to be able to communicate with the adjacent facilities. Failure to have
a tower have its antennas visible renders it entirely useless and prevents the federal right
of wireless carriers to provide coverage. They can’t make them all invisible and cannot
always make them as well hidden as they have with other AT&T sites. It is a matter of
relative visibility.
The application is entirely compatible with the Entrance Corridor and is sensitive to the
landscape in that it is a brown pole with limited diameter, flush mounted antenna and
within a forest of trees. Compared to all the other telephone poles, signage and the
railroad bridge right next to the road, which are not screened at all by trees, and the
relative short distance that this monopole is visible along 250, which is nine seconds
while driving the speed limit, the limited visibility is mitigated by its design. The
vantage point that they are focusing on here is the very top of the facility that is visible.
Again, that has to be visible in order for this tower to work. The ARB Design Guidelines
do not contain any provisions which prohibit a wireless facility from being visible from
straight on or for any period of time from the Entrance Corridor. She offered to answer
any questions and expressed appreciation for the ARB’s consideration of this application.
Mr. Missel invited questions.
Mr. Daggett noted that in March the question was asked if there were other sites that had been
considered. He recalled that the answer was that once they found a willing property owner their
search stopped. He asked if there was still a potential there that there are other sites available
other than this site.
Ms. Carmichael replied that the answer back then was they did look at other sites. They always
look at co-location on other buildings. They looked at a church and although there was an
antenna in the church they were not able to fit within that steeple. So they ended up at this
location. When they went back to reevaluate to look at this balloon test and decided to do one in
another location, they did look at other possibilities in the area. This is the site that provides the
best coverage as the most minimized visibility that will provide the reliable coverage that is
required along 250.
Mr. Daggett noted that he felt that was important for Mr. Missel to hear that answer.
Mr. Wardell reiterated that she said it provides the best performance and it is the least visible of
the other sites that they considered. He asked if that was what she said.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 6
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Long clarified that there are a number of other locations where it might work and where
there is probably adequate tree screening, but the land owners were not willing to enter into a
lease agreement. It is a challenge to find a site that meets all of the necessary criteria and works
to provide the coverage they need or to have the necessary tree screening and an existing access
road that does not require cutting down trees. The way the process works is that AT&T has a
site acquisition specialist similar to a real estate agent who goes out and looks at map s to try to
identify areas where it might work. The site acquisition specialist identifies the area on aerial
photographs. Then letters are sent, phone calls made and personal visits to land owners to make
proposals. Often they might go to 15 or 20 land owners and only 2 or 3 will be interested.
Therefore, they work with those 2 or 3 to figure out which is the best location that provide the
best options from a zoning perspective, engineering perspective, screening and so forth. Of
those willing land owners they were able to work with this is the one that provided the best out
of all of those. The church would have been a wonderful opportunity if there was room in their
steeple which there wasn’t. We even approached them about having a treetop facility like this in
the woods behind the church which might have provided better screening. We don’t know
because they would not even let us come out and do a quick simulation.
Noting that they’d seen the shifting of the balloon 10’ one direction or the other, Mr. Missel
asked if there might be a location either within the lease area or somewhere on the parcel that
might be 10’ to the right or left that would be hidden by the evergreen tree and therefore less
visible.
Ms. Carmichael replied that they have to stay within the confined restriction area from that
reference tree. Based on their analysis there are no other likely locations that would be any
better. They have to make sure it stays near the reference tree.
Ms. Long noted that they went through a reanalysis after the March ARB meeting and denial,
pulled out the plans and revisited the site to see if there was anywhere they could move this.
Could they move it a few feet so that it would be behind the pine tree? If it was behind the Pine
tree it probably will not work. If the antennas can’t been seen from 250 it is not going to reach a
car or person that is driving along 250. That is a critical element. It has to be visible and have a
line of sight. She noted that they were restricted by the power lines , critical slopes in the back of
the site and setbacks from adjacent properties. They cannot cross the power lines with the cranes
and other equipment required to construct this proposal. They also tried to stay away from the
residences and meet the setbacks.
Mr. Wardell asked if locations other than St. Paul’s Church had been explored.
Ms. Long indicated they had looked at a number of other locations but none of them had willing
land owners. It is a challenge.
This is a difficult hole in coverage to fill. Because the monopole is only visible from this one
location for such a short period of time in one direction they felt they could mitigate the visibility
as long as the pole is brown and met all of the design requirements of the Wireless Policy. They
felt it was a site worth pursuing even though it did not have a wooded backdrop. It could be seen
for 9 seconds while westbound into Ivy. It could be seen from Duner’s only in the winter
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 7
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
months. They feel that in totality it is a site worth pursuing. They feel very strongly that the site
meets the design criteria of the Wireless Ordinance. As Ms. Carmichael said, if all sites have to
be invisible no site would ever be approved because they can’t function that way. It is a standard
that is not realistic for this type of technology. It is not the standard that the Wireless Policy
contemplates being a part of.
Mr. Missel asked staff to answer a question. It was mentioned about a utility rather than a
wireless policy and also confusion about mitigation rather than visibility. He asked staff to speak
a little about that in terms of how they communicated that in the staff report and how they should
focus on those issues.
Mr. Nelson replied that the Wireless Policy speaks about mitigating the appearance of the
facility. Staff believes that adequate wooded backdrop is one of the primary reasons that you get
mitigation in a facility. They lack any backdrop in this view under discussion here today. It is
not sufficiently mitigated, in staff’s view, in appearance.
Mr. Missel reiterated from staff’s standpoint it is not an issue of being invisible, but it is an issue
of judging mitigation.
Mr. Nelson replied yes, for that portion of the facility.
Mr. Wardell asked if staff has access to the language of the ordinance that covers the
telecommunication facilities. That is important because of the reference cited in the staff report.
The Entrance Corridor Guidelines state that mechanical equipment and above ground utilities
should be screened to eliminate visibility from the Entrance Corridor. He asked what the
ordinance says that covers telecommunications.
Ms. Maliszewski noted that the Wireless Policy talks about the degree of visibility. The
Entrance Corridor Guidelines do say eliminate visibility, but the ARB has never applied that and
that is not what is being suggested here. There are dozens of wireless applications that the ARB
has considered and they never said that it has to be invisible. The ARB has always taken into
consideration the fact that the policy is trying to go for monopoles rather than the really tall ones,
ones that are treetop sites. As Brent Nelson suggested, the wooded backdrop often helps with
that mitigation. What they are saying here is the degree of visibility is not sufficiently mitigated
in this case at the top of that hill going down into Ivy.
Mr. Wardell asked for reference if it would be possible to pull up the language of the Wireless
Ordinance that talks about visibility.
Ms. Long replied that in the Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy that was adopted by the
Board of Supervisors in 2000 there are numerous references throughout in terms of mitigation.
On page 60, it says a personal wireless service facility that scores high in the visibility scale need
not be rejected if the visual impact can be mitigated in one of the following ways.
The first is camouflage, which requires minimal changes to the host structure that is often
described in the context of what they call co-location. That would be attaching it inside a
church steeple or to a water tank, for instance, or changes to the host structure or the
wireless facility site setting to accommodate the wireless service facility. Treetop towers
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 8
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
are a form of camouflage. It talks about other methods as well. It talks about concealment
within the side of a structure, like a church steeple or disguise to change the appearance.
Treetop towers are a form of camouflaging a facility so even if it is visible it is not
excessively visible. It is not like some of the earlier slides of a giant 200’ tower 50’ to
100’ above the tops of the trees and helps it blend in. It is all about the design.
Throughout this policy it discusses the fact that they can’t be invisible in all cases. So
you have to mitigate the visibility in some fashion. Treetop towers are one way. It talks a
lot about the design standards, such as to make sure it is a brown pole with the cables
inside with flush mounted antennas being no taller than 10’ above the reference tree. So
they meet all of those criteria.
The Wireless Ordinance itself is in Section 5.1.40 of the Zoning Ordinance. That makes
these wireless facilities essentially a by-right proposal in every zoning district as long as
they meet the design criteria, the things she’s mentioned, plus some others. One is to
make sure that the trees appropriately screen the facility. Another is to make sure to
meet setbacks. Those are the critical ones. They have been working hard to make sure
they meet all of those criteria. There is no question that they meet those criteria. It is just
a matter that in their opinion about what the scope of review is here today.
They contend that the scope is does this facility meet the design criteria in terms of
visibility. It is about relative visibility. They think that they have mitigated the visibility
primarily through the design of the structure, but also through its careful siting and
location. They put it near the reference tree. When viewed from this one location they
can see it for only a brief period of time. It is really in between a little gap between lots
of evergreen trees. Those trees appear to be off-site, but there are a number of other trees
on site that also provide screening and mitigation.
Mr. Wardell asked if this is the key passage in the ordinance about visibility.
Ms. Maliszewski replied that is the Wireless Policy. It is not the ordinance.
Ms. Long pointed out that the ordinance does not really speak to visibility. It says for a Tier II
facility this is what the plans have to show: what the standards are and the procedure for
submitting for review.
Mr. Wardell said that the language in the ordinance is important as opposed to language in the
introduction of a policy because the ARB is bound by the things actually in the ordinance.
Mr. Gatobu pointed out that he was the planner in charge of this project. They had asked about
the ordinance. After the request comes to the ARB it has to go to the Planning Commission.
The question was what the zoning ordinance information is to that document, which is more like
the policy that guides this document. He has to do an analysis from Section 5.1.40 based on that.
Most of what Ms. Long said is correct. He has to look at the visibility in terms of mitigating it.
If the Planning Commission chooses to deny the request, they have to tell the applicant how they
can actually fix it. They can’t just say it is denied. In cases where they don’t have anything he
as the planner can only say 7’ above the reference tree. The Planning Commission listens to the
applicant for the additional 3’ to make it 10’. So under his purview he can only say yes he is
recommending denial based on these criteria for approval at either 7’ or 10’ and then the
Planning Commission works on that. But, yes there are issues about mitigation in terms of the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 9
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
color, the wires have to be run inside the pole, it has to be 30” at the base and 18” and flush-
mounted at least 12” in terms of the distance from the pole itself. He looks at all of that and
whether the base equipment is visible from anywhere else. That is how his review goes. But he
has to tell the Planning Commission that the ARB either denied or approved the request.
Mr. Lebo asked if the base equipment would not be visible from the Entrance Corridor, and Ms.
Maliszewski replied that it would not.
Ms. Long clarified that this is called a policy, but it is technically a component or piece of the
Comprehensive Plan. From their perspective it is their “Bible” or guiding document of what
they plan and use. The ordinance in Section 5.1.40 is basically implementing this
Comprehensive Plan component. She hoped that would help explain the relationship between
the two.
Ms. Maliszewski noted for further clarification that they don’t disagree about that at all. What is
at issue is that staff thinks for that portion of the view coming down the Corridor from the top of
the hill they don’t feel that it is sufficiently mitigated and the applicant does. That is basically
what it comes down to.
Mr. Missel invited public comment.
Jim Sofka resident of 2850 Morgantown Road, passed out two photographs taken from the
February test. He was speaking for himself and a number of his friends and neighbors in that
they were sort of surprised to have this go forward again because it does not appear that much
has changed. He made several points, which he would reiterate for the record:
1. This is very high in the sky line and visible on the Entrance Corridor (Route 250) in their
view.
2. It is very close to adjacent houses in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
3. Most of the houses that surround it, except two, were built in the late 19th century. It is a
very historic district in terms of its character, but not formerly an historic district under
state law.
4. From his understanding the ARB has full jurisdiction over this because of the Entrance
Corridor issues.
Mr. Sofka noted that the front of his house is surrounded by four evergreen trees. In the
photograph distributed he circled the two Hemlocks which are referred to in the staff report.
Those two trees are the highest on the skyline and suffer from a blight that has been killing the
trees on the eastern seaboard. At a significant cost he gets the trees pruned and sprayed annually.
The problem is that it is not 100 percent effective. He would hate to lose the trees. The trees are
within 15’ of the house. If the sprays are ineffective the trees will have to co me down
immediately due to the safety issue given the proximity to the structure. If the Board wishes they
have an open invitation to come and visit the property to view the trees. He would be happy to
provide a statement from his arborist along with receipts for the treatment of those trees
certifying that they are in fact diseased. If those trees are no longer there, that is going to make
that pole stand out even more along the skyline. Again, he has no intention of removing them.
Remember this is a 25 year lease and it is very possible that those trees will be gone by the time
that lease expires. He asked that his comments from March 15th be entered into the record.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 10
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Missel asked if he saw the recent photos. He said he was the April 16 photos.
Trevor Gibson, resident of 2852 Morgantown Road, said that his concern was that there has not
been an actual balloon float from the actual location. The reason there has not been a balloon
float from the actual location is because there is too much tree branch coverage, which is part of
the 30 trees, with six trees being above the 12’ to 15’ in that intermediate area. In order to
conduct a proper balloon test from this location it is his opinion that the tallest tree will have to
be removed. When they looked over the original balloon test it was noted that it would not be
easy to cut that tree back. The trees in that area are being choked by ivy. The trees are not
healthy in that area. Many of the trees are losing branches and dying. As Mr. Sofka mentioned
most of the trees in that area are over 100 years old and, unfortunately, many of these trees are
starting to die. He reiterated that they have not seen an accurate balloon test. From the balloon
test we were invited to, you can see that it will be very visible from the Entrance Corridor. He
was concerned with the precedent this may set. The windy conditions at the last balloon test
made the results very inaccurate. He felt that the balloon was visible for more than nine seconds.
He opposed the request due to its visibility from the Entrance Corridor.
Phil Beaurline, resident of 2962 Morgantown Road, submitted photographs. He noted that he
was unaware of the last balloon test and was unable to take a picture of it. He pointed out a very
accurate overlay of the current vegetation on top of his original photographs #1 so they could see
the effect of some of the vegetation. He noted that was in the 4’ above the reference tree and not
the 10’. The balloon diameter is about 3’, which he had based all of his scale representations on.
In drawing #2, he noted that the north arrows were not the same as the sketch and the aerial
photograph. He had to rotate the sketch to match the north arrow of the aerial photograph, and
then superimposed the line of sight onto the drawing so they could see how the line of sight
relates to the two different balloon test locations. It goes basically right in between them. At the
scale as shown on that drawing, it is less than a balloon width difference as far as the viewer’s
point of view. The balloon shifted 18” or less given that there was no wind during the
photograph. He pointed out that the second balloon test really was immaterially different in his
opinion. From the problem location, the Entrance Corridor, it is the same. The two balloon tests
really are not different. Regarding the point of accuracy, looking at the 3/31 photo, the balloon
test location is slightly south, or to the left, of the point of view line and the older balloon test is
slightly to the north. On the inset drawing it is the opposite. So somebody screwed up when
they transferred the information. The two balloon drawings do not agree. Mr. Missel asked if he
was pro or con. He said he opposed the request; it is a bad idea.
Amy Vigilante, resident of 2930 Morgantown Road, said she was surprised they were here again
since it was denied last time. They were not invited to the last balloon test, but there appears to
not be much of a difference. In the past balloon test they had it at 69’, which looks like what
they are proposing. When they lowered it to 64’ you could see no difference from the Corridor.
It was based on the evergreen trees, which appear to be on the Sofka property. She felt that the
location could also be seen from other places such as Owensville Road as well as 250, and from
her neighborhood. It was very close to her neighborhood. She had never received any letters
and felt they could find another spot with more research.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Missel closed the public comment to bring the
matter before the ARB for discussion.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 11
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Lebo stated that he didn’t attend the first balloon test but he did attend the second balloon
test and felt that someone would really have to be looking for the monopole to see it. While
driving on Route 250 he felt that one would really have a difficult time looking for the monopole
because of the traffic and other clutter in the area. There are two gas stations, utility poles with
wires, VDOT signs and train tracks. There are so many other things going on that you would
really have to be looking for the monopole. The question is whether monopoles are really that
ugly or inappropriate. He felt that was in the eye of the beholder. They are not as obtrusive as
the larger poles demonstrated on some of the slides. The monopole was pretty well hidden
except for the 8, 9 or 10’ of it. At this time he did not have any problem with the monopole
based on the fact that there is so much clutter going on in Ivy to begin wi th that you would have
to be looking for the monopole to find it.
Mr. Missel asked how long he was able to see the balloon, and Mr. Lebo replied that it was
visible for nine seconds while he was driving in his car.
Mr. Daggett said that he attended the balloon test. He timed its visibility for a little longer at
around 14 seconds, which was from the time he first caught the balloon in his eye until he almost
got down to the bridge when it disappeared in the treetops. The issue is the visibility. While
there is a lot to look at, if someone looked up at this balloon test it was purely sky-lit. How that is
going to look when it is a monopole he did not know. But it was clear that the balloon was sky-
lit and it is pretty much right in the center of the view. Coming down the hill the balloon was
almost level when he first saw it. He had to look up more and more as he drove further down the
hill but it was visible for a period of time. He thought this was what the ARB focused on last
time. The applicant acknowledged that the ARB focused on this view. Of course, the ARB
focused on this view because it is sky-lit.
He reiterated, as the ARB did in their first discussion, that the issue was what they can judge
from the Entrance Corridor. While they appreciate the neighbor’s concerns over some of the
other circumstances involved with this, they have to look at it from the Entrance Corridor only.
He found it to be very sky-lit. In his experience on this board everywhere else that they have
approved monopoles, and most have been approved pretty easily, they are usually off to the side
of the road and not dead center in the view for any length of time at all. When the monopoles
were off to the side of the road they are generally in amongst trees to the extent that as one looks
up at them there is tree coverage behind them. He thought that this was what struck him about
this.
Seeing the balloon test in reality in three dimensions and seeing it in photographs are two
different things. Seeing the balloon test in reality is much clearer. Given the language the ARB
has to deal with the question is if it is mitigated. The fact that it is fully sky-lit makes it so that it
can’t be mitigated. Most, if not all, of the towers the ARB has approved during his tenure have
had foliage and trees behind them. The monopoles were not seen sticking up and sky-lit. The
ones that were sky-lit, staff always asked that the monopole be brought down so it could be in
that camouflage of trees surrounding, and this is not. He felt this was inconsistent with what they
have previously approved as mitigated visibility.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 12
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Wardell said during the presentation he looked at this almost ignoring the pine trees. When
looking at the site plan he felt that the pine trees had to be ignored because of their distance from
the site and how little control they have over that. Once the pine trees are gone what they
basically have almost a relatively consistent top of the tree line. This photograph shows the pine
trees on either side of the telephone pole. If the pine trees are gone they have a relatively
consistent top of the tree line coming across. That is the thing that disturbs him the most. Not
knowing much about the engineering of wireless, this little hole in coverage is probably the
toughest nut to crack around our region. He understands the difficulty they are having in finding
a site that actually covers that area. But he was not sure he would feel right depending on the
pine trees and visualizing that treescape without the pine trees. Without those pine trees he
thought that it does have a visual interruption of that landscape that he finds exceeds what would
be acceptable. Being relatively new he did not know what other scenarios they have or have not
approved. He was basing it on that observation.
Mr. Missel said that he could basically understand everything that had been said. He thanked the
public for showing up and speaking to this. It is all very helpful. He confessed that he did
expect a few members of the public to stand up and say they do business in this area and
absolutely need to have coverage and are tired of calls being dropped. They did not hear any of
that. That is interesting.
He looked at this from the subjective and objective sides, as they do everything else. From the
objective side he felt that there are still a lot of gaps or questions that are kind of loose. One
would be the balloon location. They see what difference it means to move the balloon 10’ to the
right or the left. They still do not have a location that is actually right where the pole is going to
be. So he did not know how much difference it was going to make when the balloon is actually
floating in that area.
The second issue deals with the conflict on whether other sites have really been looked at. He
believed the applicant that they have looked for other sites. He heard at one point that if this one
does not work there is going to have to be two or three other sites. On other sites they have run
into that with other pole options as well. They have said that two or three other purely mitigated
sites are better than one that is sky-lit and very unmitigated.
Another thought he had that sort of falls under the objective is have the changes that have been
represented today been significant enough to really reverse a decision that occurred back in
March. He was not at the meeting and did not have the benefit of that discussion, but what he
has read about in the staff report and heard today it seems that the answer to that is no. Ther e
really is not anything substantially different than what they saw before. One of the things that
strengthened that is the angle of the view.
Next, the time span of 9 to 14 seconds in a day is not a whole lot of time, but if it is a very
important location and the people are very interested in their viewshed and take it very seriously.
He sees the point that there are existing unsightly other facilities there, such as signs, everything
else, utility poles, etc., but they have to look at today and what they are seeing and whether that
will contribute to the unsightliness.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 13
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Lastly, he agreed with the concept of this being a uniform line and that having those evergreens
was very much unknown. If the height of the tower was somehow lower than the evergreens and
they were not relying so heavily on those, then they have a reasonable way to say that this is
either not as backlit as it appears to be or it is mitigated better. The subjective is a shorter list,
but he thought that it should be. In this sense he thought that the objective outweighs the
subjective in the fact that it is not being mitigated to the level that it should be.
Mr. Wardell asked, ignoring the pine trees, how much higher would the tower be than the
hardwoods immediately adjacent to the tower.
Mr. Nelson replied that the tower would be 10’ above the reference tree, which is the one 25’
from it.
Mr. Wardell asked if the reference tree is typical of the height of the top of those trees. In the
tree diagram it had 662’ with the reference tree being at 595’.
Mr. Missel noted that was the ground elevation.
Mr. Wardell asked what the top of that was, and Mr. Missel replied 652’.
Mr. Nelson pointed out the crown elevations of the surrounding trees.
Mr. Wardell noted that it was 10’ above that. That tree is a participant in the horizon of the top
of the trees.
Ms. Long clarified that even during this time the hardwoods were not leafed out. Mr. Sofka’s
photograph is actually quite helpful. If you look carefully behind the balloo n and behind the
evergreen trees the limbs of the hardwood trees can be seen and the fact that they are not leafed
out. She thought that it demonstrates probably the one that is to the right of the balloons, slightly
lower, may well be the reference tree. It is hard to know for sure. There are trees back there
other than the evergreen trees. She thought that the evergreen trees may very well block the
deciduous trees. In the summer months when these trees are leafed out it would probably be a
backdrop. It may not be a perfect full wooded backdrop, but it would have some trees. There
are trees back there, which can be seen by the limbs of the trees. She clarified the poi nt that it
was not entirely sky-lit. During the winter months when the trees are not leafed out the trees
would not be seen as much.
Mr. Daggett noted that about the top ten feet was sky-lit. The reference tree is ten feet below the
top of the pole.
Ms. Long noted that even in this photograph one can see that essentially right between the two
circles another deciduous tree is visible by its branches.
Mr. Wardell said if that is the reference tree and the balloon is 10’ above that, then the generic
tree line is 15’ to 20’ below the balloon.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 14
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Ms. Long pointed out that brings us back to the Wireless Policy, which is the governing rule,
The Wireless Policy permits monopoles to be 7’ to 10’ above the tops of the trees for that very
reason. The monopoles have to be above the trees in order to function.
Mr. Daggett noted that he understood that.
Ms. Long said that there were a few comments made during the public comment period that they
would like an opportunity to respond to if the board would allow. There were a few things stated
that were not quite true that they wanted to correct for the record.
Mr. Daggett noted or that they would like to take objection to.
Ms. Long noted that there were a few things that were not quite true that they wanted to clarify
for the record.
Mr. Missel said since the public hearing was closed that they would hold off on that.
Ms. Long noted that they could possibly submit a letter.
Mr. Missel noted that they have the right to appeal.
Motion: Mr. Daggett moved to affirm the vote of the ARB at the March 15, 2010 meeting to
deny the Certificate of Appropriateness for ARB-2010-02, Singleton (AT&T) Final Review of a
Site Development Plan, noting that there was not a sufficient amount of information or change in
information to warrant a change in the decision.
Mr. Missel noted that before the vote was taken he wanted to make sure that staff would provide
the additional documents submitted today to the applicant.
Mr. Wardell seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 3:1. (Mr. Lebo voted no. Mr. Wright was absent.)
OTHER BUSINESS
Screening Fences: Discussion
The ARB discussed design criteria for screening fences and made a number of comments and
suggestions regarding materials (vinyl could be an issue), colors, scale/proportions, location,
compatibility with the development, the need for planting, transitions, connection to the building,
maintenance/durability. It was suggested that guidelines for screening fencing should be
articulated such that an applicant has a reasonable chance of knowing when they’ve met the
guideline. Staff will draft some guidelines based on the conversation and bring the draft back to
the ARB for further review.
EC ZTA: BOS public hearing May 12, 2010
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD - PAGE 15
5-3-2010 FINAL MINUTES
Staff reminded the ARB that the EC zoning text amendment would be heard by the BOS on May
12.
Approval of Minutes: April 6, 2009, May 4, 2009, April 4, 2010 and January 4, 2010
Motion: Mr. Wardell moved for approval of the minutes of April 6, 2009; May 4, 2009; April 4,
2010 and January 4, 2010 as submitted.
Mr. Daggett seconded the motion.
The motion carried by a vote of 4:0.
Sign Roundtable: Staff told the ARB that a roundtable had been scheduled for May 13 to
discuss changes to the sign ordinance.
Next ARB Meeting: May 17, 2010
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 2:46 p.m. to the next ARB meeting on May 17, 2010 in Room
241, Second Floor, County Office Building at 1:00 p.m.
Fred Missel, Chairman
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning
Boards)
1
FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission Meeting of June 22, 2010
AGENDA ITEM/ACTION
FOLLOW-UP ACTION
1. Call to Order.
Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
by Mr. Loach. PC members present
were Mr. Morris, Mr. Loach, Chairman;
Mr. Franco, Mr. Smith, Mr. Lafferty and
Mr. Zobrist, Vice Chairman. Absent was
Ms. Porterfield. Ms. Monteith was
present.
Staff members present were Claudette
Grant, Gerald Gatobu, Megan Yaniglos,
Bill Fritz, Mark Graham, Amelia
McCulley, W ayne Cilimberg, Sharon
Taylor, and Greg Kamptner.
2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for
Public Hearing on the Agenda.
None
Clerk:
No action required
3. Consent Agenda
Approval of Minutes
January 19, 2010
APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a
vote of 6:0.
Clerk:
Finalize minutes for signature
4. Public Hearing:
SP-2009-00030 Greenbrier Emergency
Animal Hospital (Sign # 25)
PROPOSED: Request to amend SP 91-52
to extend veterinary services clinic hours
and expand the space in the existing
building on the site. No residential units
proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 61W, Section 1, Block
A, Parcel 5
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio
(Claudette Grant)
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SP-2009-
00030, by a vote of 6:0, with the conditions
recommended in the staff report as noted in
Attachment 1.
Clerk:
Action Letter – SP-2009-00030 will go before Board
of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a
recommendation for approval with the conditions
recommended in the staff report as noted in
Attachment 1.
6. ZMA-2008-00003 Albemarle Place (Signs
# 58, 65, 67)
PROPOSAL: Rezone 64.694 acres from
Neighborhood Model (NMD) zoning district
which allows residential (3 - 34 units/acre)
mixed with commercial, service and
industrial uses to Neighborhood Model
Clerk:
Action Letter – ZMA-2008-00003 will go before
Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined
with a recommendation for approval provided that
the outstanding issues on the proffers and the Code
of Development are clarified between staff, the
applicant, and the City before it goes to the Board
2
(NMD) to amend the original proffers; and
rezone 0.3404 acres from Commercial (C-1)
retail sales and service uses to
Neighborhood Model (NMD) with the
proffers.
PROFFERS: Yes
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061W0-03-00-019A0,
061W0-03-00-019B0, 061W0-03-00-02300,
061W0-03-00-02400, 061W0-03-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(Claudette Grant)
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF ZMA-
2008-00003, by a vote of 6:0, provided that
the outstanding issues on the proffers and
the Code of Development are clarified
between staff, the applicant, and the City
before it goes to the Board of Supervisors.
(Attachment 2)
RECOMMENDED APPROVAL, by a vote of
6:0, modifications to Section 4.15 of the
Zoning Ordinance regarding signage based
upon the findings in the staff report.
(Attachment 2)
of Supervisors as noted. (Attachment 2)
Action Letter - By a vote of 6:0, the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the
modifications to Section 4.15 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding signage. The modifications
will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date
to be determined. (Attachment 2)
7. REGULAR ITEMS:
SUB-2010-00049 Nydrie Farm
The request is for preliminary subdivision
plat approval to create 26 lots on a total of
408.37 acres. Associated with this request
is a request to allow private streets. The
properties, described as Tax Map 120-
Parcel 16, Tax Map 120- Parcel 16G, and
Tax Map 120- Parcel 16H6 are located in
the Scottsville Magisterial District at the
intersection of Esmont Road [Route 715]
and Green Mountain Road/ Porters Road
[Route 627]. The Comprehensive Plan
designates the properties as Rural Areas in
Rural Area 4. (Megan Yaniglos)
APPROVED SUB-2010-00049, by a vote of
6:0, for approval of the private street
request with the conditions as
recommended by staff. (Attachment 3)
Clerk:
Action Letter – SUB-20100-00049. Approved
private street request with the conditions
recommended by staff. (Attachment 3 –
Recommended Conditions of Approval)
Does not require BOS approval.
3
8. SDP-2010-00003 Singleton Tower
The request is for approval of a treetop
personal wireless service facility with a
steel/metal monopole that would be
approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the
height of the reference tree), within a 20 x
30 foot lease area. This application is being
made in accordance with section 12.2.1.
(16) of the Zoning Ordinance which allows
for Tier II personal wireless service facilities
by right in the (VR) Village Residential
zoning district. The site is located on 2856
Morgantown Road [State Route 738]
approximately 600 feet from the intersection
of Morgantown Road [State Route 738] and
Ivy Road [State Route 250]. The property,
described as Tax Map 58A1 Parcel 40F1, is
2.089 acres in size, and is located in the
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The
Comprehensive Plan designates the
property as Rural Area in Rural Area 3.
(Gerald Gatobu)
RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF SUB-2010-
00003, by a vote of 6:0, based on the
technical ground that the ARB has not
approved the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Clerk:
Action Letter – SDP-2010-00003. Denial based
on the technical ground that the ARB has not
approved the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Note: The applicant can appeal SDP-2010-
00003 to the Board of Supervisors within ten
days of the decision.
9. Old Business
None
Secretary:
None
10. New Business
Staff will develop formal guidelines for
site plans and subdivisions on providing
information to the Planning Commission
received after the submittal dates and
the staff report has gone out.
NO MEETING ON JUNE 29 AND JULY
6, 2010
NEXT MEETING ON JULY 13, 2010
Secretary:
None
11. Adjourn to July 13, 2010, 6:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17
p.m.
4
Albemarle County Planning Commission
June 22, 2010
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, June 22,
2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire R oad,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice-Chairman; Ed Smith, Thomas
Loach, Chairman; Don Franco and Calvin Morris. Linda Porterfield was absent. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present.
Other officials present were Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Megan Yaniglos, Senior Planner; Gerald
Gatobu, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning
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.
SDP-2010-00003 Singleton Tower
The request is for approval of a treetop personal wireless service facility with a steel/metal monopole that
would be approximately 69 feet tall (10 feet above the height of the reference tree), within a 20 x 30 foot
lease area. This application is being made in accordance with section 12.2.1. (16) of the Zoning
Ordinance which allows for Tier II personal wireless service facilities by right in the (VR) Village
Residential zoning district. The site is located on 2856 Morgantown Road [State Route 738]
approximately 600 feet from the intersection of Morgantown Road [State R oute 738] and Ivy Road [State
Route 250]. The property, described as Tax Map 58A1 Parcel 40F1, is 2.089 acres in size, and is located
in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. The Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Rural Area
in Rural Area 3. (Gerald Gatobu)
Mr. Gatobu presented a PowerPoint presentation on SDP-2010-00003, Singleton Tower and summarized
the staff report. The request is for approval of a personal wireless service facility. The proposed location
is in Ivy next to Duner‟s and Ivy Store.
Tonight there are two actions for the Planning Commission to take.
Planning Commission Action:
I. Deny the application on merit: The Planning Commission can deny the application based on
information presented today, but must identify the requirements that were not satisfied by the
applicant [apart from the ARB not granting a certificate of appropriateness], and inform the
applicant what needs to be done to satisfy each requirement.”
II. Technical Denial: The Planning Commission would have approved the tower, but because the
ARB has not granted a certificate of appropriateness, the PC has to deny the tier II tower
application.
• B) Defer the application (with input from the applicant).
Staff wants to present and make sure what they see in terms of visibility on what the tower looks like.
There are three balloon tests that were conducted for this site. The staff report details the three balloon
tests in terms of how many and why. It was all in trying to make sure that they can minimize the visibility.
The aim here is not to make the tower disappear, but the aim is to minimize visibility.
He explained the photographs taken of the balloon tests in the PowerPoint presentation. In the
photograph coming down the hill going towards Crozet the balloon is v isible directly in front. He
explained the applicant‟s photo simulation of the tower that showed what the tower would actually look
like compared with the other photographs. He noted the reference tree where the monopole is supposed
to be. There has been an issue to make sure that the balloon is raised at the actual monopole location.
In most cases it is not possible because of the tree branches would actually bust the balloon and they
would have to keep doing it. Therefore, they tried to move it to a location that would actually simulate the
balloon for the monopole location to the best of their ability. Staff took pictures in February along
5
Morgantown Road. The neighbors have their own photographs. They can all look at all of the
photographs and judge in terms of visibility what the tower would look like.
The applicant is required to meet several subsections. There is a criterion that is going to be used. The
applicant has met subsection 5.1.40.a, which is the application itself that includes s ubmittal of a plat, the
owner‟s name and the power-of-attorney that they have been granted permission to put the tower in that
location. The applicant has met that criterion. The applicant has to meet subsections 1 through 8, which
ties into it being flush mounted. The monopole itself will have the wires run inside. It has to be brown in
color. The applicant has agreed to put up a fence around the lease area as well with some additional
landscaping. It has to be painted a java brown color to match the location and make sure that it is not
visible from anywhere within the Morgantown area or Ivy area. The applicant has done that. It is flush
mounted. The base diameter will be 30” and the top will be 18”. A tree conservation plan has been
provided in terms of being able to maintain the trees as they are.
Staff reviewed the renderings in terms of the visibility. There are some evergreen trees that are in the
neighbor‟s property. From what the ordinance says there is a 200‟ radius at least for which t hey have to
maintain the trees as they are. Both the evergreen trees are located on a neighbor‟s property and not
within the 200‟ range. They provide the coverage at least to make sure one cannot see it in terms of the
pictures presented. Those are the pine trees that are providing at least the limited visibility in terms of the
balloon test itself. There will be discussions about that. Staff will open it up at this point.
The applicant met requirements of subsection 5.1.40.a. The applicant has demons trated that the facility
will be installed and operated in compliance with the provisions of criteria (1) through (8). What they don‟t
have is that they have not met the requirements of the Architectural Review Board. These are the three
things the Planning Commission usually needs to be able to say definitely yes they can approve this. The
applicant does not have a certificate of appropriateness . The Planning Commission can deny the request
based on the issues that are before us in terms of the pictures. Several neighbors are present to speak.
Per section 5.1.40.d above, the Planning Commission can approve each tower application when:
1. Requirements of subsection 5.1.40(a) are satisfied
2. The applicant demonstrates that the facility will be installed and operated in compliance with
all applicable provisions of this chapter, criteria (1) through (8)
3. All conditions of the architectural review board are satisfied
Recommendations:
• This proposal meets the requirements of Section 5.1.40.a, and will be insta lled and operated in
compliance with section 5.1.40.d Criteria (1) through (8), however, Architectural Review Board
conditions have not been satisfied because a certificate of appropriateness for this project has not
yet been approved. A hearing on the appeal of the ARB‟s denial of the certificate of
appropriateness for this project is scheduled for July 14th, 2010. Staff cannot recommend
approval of this personal wireless facility.
However, had it not been that the ARB had disapproved it staff would have proposed approval at 7‟ and
it is upon the applicant to demonstrate that there is no material difference between the 10‟ and the 7‟. In
this case the Planning Commission would be making that decision in saying they don‟t see any difference
between 10‟ and 7‟ and then they would approve it at 10‟.
Mr. Loach invited questions from the Commission.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the balloon test was at 10‟.
Mr. Gatobu replied that the first balloon test was at 10‟. The second balloon test was lowered and there
was no big difference. Therefore, on the third balloon test the balloon was taken back to 10‟. So they are
dealing with 10‟.
Mr. Loach asked if there was a fall zone requirement.
Mr. Gatobu replied yes, the applicant met that. If the height of the tower is 69‟ they have to be 69‟ away
from any of the properties so that if it falls it falls within the same property.
6
There being no further questions, Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to
address the Commission.
Katie Carmichael, representative for the applicant, noted that Valerie Long, her colleague, was also
present. She presented a PowerPoint presentation and reviewed the plan that AT&T is proposing to
improve wireless telecommunication service in the Route 250 area. Currently there are locations along
Route 250 where there are holes in coverage and AT&T is proposing to improve the coverage in order to
fill those holes. The goal is to provide reliable service to businesses and residences in the area. Route
250 is a major thoroughfare that has a lot of traffic. Therefore, it is an important route for AT&T to have
reliable coverage in.
She reviewed the orientation map pointing out that AT&T carefully chose this location. Prior to choosing
the Singleton site they did look for co-location opportunities. Co-locations are the preferred method. It is
a lot easier to install the antennas when they co-locate on existing buildings and it is a lot less expensive
for AT&T. In this particular area they did approach the St. Paul‟s Church, which is just up Owensville
Road who has an existing facility in their steeple for Intelos. Unfortunately, there was not enough
physical area to install both antennas in that church. So that opportunity AT&T did not pursue. They did
contact other landowners in the area and were not able to find any willing landowners who also would be
able to provide the coverage in the area for AT&T‟s coverage objective. The Singleton site is able to
have both a willing landowner and able to cover the holes along Route 250.
In the coverage maps for AT&T the three areas were circled around Route 250 where people drop their
calls or have not service at all. Those are the areas they are focusing on. When the site would be built
on the Singleton property the map shows the improvement in coverage. The map shows the vast
improvement in coverage along Route 250 as well as the surrounding areas including the shopping
center and other residences in the area.
In an aerial map of the Singleton property it shows a heavily wooded property. AT&T is proposing to use
the existing access road so there will be no disturbance of the trees or in any land disturbance. From the
plans it is clear that there is proposed landscaping. Within the tree survey and a 50‟ radius there are over
30 trees surrounding the site. As Mr. Gatobu mentioned the proposal is for a 69‟ antenna. The antennas
are flush mounted and proposed to be painted java brown. The cables run in the interior. That is an
overview of the tower itself.
In the presentation she reviewed the general area of the proposed tower location and the existing access
road. Currently there is quick a bit of vegetation along there. She explained the tower location in
photographs from various views looking towards th e Gibson‟s house, the leaf area, and the other
surrounding properties. She noted the drop in the topography of the land towards Route 250. She noted
the additional tree coverage in the back of the area along with the telephone and power lines. She
pointed out a view of the access road. In looking at the proposed tower location she noted the tree
coverage in the area.
She reviewed the view of the proposed tower from several vantage points, including adjacent properties,
in photo simulations and other pictures.
From the tower location to the site of the garage is about 120‟. From the tower location to the
Viglantee house is about 750‟. In the photograph it shows the Morgantown Road, Route 250, the
railroad crossing and power lines crossing other p eople‟s property in the back.
Mr. Gibson was nice enough to let her on his driveway so she could see the view from there. In
the photo simulation it shows the tower location mitigated through the trees.
With a blue balloon in the balloon test it would be more visible than the tower would be.
They have spoken with the Gibson‟s and actually discussed ways to mitigate any visibility at all from their
property if there was any. In addition to installing the fencing, which Mr. Gatobu mentioned, they have
proposed to install 17 Holly bushes that are native to the area. That is the Holly shown on the right side
of the compound.
Views were shown from the streets surrounding the site, which included:
7
From the Duner‟s parking lot area the photo simulation shows the tower in the center, which is
mitigated by the trees.
The view shown heading west on Route 250, which was taken recently, and
View from 250 west (summer)
She pointed out the heavily wooded Singleton property. One of the nice things about the Singleton
property is the tree coverage that is on site. There are over 30 trees within 50‟ of where the actual tower
is proposed to be located that provides mitigation.
There is a balloon test taken during the spring, which is in the photo simulation. The r ed balloon is shown
floating, which is difficult to see. From the Exxon gas station she displayed a photo simulation, which
showed only the very top of the tower with the rest being mitigated. A view from the bottom of the hill in
the summer time was displayed.
There has been some question as to whether the mitigation is solely on those two pine trees, which was
mentioned by staff, that is off-site. She just wanted to rest assured that there are a significant amount of
trees on site and they were not relying at all on those two pine trees to provide the mitigation for the
tower. As shown it is a heavily wooded area and it is only the very top of the tower that is actually visible.
Therefore, they feel that from all vantage points they have provided heavy mitigation for this tower.
She showed a video taken while driving along Route 250 to show what a short period of time span that
one can actually see the very top of the tower. The video started while driving along 250 heading west
towards Crozet at the speed limit of 35 miles per hour. In the 3 0 second video the balloon is visible for
about ten seconds. The balloon is verily visible for a short period of time at the Exxon gas station.
Reaching the railroad track the balloon cannot be seen any longer.
As seen from the photo simulations taken at various times of the year it is merely the very tip of the tower
that is visible and it is only from one vantage point. Compared to all of the telephone poles and the other
distractions in the area, the very small time that it is seen as well as the small amount of the tower seen it
is very minimal. It is a very well mitigated site.
The County actually adopted a Wireless Policy in order to set up a compromise basically, in order to not
have the more effective 200‟ towers they decided to allow the less effective far less visible tree top
towers. So that is what they are proposing here a tree top tower that complies with the zoning ordinance.
To summarize, the ground equipment is mitigated from all view, the majority of the length of the tower is
mitigated from the view using off -site tree cover, and the only view point is heading west on Route 250.
If there are any questions, she would be happy to answer them. She would appreciate the opportunity to
respond to any public comment at the end of the period.
Mr. Loach invited questions for the applicant. There being no questions, he opened the public hearing
and invited public comment.
Philip Beaurline presented a PowerPoint presentation. He said he had been a full time professional
photographer for 22 years and had a tremendous amount of experience taking pictures of inanimate
objects in their environment. The following discussion relates to the County Code concerning two Tier II
cell towers. “The facility shall be sited to minimize its visibility from adjacent parcels and streets
regardless of their distance from the facility.”
The first photo is one of the photos the applicant is using to show how the proposed tower would
look in its environment. In terms of its intended purpose this is not a very good photograph. The
relatively wide angle that was submitted by the applicant does not represent our visual
experience. He thought that everyone who experienced the balloon test, including the County
staff members that were present, would agree that this photo does not illustrate what they were
all seeing. The balloon and the simulated tower are virtually invisible in the image when in fact
the balloon was starkly sky lined above Ivy. Additionally, i t was taken from a viewpoint well off of
250, which he would say at least 30‟. This does not represent what is actually seen form 250. It
is framed in such a way that emphases the other distracting objects and diminishes the impact of
the proposed tower.
8
He pointed out that his photograph illustrates much better what is being proposed. He took this
shot from the eastbound side of 250 and a little further up the hill in order to simulate the view
from the highway itself coming around the corner entering Ivy. Using this photograph and some
of the images supplied by the applicant he would show that the proposed cell tower would indeed
be a very visible and obtrusive object on the sky line in Ivy.
First, he submits that the so call winter time view of the Ivy sky line is in fact the one they should
be concerned with. The deciduous trees lose their leaves around the end of October and it is not
until mid April that they see significant leaves again. This means that for more than five months
of the year they will have bare trees mixed with evergreens on the sky line. The other seven
months do not mitigate the first five. This photo is of the second balloon test made on February
23 of this year with the balloon at 4‟ above the reference tree using a 3‟ d iameter balloon. The
test was a repeat of the first test made at 10‟ above the reference tree. Subsequent tests were
made at the 10‟ level. Notice that the balloon is nearly centered between the two tallest
evergreen trees. On March 31 the applicant conducted another balloon test which was repeated
for County staff on April 16. None of the area affected residents were notified of the last two
balloon tests. Their stated purpose was that they were to be done from a location which more
accurately represented the proposed location of the tower as viewed from the westbound lane of
250. The applicant based their May 3 appeal to the ARB on this new test which purports to show
a more mitigated view of the tower. They continue to rely on this photo to show ho w the cell tower
would look. His analysis shows that the most recent balloon test was flawed and the proposed
cell tower would be a very obstructive object on the sky line.
The applicant‟s Attachment H, which locates the tower, the various balloon tests and photo
locations along with an inset drawing showing the proposed site in detail. In order to accurately
relate this image to his photograph he made four modifications to the aerial map and inset. He
has added his approximate photo location in the lo wer right corner, which is on the same
horizontal site line as the applicant‟s photos. He has rotated the inset drawing so that the north
arrow corresponds to the north arrow of the aerial photo. With the north arrows matching he was
able to accurately transpose the green site line tract onto the inset detail.
Finally using the existing distance scale he added a 3‟ diameter balloon to the actual location of
the proposed tower. Looking at the modified inset drawing one can see relative to the green site
line tract the proposed tower location is approximately one-half of a balloon width (over 18”) to the
viewer‟s left of the February balloon test location. The March balloon test is approximately one -
half of a balloon width to the viewer‟s right of the Fe bruary balloon location. Going back to the
applicant‟s February balloon test photo, which shows the tower location roughly centered
between the two larger evergreens. To the applicant‟s March balloon test photo they learned that
the applicant is claiming that the new balloon test location more accurately locates the actual
tower location on the sky line. Notice the balloon position relative to the tallest evergreen tree.
By their reckoning the tower has moved what appears to be about 15‟ to the east usi ng the
balloon as a measure of scale. In fact, the new location should have moved the balloon 18” to
the west according to the inset drawing. This can be explained by the fact that on 9 a.m. on
March 31 the wind was averaging 2 to 5 miles per hour and wa s coming out of the west, which
would have easily moved the balloon well to the east. On February 23 when he took his
photograph the wind in Ivy was 0 to 1 mile per hour from 9 to 11 a.m. when the balloon test was
staged.
Mary Newton continued Mr. Beaurline‟s presentation. The March balloon photograph as submitted by the
applicant is an anomaly and is further supported by this photo taken by the ARB staff on April 16 of the
fourth balloon test. This balloon was also flown from the new location staged at the request of the ARB
staff as they were not present for the March test. The winds in Ivy were 1 to 4 miles per hour at variable
direction at the time of the April test. Using this information Mr. Beaurline has modified his original photo
to simulate the March balloon test and the actual proposed tower location. The March test was done at
10‟ above the reference tree, which is 6‟ or 2 balloon widths higher than in his original photo. The actual
proposed tower location is the balloon in between the two test balloons. It is clear how little difference
there is in between the two tests and the actual proposed location. It is clear that the applicant‟s photo
simulation does not at all show how the proposed tower would actually intrude on the sky line. This rather
is what the cell tower would look like when approaching Ivy for over five months of the year.
Amy Vigilante, resident of 2930 Morgantown Road, said that she was also an AT&T cell phone customer
with reliable coverage, which she is happy with. She argued tonight that the applicant, AT&T, does not
9
meet the Code requirements for a Tier 2 under #2, which states that the site shall provide adequate
opportunities for screening and the facility shall be cited to minimize its visibility from adjace nt parcels and
streets regardless of their distance from the facility. The Singleton site where the pole is to go has few
trees and mainly overgrown with vines and brush. She was floored when she heard of the application as
the pole is so invasively close and visible to four houses nearby and from a distance. She questioned
what proper screening or mitigation would be. To figure this out she drove around the area where other
cell towers have been approved.
Ms. Vigilante presented and reviewed examples of other existing cell tower sites on a poster board. In
one example at Dry Bridge the cell tower is in a wooded area behind the house where it is hardly visible.
Another site off of Morgantown Road the tower is just above the ridge and slightly visib le. In Bellair the
tower is located so to be hardly visible. In West Leigh the tower is right above the ridge line . In the
examples that have been approved the sites are screened and heavily wooded. In a photograph of the
Singleton site taken a few days ago she contended that there is a difference. Ms. Carmichael says that
the Singleton site is heavily, but she would disagree. There is the one reference tree with ivy growing up
dead trees. The reference tree where the pole is going is not a mitigated area. In both the summer and
winter view the proposed tower would go right in a sky lit view. The tower would be visible from other
vantage points including Morgantown Road. She would argue that the balloon was more than 10‟ above
the tree line and probably 20‟. Therefore, she would argue that the tower site is not mitigated.
Jim Sofka, resident of 2850 Morgantown Road, presented a PowerPoint presentation noting that his
house was on the eastern triangular lot with the stone wall. He had been in contact with Mr. Robert
Caldwell, who is the owner of Duner‟s Restaurant. Being out of town, Mr. Caldwell asked him to register
on the record his strong disapproval of the request.
He noted that all four of the evergreen trees in the photo are located on h is property. The large
evergreen tree the County has identified is 6‟ from the front of his house. It is an Eastern
standard Hemlock that he has treated because it is diseased with blight. It is 316„ by GPS to the
tower stake. He agreed that Ms. Carmichael is right that there are trees on the Singleton
property, but unfortunately they don‟t command the ridge line. Under Section 3 and the Tier II
rules in Sections 2 and 6 it refers to these trees, or the tallest ones, that are all located on his
land. A few of the trees are located on the Gibson‟s property next door. He gave an open
invitation to the Planning Commission to visit the site. Therefore, it is his argument that AT&T is
piggy backing on the Gibson‟s and his land in order to satisfy their requirements.
In a simulation he showed what the site will look like without the tree tops that they own in
question were removed. Of course, he has no desire to rip trees down. However, the two tallest
evergreens are Hemlocks that are diseased. He treats the Hemlocks annually. His arborist has
certified this. However, given that the trees are within 10‟ of his roofline, should the trees become
diseased they must be removed. This is a 25 year lease. These trees are off site. He identified
the trees in the photo that are located on both the Gibson‟s and his property. A few of the trees in
the back are on the Singleton property. It is clear that the topography of this is commanded by
trees on a ridgeline that they do not possess. It is 100‟ plus outs ide of the orbit of what they have
to satisfy with 200‟.
Trevor Gibson, resident of 2852 Morgantown, noted that his property was directly adjacent to Ms.
Singleton‟s property. In PowerPoint presentation he explained several photographs of what the tower
would like from his house from various locations. He read a statement based on a couple of the slides.
This is a reiteration of the Tier II, Section 2 which provides that adequate opportunities for screening in
the facility shall be sighted to minimize visibility. From the previous speakers it is evident that adequate
opportunities for screening from the street level and neighboring properties would be impossible because
AT&T does not control the trees.
From his house it is also impossible to provide a dequate screening. It is liken to trying to hide an
elephant in a living room, which can be seen from looking at the photographs. From his six -year
old daughter‟s bedroom the tower would be very visible. The tower location is sandwiched in
between two properties in a neighborhood environment that has small parcels of one to two
acres, school bus stops and a shared driveway. There are children around all the time. In a
photo from his breezeway it shows the trees with ivy and shrubs to be relied on for c overage.
The photos from the various locations in his house display that the tower would basically be part
of their life for the rest of the time that they are in this house. They are planning on living in this
house for the rest of their lives.
10
The tower would be a few feet below where it would need to be for that 69‟ tower to crash into
their yard. The proposed tower site would be completely intrusive into his house. They are very
concerned about it. They also believe that the precedence such a tow er would set would be
detrimental to the quality of the life they have in Albemarle County. They moved to the country
setting for that setting and the wonderful school district. This is a game changer for his family.
The tower does not belong here and is not appropriate for this site. They would like to suggest
that the request be denied on merit pursuant to both Sections 2 and 6 of the Tier II Code as
demonstrated.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach invited the applicant to make their rebuttal.
Ms. Carmichael asked to clarify a couple of things.
They did four balloon tests for this site. Obviously, with each balloon test there are varying
conditions, such as wind, temperate, tree foliage, etc. Thus, one cannot have the same exact
picture each time. There are varying conditions for each of the photographs. The photographs
in her presentation are per their engineers and planners of the most precise and exact photo
simulations and location of the tower that they can obtain. As can be seen there is quite a bit of
coverage of trees and things like that in the area. They can‟t actually fly the balloon at the exact
location of the tower, but they have done their very best with their engineers and everyone
analyzing this to simulate exactly where the tower would be. Those are the items that they
showed. With the plans they have to do a tree survey of the tower location. Within 50‟ of the
tower there are over 30 trees, which are in varying ranges between 40‟ and 50‟ high. So there
are significant trees in the area as seen in the photographs.
The Architectural Review Board, as noted in the minutes, had no issue with any of the views
except the one view from Route 250 West. The ARB reviewed the view from Route 250 and
Duner‟s Restaurant and had no issues from any of those views. Removing the trees in the
Photoshop from the Sofka property is a little bit crude. Just placing a white box over that is not an
accurate view of what the actual tree lining would be along that area. Although those trees right
now could provide screening for that area they are relying on the trees on the Singleton property
to provide the mitigation of the majority of the view of the tower, the ground equipment, etc. They
are relying on the trees on the Singlet on property. There are over 30 trees within 50‟. Towers
are not intended to be invisible. They have mitigated the view of the tower using the on-site
trees. Again, it is not intended that they are suppose to be invisible. They have had an arborist
out on the site that did a tree conservation plan, looked at the health of the trees, etc. and
provided that information to the county.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Loach closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the
Planning Comm ission.
Mr. Gatobu pointed out that the planner with the ARB, Brent Nelson, is present to answer questions.
Mr. Lafferty asked if the applicant had checked on the location on the hill where they were taking pictures
from about locating the tower there and it was not possible.
Ms. Carmichael reiterated the question was did they consider locating the tower on a property that was at
the top of the hill coming west on 250 in order to provide the coverage. One of the interesting things
about trying to provide coverage into this area is that there is such a great elevation change between the
top of the area and the low lying area. The area they are trying to cover is at the very bottom of the hill.
They looked at all possible locations within the area, co-locations, existing buildings, existing towers and
other properties in the area. This was the best match to provide coverage in the area they are trying to
cover.
Mr. Loach noted that one of the slides shown was of what would happen if these trees that are prone to
disease that the gentleman has been treating died. He acknowledged that they already have a tree plan
as the applicant described. He asked what happens if those trees off -site that provided partial shielding
should died and not provide that function. He asked if the situation would be re-evaluated.
Mr. Gatobu replied that is a very good question. As they look at a lot of these towers their visibility is
mitigated by trees that are on site and off site. They try really hard to make sur e that they capture what is
11
on site and m ake sure that those trees are preserved. The area specified in the zoning ordinance is so
the agent is able to go for a radius of 200‟. It means they would be controlling trees that are way beyond
that which he can‟t tell if he owns three parcels ahead and they had trees they had to cut down. They
can‟t fault the applicant because those trees are there at that point. But if those trees are taken out they
can‟t just say we can‟t say because they are taking the trees out the tower can‟t be approved. It is more a
judgment call in that sense in that the area that is surrounding the proposed tower site is what is used in
terms of mitigation in terms of the trees. They are right that some of the trees at some point could be cut
down. As an example, there is one Woodson tower that was approved on Rio and 29 at the Crossroads
Store. In a photograph he showed that there were a lot of trees in between on other properties where
they could cut some of the trees. The tower could be seen and it was not invisible even though there are
some trees blocking it. In this case how far can they go beyond the 200‟ is a good question. They have a
tree conservation plan showing at least 200‟ and they can‟t cut anything. They have to m ake sure that
they meet all of the tree conservation. They had an arborist look at the trees and determine how they are
going to preserve the trees.
Mr. Loach asked if those trees died would there have to be a modification of the cell tower.
Mr. Gatobu replied no, if the trees are out of the 200‟. Within the 200‟ if trees died, then staff could
require them to plant some trees or something. But beyond that they can‟t really do anything.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that if the reference tree dies, falls or is removed, then the height of the facility
has to be accordingly adjusted or re-located. It is the reference tree within 25‟ that dictates height.
Mr. Zobrist said that the sky lighting issue is an issue because it appears to be sited on the ridge and is
getting back lighted wherever one looks at it in the various photographs. They would not have the by
right if the tower location was above the ridge line if it was being back lighted.
Mr. Gatobu said that there was a question like that. If they go on Mr. Sofka‟s property they would be able
to see it. It is just a road elevation. Ms. Carmichael did a good job in the video from within a car. When
one comes down the hill it is visible for a few seconds, but when one dips down it sort of disappear s.
That is the problem with covering areas that are low lying.
Mr. Zobrist noted that it was just the angle one looks at it that makes it look back lit as opposed to actually
being back lit. That ties into his next question. It seems like the community used a heavy magnification
to make the balloon bigger, which he did not like. He was not sure how it really looks like. He looked at
the movie, which was not offensive at all. When he looked at the stuff the neighborhood showed, with
them bringing in a professional photographers showing a view that they want us to have, he was not sure
what the real view is.
Mr. Gatobu pointed out that if driving the view of the tower was questionable unless someone pointed it
out. The question is could you see the tower or does it stand out so you know it is there while driving in a
car at 35 miles per hour or the speed limit for ten seconds. He asked if one would look straight up and
see the tower right in front of them.
Mr. Zobrist noted that he would be worried about saving his life while driving through that community.
That is the biggest problem he has.
Mr. Gatobu asked if there was a passenger in the car would they be able to see it. Unless they knew the
tower was there he asked would they see it. He pointed out that there are a lot of towers that are not
visible unless someone pointed out the location. That is Albemarle County‟s policy. They made a trade
off. There is a 200‟ tower going towards Augusta County, which is very visible. But, Albema rle County
wanted to make sure that they have a nice visual drive within the county. So they chose these small
antennas, which are allowed in every zoning district and listed as a by-right use. People want cell phone
service.
Mr. Loach noted that his main problem was not from 250 because of all of the light poles and the bridge,
but from what was shown from Mr. Gibson‟s house and its visual impact. Mr. Zobrist brought up a good
question on how they start to really deal with which one of these photographs and determine the one that
gives the best perspective.
12
Ms. Monteith agreed that it was not so much the road. She thought that was not the big concern that they
were hearing tonight. They are only hearing from the people that are the directly affec ted neighbors. She
has to believe that there are many more people who are going to be visually affected by this.
Mr. Loach invited the ARB representative to address the Planning Commission.
Brent Nelson, Landscape Planner, noted that he took the request before the ARB and their concern was
only with the view while westbound on Route 250 starting at the top of the hill and proceeding down into
Ivy. It was not visible eastbound on Route 250 and looking up at the site from Duner‟s it was their belief
that it was sufficiently mitigated at that point.
Mr. Loach asked if the ARB‟s concern was only with the view shed as from the 250 perspective.
Mr. Nelson replied that it was from Route 250 westbound into the Village of Ivy.
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved and Mr. Morris seconded the motion for denial based on the technical grounds
that the ARB has not approved the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Mr. Loach noted that there was a motion and a second for denial based on the denial of the ARB.
The motion was passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Lafferty asked if this puts the applicant in a Catch-22 that they can‟t the approval of the ARB until they
have approval from the Planning Commission.
Mr. Kamptner noted that this decision is appealable to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of
Supervisors will be hearing the ARB appeal on July 14.
Mr. Zobrist pointed out that they were moving the political decision from the Planning Commission to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Lafferty said that the Commission was passing the buck, and Mr. Zobrist agreed.
Ms. Carmichael asked for a clarification on the motion for the motion. She asked if it would have been
approved had it not been a technical denial.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the stated reason in Mr. Zobrist‟s motion for de nial was because the ARB had
not approved the Certificate of Appropriateness yet.
Mr. Zobrist said that is the sole basis for the motion.
The motion for denial passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Loach said that the Planning Commission denied SDP--2010-00003, Singleton Tower. The applicant
can appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors within ten days of the decision.
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards)
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Appeal of ARB Decision on Singleton (AT&T) Wireless
Facility
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Appeal of ARB-2010-02: Singleton (AT&T)
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Cilimberg, and
Nelson
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
June 9, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
On May 3, 2010 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and denied a request (ARB 2010-02) to install a
personal wireless service facility consisting of a steel monopole with a height of 10’ above the reference tree and
related ground equipment. The May 3 action was the second ARB denial of this proposal. The ARB staff report,
Attachment I, outlines the history of the project and provides additional details on the proposal. Attachments II, III and
IV, photo simulations and an aerial view from the applicant’s ARB submittal, illustrate the proposal. The May 3 ARB
denial letter is Attachment V. As a Tier 2 facility, this proposal requires a site plan, but not a special use permit.
Planning Commission (PC) review of the site plan is scheduled for June 22, 2010.
The Board of Supervisors may affirm, reverse, or modify in whole or in part the denial of the certificate of
appropriateness. In so doing, the Board shall give due consideration to the recommendations of the ARB together
with any other information it deems necessary for a proper review of the appeal.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 1: Enhance Quality of Life for All Citizens. The goal of architectural review in the Entrance Corridors (EC) is to
ensure that new development reflects the traditional architecture of the County and to promote orderly and attractive
development, which contributes significantly to the quality of life of the County’s residents.
DISCUSSION:
The ARB denied the Singleton proposal based on a finding that the monopole would not have an appropriate
appearance from the vantage point on Route 250 descending westward into Ivy and that particular view was not
sufficiently mitigated. Factors contributing to the inappropriate appearance included the lack of a wooded backdrop
(the facility would be sky-lit), the reliance on off-site evergreen trees to mitigate the tower’s appearance, the duration of
the view (the facility would be highly visible for approximately 350’ descending westbound into Ivy and still visible, but
to a lesser degree, for another 300’ along the EC), and the prominence of the view (the monopole would be oriented
directly in line with the view of westbound traffic).
The decision to deny the application was based on the ARB’s review of the proposal according to the Architectural
Review Board’s Design Guidelines (“design guidelines”) and Personal Wireless Service Facilities Policy (“wireless
policy”), as they are typically applied to this type of proposal. The Entrance Corridor guidelines for general design and
treatment of structures, accessory structures, equipment, development pattern, grading, compatibility with historic
resources, maintenance of views and vistas, the establishment of orderly and attractive development, and achieving
unity and coherence are typically considered for telecommunications facilities. The guidelines s tate that mechanical
equipment and above-ground utilities should be screened to eliminate visibility from the EC street, but, recognizing a
wireless tower is not a utility as defined by the ordinance, the ARB has never required that this guideline be fully met
for a telecommunications facility. The ARB has reviewed such proposals with the understanding that the County has a
wireless policy that provides for mitigation of negative impacts rather than invisibility as the goal for wireless proposals.
The ARB has reviewed and approved wireless towers with conditions to mitigate negative impacts on the ECs in an
attempt to work within County policy.
The County’s wireless policy and ordinance encourages facilities to have minimized visibility from adjacent parcels and
streets. Generally visibility of facilities is minimized by, among other things, an adequate wooded backdrop (facilities
are not sky-lit). In Avoidance Areas (e.g. ridge areas, AFD’s, historic districts, cluster areas, and within 200 feet of
scenic highways) facilities cannot be sky-lit. However, Entrance Corridors are not deemed to be Avoidance Areas
under the County’s wireless ordinance and this facility is not within 200 feet of Route 250. The purpose of the ARB’s
AGENDA TITLE: Appeal of ARB Decision on Singleton (AT&T) Wireless Facility
June 9, 2010
Page 2
Certificate of Appropriateness is to ensure that development in the ECs reflects the traditional architecture of the area
and that development within the corridors is orderly, attractive, and enhances the community’s quality of life. Because
a wireless tower rising above the treetops is not typically compatible with such purposes, correct siting of wireless
facilities is extremely important. In the Singleton case, a wooded backdrop would likely mitigate the objectionable view,
but the proposed siting does not provide for a wooded backdrop. Instead, staff and the ARB found this structure in this
location provides a prolonged skylighted exposure directly in front of a westbound driver on Route 250.
ARB discussion of the proposal acknowledged that the view descending westbound into Ivy along the Entrance
Corridor was long and prominent. The view is important; entrance into this setting announces arrival in the village.
Concern was expressed for the proposed facility’s impact on the character of the area and on nearby historic
resources. Although Ivy has not been designated a National Register Historic District, there are a number of historic
properties in the area. The county’s Village Survey (“Historic Architectural Survey of Albemarle County Villages”, 1995)
identified several of those properties and recommended additional survey work to identify other potential historic
structures. These historic resources, the properties along this section of Rt. 250 West, and the general scenic quality
of the area all combine to establish a unique character for Ivy, and a setting that is locally significant.
The applicant’s representative has noted that the visibility of the proposed facility is mitigated by the visual distractions
that already exist in the area. Although utility poles, flag poles, signs, and the like do exist, staff noted their existence
does not void the EC goal of promoting orderly and attractive development.
The Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines do not provide specific direction on how the ARB should evaluate the
visibility of a wireless tower in considering a Certificate of Appropriateness. On the other hand, the Zoning Ordinance’s
Supplemental Regulations call for the Planning Commission’s review of a Tier II wireless facility to consider its visibility
and provides specific guidance on that evaluation (18-5.40.d.2). Given this, staff believes the Board should defer
acting on this appeal until the Planning Commission makes its determination whether this facility has addressed this
visibility criterion. As noted above, this is scheduled for a June 22nd Planning Commission action. If the Planning
Commission decides the facility’s is not acceptable as proposed, staff anticipates the applicant would also appeal that
decision to the Board. Otherwise, a Planning Commission denial would make this appeal a moot issue. This suggests
the Board would be better served to consider both appeals at the same time. Alternatively, should the Board have a
clear opinion on the appropriateness of this tower location, it may decide this appeal and provide the Planning
Commission clear guidance on how to consider the application on June 22nd.
BUDGET IMPACT:
This item has no budget impact.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Staff recommends the Board defer acting on the appeal until July so the Planning Commission can consider the
Tier II application scheduled for a decision on June 22nd. However, if the Board makes a decision today, staff
recommends that the Board provide direction to the Planning Commission on its consideration of this facility.
2. Recognizing the need for additional clarity with respect to the ARB’s role in evaluating the visibility of a Tier II
wireless tower, staff recommends the Board clarify that it is the role of the Planning Commission to evaluate the
visibility of the tower. The ordinance already allows the ARB to provide a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. This will clarify that the ARB’s consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness is to apply the Design
Guidelines to the wireless facility after the Planning Commission has approved the location of the tower.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment I: Staff Report for Singleton (AT&T) proposal at 5/3/10 ARB meeting
Attachment II: Aerial view drawing of the proposal from applicant’s ARB submittal
Attachment III: Photo simulation of proposal provided by applicant
Attachment IV: Photo simulation of proposal provided by applicant
Attachment V: Action letter from 5/3/10 ARB meeting
Attachment VI: Minutes from the 3/15/10 and 5/3/10 ARB review of the Singleton (AT&T) proposal
Attachment VII: Applicant’s request for appeal
Attachment VIII: Applicant’s additional information for appeal March 29 2010
Attachment IX: Applicant’s additional information for appeal May 7 2010
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement
for the Meadows Community Center
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public hearing for the proposed lease agreement
between the County and Jordan Development
Corporation for the Meadows Community Center
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, Herrick, White and
Mullaney
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In 1977, the County of Albemarle entered into an agreement appointing Jordan Development Corporation (Jordan) as
the County’s agent for the construction and management of the Meadows housing project in Crozet. The original
Meadows project included the construction of residential units and a community center on 27.9 acres of property.
Under this agreement, the County maintained ownership of the community center and the land upon which the center
was constructed while the remainder of the property was transferred to Jordan. Upon completion of the community
center, the County was to lease the center to the Jefferson Area Board for the Aging or other appropriate agency
under a separate agreement. Upon completion of the residential units, Jordan assumed sole responsibility for the
management of those units. While no evidence of a formal agreement can be documented, the Jefferson Area Board
for the Aging did originally operate the community center but ceased operations in 1981 due to funding reductions.
Absent any other interested appropriate agency, the Parks and Recreation Department assumed responsibility for the
operation of the community center on January 1, 1982. Jordan has historically maintained an office in the community
center for leasing and management of the Meadows residential units at no cost to Jordan.
During the FY 10/11 budget process, each department carefully reviewed program expenditures and services and
identified potential budget reductions based on those reviews. The Meadows Community Center i s primarily used by
the residents of the Meadows with some weekend and evening use by the community. With the rehabilitation and
expansion of the Meadows housing complex which is currently underway, the activity in Jordan’s leasing and
management office and the overall use of the community center by Meadows residents will be increasing. Therefore
as a budget reduction measure, the Parks and Recreation Director recommended transferring the responsibility for
operating the center to Jordan or closing the center. After review by the Leadership Council, County Executive’s staff
and the Board of Supervisors, this recommendation was ultimately approved and no funds are budgeted in FY 10/11
for the annual operations of the Meadows Community Center.
Discussions between County Parks and Recreation and Housing staffs with representatives of Jordan, Management
Services and the Piedmont Housing Authority have resulted in the proposed lease arrangement between the County
and the Jordan Development Corporation.
Virginia Code § 15.2 – 1800 requires that the Board advertise and hold a public hearing prior to leasing County-
owned property.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Enhance the Quality of Life for all Citizens & Fund the County’s Future Needs
DISCUSSION:
Under the proposed lease agreement, Jordon will continue to maintain an office for leasing and management of the
AGENDA TITLE: Jordan Development Corporation Lease Agreement for the Meadows Community Center
July 14, 2010
Page 2
Meadows housing project. Jordan will assume responsibility for the supervision and operation of the community
center during the Monday through Friday daytime hours the leasing office is open. In addition, Jordan will pay annual
rent in the amount of $6,000 to the County in equal monthly installments. The rent amount was determined to offset
the estimated annual electric, water and routine maintenance and repair costs for the community center building
which will remain the County’s responsibility. Jordan will be responsible for paying for telephone service for the
building. After-hours use of the community center, typically weekends and evenings, will still be managed and
supervised by the Parks and Recreation Department. After-hours use of the community center by Meadows residents
or for the benefit or Meadows residents will be managed and supervised by Jordan. All reservations for after -hours
use of the community center will be requested through the Parks and Recreation Department, who will maintain a
master calendar of building use. Jordan and the County will share trash collection and janitorial expenses based on
use.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Funding for the operation of the Meadows Community Center was eliminated from the Parks and Recreation
Department budget for FY 10-11. This lease arrangement allows the community center to remain open to support the
Meadows housing project and provides for the continued use of the center by the community while providing sufficient
revenue to offset the County’s routine operating expenses.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After the public hearing, staff recommends the Board approve the lease with the Jordan Development C orporation
and authorize the County Executive to sign the lease on behalf of the County.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Lease Agreement
Return to regular agenda
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Oak Hill Sewer Phase 1 Project
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Public Hearing – Impact of Oak Hill Sewer Phase 1
Project on Wetlands
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Davis, Elliott, White
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
In March 2010, Albemarle County submitted a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application to the
Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (VDHCD) requesting funding for the installation of a
sanitary sewer system in the Oak Hill neighborhood. On June 23, 2010, Governor McDonnell issued a press release
regarding CDBG awards announcing that the County had been awarded $712,500 for this project. County staff and
Albemarle County Service Authority staff will work with DHCD over the next few months to complete all requirements
necessary for the execution of a contract between the County and DHCD.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The County’s new FY 10/11 to FY 12/13 Strategic Action Plan is currently being finalized .
DISCUSSION:
Completion of an Environmental Review Record is required prior to the execution of a contract with DHCD for this
project. Most of the environmental review has been completed with no impacts noted with the exception of the
possibility that approximately 300 square feet of wetlands could be temporarily impacted during construction of the
sewer system. Any adverse impact to wetland areas will be mitigated and returned to their natural state upon
completion of the project.
Draper Aden, the project engineer, made inquiries to the Virginia Marine Resources Commission (VMRC), the
Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and the Army Corp of Engineers regarding potential wetland
disturbances. Responses indicated that the project does not fall within the jurisdiction of the VMRC and that a Virginia
Water Protection permit is not required by DEQ. However, the use of CDBG funds makes this project a federal -action
requiring additional public input on impacts to wetlands , including a 15-day comment period and a public hearing. The
public notice (Attachment A) was published on June 28, 2010 with the public comment period ending on July 14,
2010. After receipt of any comments prior to or during this public hearing, the County is required to publish a Notice
of Explanation on how the project will go forward mitigating or minimizing impacts to the wetlands.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no impact on the general fund budget. Publishing costs will be covered by administrative funds provided
with the CDBG project funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors conduct a public hearing to obtain public input regarding wetland
impacts for the Oak Hill Sewer project.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Early Public Notice
Return to regular agenda
[Instructions: Publish as a non-legal display advertisement in the local paper.]
EARLY PUBLIC NOTICE
(Floodplain and/or Wetlands)
The County of Albemarle, Virginia is considering the installation of sanitary sewer in the Oak
Hill neighborhood Community Improvement Grant. A portion of the project may impact
approximately 300 square feet of wetlands. A more detailed description of the project area and
maps are available for citizen review at the County’s Office of Housing (1600 5th Street) between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. The County is interested in discussing alternatives to this
project and securing public perceptions of possible adverse impacts that could result from the
project and possible minimization measures. A public hearin g is scheduled on July 14, 2010 at
6PM in the Lane Auditorium, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA to discuss the Community
Improvement Grant application. Please attend or submit comments by July 14, 2010.
Comments should be addressed to:
Ron White
County of Albemarle
1600 5th Street
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
(434) 296-5839
TDD 711
Return to exec summary
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
Economic Development Action Plan
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST:
Adoption of Revised Economic Development Action Plan
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Kamptner, and Graham;
and Ms. Stimart and Ms. Catlin
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
July 14, 2010
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
BACKGROUND:
The draft Economic Development Action (“EDA”) Plan was originally presented to the Board at its May 5, 2010
meeting. The EDA Plan was created in response to the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan approved by the Board
on January 6, 2010, which included direction to staff to “work closely with the Partnership for Economic Development
and the Chamber of Commerce to develop a plan in the first six months of 2010 to significantly increase non -personal
tax revenues through economic growth.”
At the May 5 meeting, the Board heard an overview of the draft EDA Plan and scheduled a work session for June 2.
At the June 2 work session, the Board received public input on the plan and Board members provided suggested
revisions. The Board also directed staff to conduct two roundtable sessions to allow members of the public to
comment on the draft Plan and scheduled a public hearing on July 14. This executive summary provides information
about the public input and incorporates major themes from the public input into a revised EDA Plan for the Board’s
consideration.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
N/A - The County’s new FY 10/11 to FY 12/13 Strategic Action Plan is currently being finalized.
DISCUSSION:
Public Input Summary
Staff revised the draft EDA Plan incorporating the Board’s June 2nd comments and posted the revised Plan on the
County website. Staff also conducted two roundtable sessions that were open to the public to discuss any proposed
changes to the Plan’s language for the Board’s consideration on July 14th. The roundtable schedule was distributed
by AMail, communicated to the media in a press release, emailed directly to specific stakeholder groups and
advertised on the County website.
All comments from the roundtables and all emails and written comments received from individuals and organizations
are provided in Attachments B and C. It is important to note that the roundtables were very well attended and
involved energetic and insightful dialogue about the proposed EDA Plan and related topics. The great majority of the
comments were productive and thoughtful, and occurred in an atmosphere of civility and mutual respect that reflected
the importance of this topic to the roundtable attendees.
Details of the public input to date:
85 total roundtable attendees
23 emails received
15 stakeholder groups represented, including the following:
ASAP
Blue Ridge Home Builders Association
Charlottesville-Albemarle Chamber of Commerce
Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors
Bureau (CACVB)
Charlottesville Technology Incubator
Economic Development Authority
Economic Development of Scottsville
Free Enterprise Forum
Local Food Hub
Natural Heritage Committee
Piedmont Environmental Council
Piedmont Group of Sierra Club
PVCC –Workforce Services
UVA Environmental Services
UVA Foundation
AGENDA TITLE: Economic Development Action Plan
July 14, 2010
Page 2
Revised Action Plan
Because there is a significant amount of material to consider, staff has provided analysis below to identify major
themes and areas of consensus that appear to fit the intent and scope of the EDA Plan. These major themes and
areas of consensus have been incorporated into the revised Plan (Attachment A) for the Board’s consideration at the
July 14th meeting. The revised Plan also includes wording and formatting changes suggested by the public to improve
the Plan’s clarity and readability. Comments that staff believe are addressed by other areas of the Comprehensive
Plan and would be redundant in this document or that were considered to be outside the scope of this focused, three
year Plan were not incorporated into this revised draft Plan. All comments are provided in Attachments B and C and
can be revisited during the meeting at the request of the Board.
A substantial number of significant issues were identified and productive suggestions made by the public that will be
important elements in the implementation of the Plan or that may be incorporated into possible future phases of the
Plan once its initial objectives are met. Staff recommends that all of the public comments be retained for reference as
the Plan is implemented.
Although no specific comments were provided by the School Division during the roundtable sessions, staff believes
that the School Division is an integral component of a successful EDA Plan and recommends that the County include
the School Division in all appropriate stages of the Plan’s implementation.
Major public input themes that fit within the EDA Plan’s intent and scope:
Concern that the Plan did not provide adequate references to resource protection and quality of life – staff
addressed this by including specific references in the preamble to other sections of the Comprehensive Plan –
Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Component of the Comprehensive Plan, Rural Areas Plan, Growth
Management Strategies of the Land Use Plan - that provide an established framework within which this Plan will
operate and by revising the language in Objective II.
Concern that the preamble overstates the County’s success in achieving managed growth – staff addressed this
by revising the preamble using language suggested in the roundtable sessions.
Concern that the primary goal did not mention jobs, and that the Plan did not adequately stress the importance of
jobs for current County residents – staff addressed both of these issues by revising the primary goal and by
stressing a focus on good jobs for current residents in several places in the Plan, including Objective III.
Concern that the measures outlined in the primary goal section did not reflect any rural economy measures – staff
addressed this by adding a requirement to identify and include such metrics.
Concern that the Plan’s focus should be on nurturing existing enterprises rather than attracting new business
ventures – staff addressed this by revising the language in the primary goal and in Objective III.
Concern about the concept of determining “target industries” and what the criteria might be – staff addressed this
by revising the language in Objective III.
Concern about whether the Plan encourages expansion of the Development Areas – staff addressed this in
Objective IV by emphasizing that the Plan is focused on activity within current designated Development Areas.
Concern about whether the rural economy and agriculture is adequately represented apart from agribusiness and
tourism – staff addressed this by revising the language in Objective V.
BUDGET IMPACT:
The revised Economic Development Action Plan was developed to be implemented with existing resources. If
other outcomes or objectives/strategies are added to the Plan, it could create a need for additional resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
After conducting a public hearing, staff recommends that the Board adopt the revised Economic Development Action
Plan (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS
A – Proposed Economic Development Action Plan
B – Written Comments
C – Roundtable Verbal Comments
Return to regular agenda
Economic Development Action Plan Comments
June 16,2010
June 16,2010
June 22,201 0
June 23,2010
June 24,2010
June 28,2010
June 29,2010
June 29,2010
June 30,2010
July 1, 2010
July 1, 2010
July 1,201 0
July 1,2010
July 1,2010
July 2, 201 0
July 2,20 10
July 2,201 0
July 2, 20 10
July 3, 2010
July 5, 2010
July 5,2010
July 5,2010
July 6, 2010
Attachment B
Anna Freshwater
J Stadelmaier via Dennis Rooker
Tom Olivier
ASAP via Wayne Cilimberg
Ben Foster
Henry McHenry
Jay Willer
Kirk A. Bowers
Morgan Butler
G. Carleton Ray
Jerry McCormick-Ray
Neil Williamson
Jeff Werner for PEC
Jim Dickerson
John Dean
Kristina Hofmann
Jay Willer
David Shreve for ASAP
Margie Shepherd
Bob Humphris
John Lowry
John Lowry
Dawn Story
Attachment B- 1
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Anna Freshwater [afreshwater@comcast.net]
Wednesday, June 16,2010 1:57 AM
Lee Catlin
COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN
Dear Alb. County,
I have read the County County Economic Development Action Plan.
It sounds like you intend to work closely with business' and real estate investors to possible 'expand' the commercial tax base. This is
not the
direction I like to see the County going. It is not the responsibility of Albemarle County to perform a cradle to grave prosperity
mandate.
This is not the Soviet Union and you are not allowed to increase the tax base to 'redistribute the wealth' and will kill local business at a
faster
pace than it is currently. This redistribution hurts people of all income categories, if taxes increase on business' who do you think will
lose their
jobs. Better yet, do the opposite, lower taxes on businesses and help expand eonomic prosperity giving them the ability to afford to
stay in business.
I do not wish you to continue this ill-conceived Socialist program.
Sincerely,
Anna Freshwater
FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail!
Attachment B-2
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dennis Rooker [dsrooker@earthlink.net]
Wednesday, June 16,2010 12:OO PM
Lee Catlin
FW: Economic Development Plan
FYI. -
------ Forwarded Message
From: 3 Stadelmaier <starjims@comcast.net>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:11:14 -0400
To: <bos@albemarle.org>
Subject: Economic Development Plan
The County's Economic Development Policy states the purpose to "provide the local citizenry
an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life".
My wife and I object to this phrase because it can be interpreted to mean that the County
will increase our standard of living either by providing us with increased income or free
services that we currently pay for. Either way the only way to do this is increase taxes,
and this we do not approve.
We would rather the purpose be stated as "providing the opportunity or create the environment
for the citizenry to improve their standard..etc.ll
James & Eleanor Stadelmaier
1045 Still Meadow Xing, Charlottesville
------ End of Forwarded Message
Attachment B-3
Lee Catlin
From: Tom Olivier [cruz.olivier@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 22,2010 1 :02 PM
To: Lee Catlin; Susan M. Stimart
Cc: Audrey Dannenberg; John Cruickshank; Tom Olivier
Subject: Sierra economic plan revision proposals
Attachments: Sierra~econ~dev~revise~~su bmit.doc
Susan, Lee,
Attached please find a file with proposals from the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club for revisions to the
draft economic development action plan. I look forward to attending the roundtable discussion on Wednesday.
Regards. - Tom Olivier, Conservation Chair, Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club
Attachment B-3
A- 1
Proposals from the Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club
for revisions to the revised
Albemarle County Draft Economic Development Action Plan
J~une 22.20 1 0
Contact: Tom Olivier, Conservation Chair. Piedmont Group of the Sierra Club
(email: cruz.olivieri~~rnail.con~; tel434-83 1-2408 )
The preamble, which essentially serves as a set of premises for the plan, contains misleadingly rosy
statements about the state of protection of natural and agricultural resources in the County. It does not
recognize that the econonlic development plan should be designed for compatibility with County
commitments to sustainability. [t does not recognize that the plan should aim primarily to contribute to
the economic wellbeing of residents.
We propose that the section of the "PREAMBLE" beginning with and ending with "The County has a
proven track record ... existing, proven commitments" be replaced with"
"The County has committed to the ~ccompli~shment c?f'.sustain~~bility. Ho~iever, its biological resources
have been reduced by human activities. These resources are under ongoing threat due to population
growth. County,furms huve been declining,fbr dectrdes. An economic action plan should support
conservation of'naturul r.c..sozlr.ce.s ~~nd,furm.s. Arz econornic development plun,fir a .su.s~uinabIe
community will recognize limiis to hzlmtrn population growth undphy,sical elements of'economic
growth. An economic developmen/ crclion pltm Lshoulcl,fOcu.s on the economic well being of'residents. "
We propose that -the "PRIMARY GOAL" of the plan be revised:
"The primury goal of the plun is 12rovision of'rewur.ciing jobs und opportunitie,~ for economic
advancement to residents, in an economy coml~atible with ~u~stuinability Provision of'revenues to the
County is un additionul goul. "
Append to the strategy in section 111.2. "PROMOTE TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT ...
development objective." the following statement:
"The County should not parlner in developn~eni pr"opo,sul,s that promote populution growth. "
Add the following strategy to section V, which deals with agriculture and tourism:
"Recognize that local dirpect n~trr.keling of a~ricultlu.al production o8er.s the best puth to profitability
for most ofAlbemarle'.~ furn1.s. Fund lhe 1.ora1 economic develol~ment planningposition called for in the
rural areas chapter of the coml~rehcnsive plan Suppori progrums to certify and recognize local
farmers that commit to .ste~~urd.shil:, prnclices thut perniit growing healthful food with practices that
support protection of watel: h~odiversity und oiher nutzn-trl rPe.source,s. See the 2006-2007 Annual
Report of the Albemurle C'ounly hru/ural Heriluge C'omriziltec (section on "Conservution
recommendation.^ '7 for u propo.s~tl for such cr prog]*onz "
Attachment B-4
Lee Catlin
From: Wayne Cilimberg
Sent: Wednesday, June 23,201 0 3:31 PM
To: Lee Catlin; Susan M. Stimart
Subject: FW: ASAP'S position on the Draft Economic Development Action Plan
Attachments: ASAP'S response to Economic Dev. Plan.docx
FYI:
From: asapvirginia@gmail.com [mailto:asapvirginia@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:18 PM
Subject: ASAP's position on the Draft Economic Development Action Plan
Dear Members,
Attached for your information, is a copy of an ASAP handout that we will be distributing at this evening's first
Roundtable Discussion of the Economic Development Action Plan. It is essentially a briefer version of our
news release.
We would also like to share with you an op-ed by Tom Horton on ASAP's attempt to keep Albemarle
sustainable and on the current controversy over the proposed Economic Development Action Plan. Tom was
the featured speaker at our March, 2009 open membership meeting. He is the author of six books and was an
environmental writer for the Baltimore Sun for nearly 33 years. Here's the LINK to his article:
And one last thing ...p lease also take the time to post a positive comment about ASAP's stance to the Action
Plan on the Daily Progress website. Here is a link to today's front-page story.
http://www2.dai1yprogress.com/cdp/news/1oca1/artic1e/ub1ic to weigh in on economic planl57509/
Attachment B-4
A- l
ASAP'S Response to the Draft Economic Development Action Plan
for Albemarle County
The value of these roundtable talks is significantly lessened by BOS ground rules that forbid examining the premises upon which
the plan was founded. What's the point of focusing on the details of a plan based, as this one appears to be, on a set of flawed
assumptions?
The stated Primary Goal of the plan is to "Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic
development by expanding the commercial tax base." No evidence of a comparatively weak economy was offered by the Plan's
proponents nor do Albemarle's property taxes appear to be excessive in comparison to peer counties. Consider the following
facts.
Economic Vitality: Economic vitality is not a chronic problem for Albemarle County. It's current revenue shortfall is a
consequence of national and global macroeconomic trends and not the result of reluctance on the part of businesses to settle
here. The County has one of the largest manufacturing concentrations in Virginia's Piedmont region, a growing wine industry,
and is the home of two VA-owned research parks designed to expand relationships between the university and the private
sector. (Source: TJPED http:llwww.tpedcomlreqionalAlbemarle.html). The County's current Quarterly Economic Indicators
report states that, "A comparative analysis would reveal that Albemarle has not been as seriously impacted by the recession as
have been many other localities around the state and country ..." For example, current national (9.7%) and Virginia (7.1%)
unemployment rates far exceed Albemarle's 4.7%.
The Plan's proponents appear eager to lure more outside business to Albemarle. They fail to take into consideration the fact that
any jobs these businesses create will most certainly attract job seekers from outside the area -- alorlg with their job-seeking
spouses, school aged children, and (on average) 2.5 cars. It's common knowledge that the amount of revenue newly built
homes yield in taxes doesn't come close to covering the infrastructure needs of the families occupying them. This funding
shortfall is typically made up by increasing the tax burden of the community as a whole andlor cutting back on government
services. The Plan could have little if any effect on reducing local unemployment, but will certainly increase the need for
expansion of infrastructure, and will do nothing to alleviate our increasingly severe traffic problems.
Expanding the Commercial Tax Base: The assumption here is that by altering the ratio of commercial to residential taxes to an
"ideal" of 70% residential to 30% commercial, the County will secure sufficient revenues for the building and maintenance of
infrastructure without having to increase taxes on residential property.
Albemarle's residential to commercial tax split of 75% : 25% is about average for the short list of Virginia peer counties to which
Albemarle is compared in Attachment D of the Executive Summary that introduced this plan. And the county whose actual
residence to commercial ratio comes closest to the targeted "ideal" (Henrico at 71% 129%) has the third highest tax rate of the
group, whereas Albemarle's is the lowest. (See Table 1 below.) Table 1, which supplies population and tax rate data for the six
counties listed in staffs Attachment D, suggests that tax rates appear to be more closely related to population size than to the
residential to commercial tax splits.
In fact, an examination of the ten most populous and ten least populous counties in Virginia also shows a striking correlation of
tax rates to population size. (See Table 2 below.) The average tax rate of the ten most populous counties is 89 cents per $100
of assessed value, whereas that of the ten least populous counties is only 63 cents. *
Will it truly serve the common good to approve a plan constructed by the same development interests that have so heavily
expanded our infrastructure needs over the past few decades, especially when some easily obtained evidence runs counter to
the assumptions underlying their Plan? We don't think so.
Attachment B-4
A-2
Table I: Population and Tax Rates of Select Virginia Counties*"
County Population Tax Rate Res./Com. Split
Average Tax Rate for these counties is 9 1 cents (544.216 = 90.7)
Chesterfield
~verage Tax Split is 76124
"Counties listed in Attachment D of County of Albemarle, Executive Summary, Agenda Title: Economic Development Action Plan, 5/5/10
307,594 .95 1 80% i 20%
TABLE 2: Tax Rates of Most and Least Pollulous Virginia Counties
Virginia Counties with HIGHEST Population Size i~lld Resideatial Tax Rate
Loudon
County I'olx~lation Residential Tax Rate
298.1 13 1.30 179%/21%
1 Fairfax 1,036,473 1 1.09
Loudon
1 Chesterfield 307.594 .95
Henrico
Virginia Counties with LOWEST Population Size and Residential Tax Rate
298.1 13
u
Stafford
Hanover
Albemarle
Rockingham
Augusta
1.30
296,490
-
.87
Arlington
Average Tax Rate is 89 cents (89011 0)
125.892
98,624
95,247
75,962
72,l 14
County Pol)ulatioo Residential Tax Rate
1.10
.8 1
,742
.60
.48
Highland 3,273 1 .6 1
Bath 4,745 .55 1
-- - -
2 1 2.038
1
-
,958
.58 Rappahannock
Bland
Surry
Mathews
Average Tax Rate is 63 cents (634110)
Sources:
Population figures: Weldon Cooper, Provisional figures for 2009
Tax rate data: Individual county websites or, if unavailable on internet, telephone contact with the county
I King & Queen 1 6,h75 .48
7,066
*We recognize that in addition to a county's population size, the amount of support it receives from the Commonwealth for financing K-12
schooling, along with deferred expenditure for maintenance and infrastructure, also have significant bearing on the determination of real estate
tax rates.
1 Charles Citv Co.
7,121
7,164
9.501
.79 Richmond Co.
.69
.84
.56
9,797
6.992 .68
Attachment B-5
From: Ben Foster [BFoster@htsva.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 12:16 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Cc: Neil Williamson
Subject: Economic Development Plan
Attachments: Presentation.doc
Lee,
I attended part of yesterday's roundtable.
Having been a self-employed business owner since I emigrated to the US in 1974, 1 find it difficult to sit through long,
nitpicking and otherwise unproductive meetings like yesterday's. However, I would like to share some thoughts with you,
which are less about the Economic Development Plan and more about how to promote economic development.
Most of the opponents of the Economic Development Plan, base their arguments on the "non-sustainability" of Albemarle
County. In this context, they mean "non-self-sustainability" and of course, until we get to the era of urban skyscraper
farms (see page 1. of the attachment), no areas, such as Albemarle County, can or will be "self-sustainable".
However, I did a little web research for the most "sustainable" municipality in the US and came across the website for
Oakland, CA (which actually ranks no 4 in the US for "sustainability"). I thought it might please the local "greens" if we
modeled Albemarle County on Oakland.
In addition to the page on Urban Farms, my attachment also shows some reprints from the Oakland website.
You will see that the first four pages from the HOME page are all promoting Oakland as a place to visit and a place to do
business.
The next three pages are under the VISITORS tab and includes dozens of links that show what a wonderful vibrant city
Oakland is to visit.
The next two pages are under the BUSINESS tab. You can see, from the first few paragraphs, how welcoming it is to
potential entrepreneurs who might want to relocate to Oakland.
The next pages are under the GOVERNMENT tab (the final tab which is almost everything which is displayed on
Albemarle.org).
I would invite you to compare that with the Albemarle County Site (which somebody at yesterday's meeting said was
wonderful). The final pages from my attachment are from albemarle.org.
Under the BUSINESS tab there is a less than enthusiastic description about commercial prospects locally, accompanied
by a picture of our vibrant community, which might, more fittingly, have been an illustration in a Dickens novel. The rest of
the first page is a mind-numbing listing of all of the local beaurocracy that one would have to contend with to get a
business under way in Albemarle County. It is not until the final item on page three that you actually find some
organizations that might be helpful in the start-up process.
Under the VISITOR tab there is another less than enthusiastic introduction ( which certainly wouldn't inspire me to read
any further), plus a photo of the lifeguard's platform at Chris Green Lake (presumably this is typical of the scenic beauty
one finds in Albemarle County). The remainder of the Visitor section is simply text and a few links.
I cannot imagine anyone creating a brochure, to promote Albemarle County, that was so lacking in pictures, information
and pizzazz and yet, in the internet age, the county's website is the only "brochure" that many people will ever look at.
Clearly Oakland, CA is open and enthusiastic about attracting tourism and business and Albemarle County is not.
Attachment B-6
Lee Catlin
From: Henry McHenry [hdmchenry5@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 28,2010 531 PM
To : Lee Catlin
Subject: Re: Proposed Action Plan
Attachments: Economic Development Action Plan amended.docx
As usual, forgot to attach the file!
On Mon, Jun 28,2010 at 5:26 PM, Henry McHenry <hdmchenry5@,gmail.com> wrote:
Here are my suggestions. I hope the typeface is legible; I couldn't get it to go larger. Could you make sure the
Board can read it? Thanks -- what a lot of work!
On Mon, Jun 28,201 0 at 10:35 AM, Lee Catlin <LCATLIN@,albemarle.org> wrote:
Hi Henry,
If you want to send me your suggestions/comments in writing prior to the meeting that would be fine, I can make sure
they get transmitted to the Board members in their entirety if that is what you would like. I am overseeing the recording
and presenting process, so anything you get to me will find its way to the right place. I am attaching an electronic copy
as requested. Thanks for your interest, I will look forward to seeing your comments!
Best,
Lee
Lee Catlin
Community Relations Director
Albemarle County, Virginia
(434)296-5841, ext. 3425 (offe)
(434)531-8092 (cell)
From: Henry McHenry [mailto:hdmchenrv5~,gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 26,201 0 10:46 AM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: Proposed Action Plan
Hi, Lee.
I was at last week's roundtable on the economic development action plan. I've now read through the entire
1
document you handed out, and I have several more suggestions and questions than I could present at the
meeting. Is there a way I could submit these to the appropriate body in writing before the July 1 roundtable?
Are you the one in charge of recording and presenting the suggestions we make to the proper authority? And is
there a way to do this electronically -- could I get a digital copy of the proposal to edit?
Thanks for your work on this issue -- and all the others through the years. Seems like you've always been
around here.
Henry Davis McHenry Jr
3337 Garth Road
434 295-6593
--
1 lenry Ilavis Mcl lenty Jr
--
Henry Davis McHenry Jr
Attachment B-6
A- l
DRAFT Economic Development Action Plan
PREAMBLE:
Economic Development Polic
as a stated purpose to "provide the local ry an
ity of life." The policy notes that
economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human,
economic, cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. The policy also states
clearly that Albemarle's commitment to economic development should be
accomplished within the framework of our growth management objectives. This Action
Plan is intended to translate the purpose and goals of the Economic Development Policy
into concrete and measureable actions, being very mindful of the need to adhere to
already established growth management objectives. This is a short-term plan that is
focused on accomplishing the action items within the next three years. Broad-based
community input is critical to the success of the Action Plan and is a key feature of many
of the specific strategies and actions.
Albemarle County's commitments to education and infrastructure form the
cornerstone of Albemarle's quality of life, and, by default, its business growth. In
partnership with the University of Virginia and the Piedmont Virginia Commun~ty
College, Albemarle County Public School's education programming - ranging from the
County "bright stars" kindergarten program to the Math-Engineering-Science Academy
(MESA) magnet school - help ensure a very highly educated, capable local workforce.
The County has a proven track record in managing growth to best utilize our
infrastructure dollars in a manner that protects and preserves the area's abundant
natural resources as well as those industries depending on the natural resources. With
these two commitments, the community has achieved managed growth without
sacriFicing the quality of life. .t21wrr--y. vty-*Ir. . :+ ~~~+~~~~~~:T~i~~ *?.+ $+$ ww" T "A
II objectives, strategies and action items in this
plan are intended to achieve outcomes that are consistent with the goals of the
Economic Development Policy section and all other sections of the County's
Comprehensive Plan.
PRIMARY GOAL:
Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic
y expanding the commercial tax base.;j,!!_v!jy
o The following measures will be utilized in monitoring and regularly reporting on
success in achieving this goal:
The percentage mix of commercial versus residential real estate tax
revenues*
Attachment B-6
A-2
The following commercial revenues: Machinery and Tools Tax; Business,
Professional & Occupational License Fees; Bank Franchise Tax and Public
Service Tax
The following additional indicators: Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax,
Meals Tax and job growth by sector
*Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate
OBJECTIVES:
I. Improve the County's business climate and image. (Supports Objective I of the
Economic Development Policy - "Recognize the County's place in the regional
economy")
STRATEGIES
1. EXPAND COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY -
Convey to the business community and the Virginia Economic Development
Partnership (VEDP) that Albemarle County is committed to working with
businesses to promote the County's economic vitality.
o Actions
to develop and implement a plan within six months
to raise awareness and to promote County efforts at facilitating
business growth with the VEDP that is compatible with the
county's growth management strategies(e.g. Economic
Opportunity Fund as a match for the Governor's Opportunity
Fund)
Maintain active participation in the Charlottesville Regional
Chamber of Commerce and Thomas Jefferson Partnership for
Economic Development (TJPED) programs
In 2010, continue an outreach program utilizing T.IPED1s prospect
proposal system, which will create marketing collateral for
business targets. This will include communicating economic
development opportunities with target companies, VEDP,
broker/consultant community, and the entrepreneur
2. INCREASE THE VISIBILITY OF THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STAFF -
Enhance the visibility and priority of economic development efforts by the
County.
o Actions
Attachment B-6
A-3
In next three months, make the Business Development Facilitator
a part of the County Executive's Office while still maintaining close
coordination with the Community Development Department, and
provide regular updates to the Board of Supervisors on efforts
Within the next three months, enhance the presence of economic
development on the County's web site (underway).
3. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE
BUSINESS COMMUNITY - Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance
of overall quality of life, education and business development in contributing to
the economic vitality of the community.
o Actions
Within the next three months, begin regular presentations by
various business interests to staff and the public, with a focus on
how the County's land use regulations and policies affect business
decisions. This will provide opportunity for staff and others to
community a quarterly update of emerging and current
development issues. This will focus on staff or community
identified concerns rather than project specific issues.
As part of pre-application discussions, continue assigning a staff
member to serve as a single point of contact for addressing new
issues on projects. Also, provide handouts and webpage links for
information on development review (e.g. review process flow-
charts, points of contact) that help applicants better understand
the processes for ZTA, ZMA, Rezoning, Special Use Permit, Zoning
Clearance, Sign Review, ARB review
Continue routine survey of applicants as to accuracy and ease of
understanding of processes, tracking of application status, staff's
assistance with the application and any other issues of concern.
Survey results will be shared with the County Executive and the
Board of Supervisors to determine effectiveness of programs and
where changes should be considered.
11. Simplify and create certainty in the development review process, giving the
applicant a reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development
review when applicants are adhering to the regulations appropriately. (Supports
Objective V of the Economic Development Policy - "Increase local business
development opportunities")
Attachment B-6
A-4
CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE
COMPLEXITY OF PLAN APPROVAL - Recognizing a complex plan review can
create barriers to new businesses, eliminate unnecessary requirements and
provide for simplified administration decisions.
o Actions
In the first half of 2010, hold a work session (already scheduled
for May) with the Board of Supervisors on changes to the process
for a Certificates of Appropriateness (ARB review). (completed)
In the first half of 2010, present recommended changes to the
Board of Supervisors for ministerial applications (e.g. site plans,
subdivisions). This will include timetables for recommended
changes. (completed)
In the second half of 2010, present recommended changes to the
Board of Supervisors for legislative applications (e.g. rezoning,
special use permits). (Note: This is considered a lower priority to
ministerial applications as no complex applications have been
submitted in the last 2 years due to the economy and few are
expected for the next several years.)
2. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSES TO
FACII-ITATE SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNTIES - Recognizing small businesses
often lack the financial resources and management expertise to navigate the
plan review process, provide for expedited administrative reviews, including
waivers and modifications, using a single point of contact for approval of simple
site plans.
o Action
As part of the proposed ordinance changes under #1,
include consideration of how a simplified review process
could be created for small businesses that have no
experience with development review. 'this should include
consideration of how a single point of contact for those
businesses may assist in the processing of an application.
111. Consistent with the established goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan,
strategically grow and attrac capital-intensive,
Llknowledge-based? .,,,,,a. and 3,j at provide a diverse
array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident workforce.
.(Supports Objective VI of the Economic Development Policy - "Increase work force
development opportunities, to further career-ladder opportunity and higher wages")
STRATEGIES
Attachment B-6
A-5
1. PROMOTE AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT -
Provide direct assistance to Albemarle County's aspiring entrepreneurs and small
businesses.
o Actions
In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, the Small Business
Development Center, the workforce network, the Albemarle
County School Division and other representatives from the
education community, and other interested stakeholders,
identify & address existing business needs and implement
regularly scheduled local business panels and provide a larger
forum to collect information, identify and address workforce
and other needs of local business clusters
2. PROMOTE TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT- Create an environment that
attracts companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County's business
development objective.
o Actions
Determine target industries; work with a broad-based task force
(including TJPED) to determine the region's target business
sectors. These business targets will be the primary focus of the
entrepreneurial support, existing business services, site
selection assistance, and workforce development efforts.-
targeted industries should be fiscal1
Cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the
Chamber, TJPED and SBDC, provide technical support seminars
to support entrepreneurs in targeted business clusters.
By the first half of 2011, create a plan for developing workforce
training programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training
Center, UVA and the County school system) tied to target
industry or key sectors.
,m By the second half of 2010, review peer jurisdictions' policies
and practices in attracting targeted business and investment,.
Attachment B-6
A-6
Via continued support of local job fairs, continue to showcase
our local workforce talent and local corporate partners.
Utilize TJPED's ExecutivePluse CRM, JobsEQ and other tools to
provide an online feedback loop for policymakers. This should
include trend analysis, identify key issues negatively affecting
local companies, and strategies designed to address key
3. COlVlVECT OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESIDENTS - Develop and connect the
workforce to existing and new opportunities to serve the entire employment
spectrum in Albemarle County through workforce programs and other
strategies.
o Actions
By the first half of 2011, determine demand occupations for the
retraining or training of dislocated workers and low-income
adults, and youth populations in those occupations.
Market local opportunities to qualified resident workforce with
I a multi-channel approach, ci . ;-connecting people with
opportunities through TJPED.
I Align nd demand occupations with
student awareness, education and participation in County public
schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways
IV. Consistent with the established goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan, remove
obstacles and expand options for industrial land users. (Supports Objective I1 of the
Economic Development Policy - "Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate
future business and industrial growth")
STRATEGIES
1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE - recognizing
the changing nature of industrial uses, provide greater flexibility through reliance on
performance standards and lessening dependency on lists of specific uses.
o Action
In first half of 2010, bring proposed ordinance change to the
Board of Supervisors for consideration.
Attachment B-6
A-7
CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR INCREASING INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY WITHIN ALREADY
DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT AREAS -
o Action
As part of future master plans and updates to the County's
Land Use Plan, include consideration of designating more land
for industrial uses.
Continue pursuing strategies to stop the conversion of LI
propertics to other types
In the second half of 2010, the County will initiate a county
wide rezoning to LI for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the
Development Areas that are designated as industrial use on
the County's Land Use Plan. Only properties where the
property owner has agreed to accept this zoning change will
be included in this rezoning.
As part of the current effort to update the County's
Comprehensive Plan, include for the Board's consideration a
modification of the Interstate Interchange Policy that might
allow lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at r:.,-?,:t.
intersections located in the rural areas $~%..F ...: .pq~~~:.:\~,.,~i~~~i.:..:~~..i~i..~~~~~.~.~~ %
, <
. Work with partners to promote iii;iw&;i+. . ro,:,;:~ . *...... % ~-.S:I:,~G~~L--~ anrirg*@ugiand -.- ... tourism as part
of a comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the
importance of the rural economy. (Supports Objective 1 of the Rural Areas Land Use
Policy- "To si~ppurt c~grjci~lturrli innd uses rlnd to create additional rnnrktt.s,for
agriculturni prodirct_s. thre,ugil creulive t?conornic and land use strategies.", and
Objectives I and V of the Economic Development Policy - "Base economic
development policy on planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of
the County "and "Increase local business development opportunities")
STRATEGIES
I 1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN A&~lM+ti-\~u. %AND
TOURISM - Continue working with partners to evaluate strengths and
weaknesses.
o Action
Attachment B-6
A-8
Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with the
CACVB will complete a series of roundtables with individuals
roundtables, County staff will present the roundtable findings
to the Board of Supervisors along with any other data or
findings that may assist the Board in setting policy direction.
I 2. EVALUATE AND REFINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR AGRIP%---:VL-. - AND
TOURISM -Assure that policies, goals and objectives support current priority
needs including consideration of areas such as cottage industries, heritage
tourism, and agri-tourism.
o Action
Based on the above assessment and Board direction, include
consideration of this information in updates of the County's
Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan and in the agreement
with the CACVB.
3. IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS TO MORE AGRESSIVELY PROMOTE IN SUPPORT OF
I AGRIC. \ .'.: AND TOURISM - Build on existing assets and offerings to expand
options for experiencing the beauty and heritage of the rural areas.
o Action
Based on the above Board direction, establish specific
strategies and action items for promoting and supporting
agri ' - and tourism in the Comprehensive Plan and
Strateg~c Plan.
Resources:
Adopted Board of Supervisors '2010 Albemarle County Action Plan -January 6,
2010'
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce letter of January 26, 2010
This 'draft' economic development action plan builds on the 2009 adoption of
the Updated Economic Development Policy, which focused on the following
three short-term priorities:
o Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural
industry consistent with the goals, objectives and implementation
strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as the purchase of local
products, establishing a rural-support program and continuing a dialogue
with farm-industry stakeholders.
Attachment B-6
A -9
o Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and
industrial uses in Development Areas, including consideration of
proactively rezoning to light-industrial uses as needs are identified
through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text amendments
that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning
districts.
o Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering
strategies such as:
A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the
needs of "underemployed" and those not in the labor force (as
defined by the VA Employment Commission) as well as employer
needs.
A software database, such as Executive PulseO, to identify
workforce training needs and promote workforce training
opportunities.
Attachment B-7
Lee Catlin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jay Willer Ijay@brhba.org]
Tuesday, June 29,201 0 3:58 PM
Lee Catlin
Comments re the BOS economic development plan
I made this comment during the roundtable last week, but Jeff Werner's response may have distracted from my intent.
Groups that oppose the basic nature of the plan hinge much of their opposition on their claim that what is proposed will
lead to the wholesale expansion of the current growth area, allowing new development to occur in widely scattered sites.
It would be useful in countering some of that opposition if the Board, in its final language, clarifies their intent. While the
building/development community may advocate small, site-specific changes that make market sense (i.e. the Yancy
property), I think everyone other than the initiative's opponents assumes that most new growth will be targeted to areas
already approved for growth. Making that more clear in final language, while allowing some opportunity for additions or
deletions that make business sense, could go a long way in calming opposition.
Jay Willer
Executive Vice President
BRHBA
434.981 3708
Attachment B-8
Economic Development Action Plan review comments
Author: Kirk A. Bowers, PE
Date: June 29, 20 10
I. First page
1. Paragraph 1, sentence 2:
The policy notes that economic growth and vitality are "required" . . . Replace to read as "included as a
means".
2. Paragraph 1, last sentence:
"Broad-based community input is" revise to read as "Broad based community input from residents of
Albemarle County and business interests is critical to . . . .".
3. Paragraph 2, first sentence:
Delete the words "and, by default, its business growth". End sentence after the word &.
A commitment to education and infrastructure does not necessarily include business growth.
This sentence promotes business interests while not providing reinforcement for a mutually agreed
approach to business growth between all interested parties of citizens and business groups.
4. Paragraph 3, third sentence:
Revise "The County has a proven track record in managing growth" to read The County endeavors to
manaEe - mowth. - The sentence as it currently reads is subjective in that different views exist on the
County's track record of managing growth.
5. Paragraph 3, fourth sentence:
Delete this sentence in its entirety. There is no value added to this document by inclusion of this sentence.
The statement is subjective and is not accurate.
6. Paragraph 3, fifth sentence:
Delete the word "proven" as this is a subjective statement and is not relevant to the focus of this
document.
11. Page Two
1 . Item 1 :
Where document reads "Albemarle County is committed to working with businesses" add the words "and
citizens". The document in general does not provide enough support for citizen interests. Let us be
mindful that the interests of County residents must be represented in this document, and as stated earlier
in this document, the goal of the County's Comprehensive Plan is "to provide the local citizenry an
improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life". Please include the words "residents of
Albemarle" more frequently in this document. As noted by one individual in last week's Roundtable, the
word citizen is not used until later in this document. Please add these words to assure County residents
that their interests are included and protected in this Action Plan.
2. Actions, Item 1. first bullet:
warn wlrh appropriate emrues m aemop arm trnplemwt a plan withln SIX
rnoathsto rai* awareness and to prOhOre County efierts at facilitating bosincrs
growth with tbe VEOP that is compatible wth thc county's growth rnmogernenl
Who are the appropriate entities referred to in the first sentence?
Does this include County residents?
Recommendation: Appoint a Task Force composed of business interest groups, citizen interest groups and
interested residents to develop recommendations for Board consideration. The Chair of the County Board
would be the appointing authority.
3. Item 1. Actions. Second bullet:
Review current policy for participation in Chamber and TJPED by County. Previous Boards' policy, until
6 years ago, was to include the Chamber and TJPED in discussion in an advisory capacity only. The
TJPED represents other Counties in this region which have competing interests to those of Albemarle
County. By representing the interests of other Counties in our region, the TJPED is put in the position of
promoting the interests of other Counties which may not be in Albemarle County's best interests.
Thereby, the County and TJPED have a conflict of interest.
Additionally, by creating a position of Economic Development Officer within County government, the
use of the TJPED creates a redundancy in efforts and costs. It would be much simpler to have all support
software and staff within the County Administration which also serves as the main point o contact for all
business development efforts.
Recommendation: Delete this action item in its entirety. Or revise this item to include the Chamber and
TJPED in advisory and support roles.
4. Item 1, Actions , bullet 3:
tn 2610, mnttnw an autreach prqram Lltdizing TJPED'r prospect propusat
s~kern, which %ill create rnarkk~ng collatera3 for business targets Rrs w~ll
Recommendation: County buys software andlor upgrades existing systems to develop in-house
capabilities to create marketing data and information for business targets. The County uses TJPED in an
advisory capacity in selecting software or system upgrades, if needed.
5. Item 3. Actions. bullet 1:
Withizr the next three month. begin regular presentations by various business
interests to staff and Bkc publ~c. with a focus on hum the Cuunty's land use
tqularions and polit= afka bu~arrers decisrons This w~ll pravrrde upportuntcy
for §taw and others to better understand khe tusf rimer's $&sues dnd Concern>
How does this work? Be more specific on the venue for presentations. This statement is one-sided, as
there is no mention of public comments and discussion. In all fairness to the public, there should be
discourse between business interests and the public concerning regulations and policies. Most often the
regulations are state mandated, and discussion would be useless.
There appears to be a lack of education concerning review criteria and state mandated regulations. If there
is going to be discourse between business and the public, an increased educational awareness program
should be promulgated often to keep business and the public informed of regulations and their updates
and revisions.
The concerns expressed by business interests may not be in the best interests of the public. In order to
justify this action item, discussions need to be held between business interests and the public. This would
also help to increase transparency in the process.
111. Page 3
1. Item 3. Actions, bullet 4:
Contkuc rwtine mmy of spplieanus as to acwracy and of undetdandlng
ad ptac&ses, trac kkldlg al application status, itaff s assistance wth Ihc agpli~atian
artd any other issues uf concern. Suwy muults wilil b shard with the Coulrtv
Execut~~ amd tht Board cf Sup@rwwrs au determine effetlrv@wg, '.programs
and where dlarrgcsshnuld bc con&dwd
This item is subjective to the disposition of the applicants. The applicant may not support County policy
for plan reviews. In which case, the applicant would be pre-disposed to negative comments on the survey
before submitting the survey questionnaire.
It is the developer and engineer's responsibility to comply with plan review criteria in order to obtain plan
approval. It has been my experience that developers and engineers may not support design criteria, and
spend money and time fighting plan review comments. They have the choice to comply with comments,
but choose to oppose the plan review comments. In this case, I do not believe that the business interests
have the right to complain when they are not cooperating with the program.
My question is: Are the surveys legitimate when the developers have opposed regulations from the start
of the project? Is the County responsible for un-cooperative developers?
In addition, the survey results should be published for public review and comments. It is important that
the public have input into regulations that are initiated at the County level.
This would also assist the County with increased transparency in the process.
2. Strategies, Actions, Item 1 :
Again, when these meeting held and what was the outcome of the meetings conducted in the first half of
2010. Better advertising efforts are need to insure that there is no appearance of lack of transparency. The
Board of Supervisors is accountable to the public, and as such, the public expects the Board to keep the
public notified of revisions to regulations and policy.
IV. Page 4
1. Item 1 ,Actions, bullet 1 :
"Im~lement renularlv scheduled local business panels".
What about the citizens of Albemarle County? Do they have the opportunity to express opinions
concerning policies requested by local business interests?
There appears to be a disconnect between the interests of business and the interests of the citizens of
Albemarle. If a business panel is to be implemented, then it is only fair for a citizens panel be given equal
time to review the concerns of business interests.
Recommendation:
I would recommend a program to encourage local employers to hire local workers. We have a highly
trained and educated workforce in Albemarle. However, certain institutions (including County
government) are prone to hiring workers from outside the area. There are many well trained workers here
locally who can fill local jobs. However, there appears to be a misconception on the part of several local
employers that there are not enough qualified workers here locally to fill employment positions. The
County would be performing a great service to local workers by promoting the hiring of locals, instead of
going out of area to fill positions.
2. Item 2, Actions. bullet 1: - &termine&g@ ~ndustrlnes, rwxt w~th a brwd-bared task forte (~ncludrrxg
WED) to d~termmc? ftw reiort's Larger business secten. Thme businfib
Who will be involved in selecting targeted industries? Who will be on this broad based task force? Who
makes the appointments for the Task Force? This section is vague. Please specify and clarify what the
targeted industries are and the composition of the task force.
Infrastructure needs are mentioned in this section. However, when the infrastructure is not adequate for
expansion or development, Who will pay to upgrade the infrastructure to provide adequate utility
capacities? It is Not the public's responsibility to upgrade utilities to expand business interests.
Recommendation:
Infrastructure upgrades and expansion need to be paid for by the development community. If a developer
wants to build, then that developer will have to pay for improvements to roadway and utility
improvements. We, the taxpayers of this County, have not agreed to pay for infrastructure improvements
for development. Future development must be tied to adequate infrastructure. If the infrastructure is not
adequate, the County should mandate that developers bear the costs of all infrastructure improvements.
We need this item mandated by County Code.
V. Page 5
1. Item 3, Actions, bullet 2:
"Connecting people with opportunities through TJPED 'I.. .
TJPED is not an employment agency. It is not appropriate for TJPED to be acting as a clearinghouse for
jobs. Delete TJPED and replace with Virginia Workforce Connections.
2. Part IV, Strategies, Item 1, bullet 1 :
Where are the proposed Ordinance changes mentioned in this section?
The lack of advertising gives an appearance of lack of transparency. Further discussion for zoning
ordinance revisions must be publicized so that there is public comment on the changes.
3. Item 2, Actions. bullet 2:
Delete this section in its entirety. It is not the County's responsibility to persuade property owners to stop
conversion of Ll zoned properties. This overreaches the County's responsibilities and is not appropriate.
4. Item 2, Action, bullet 3:
Be sure to adequately publicize any Board meetings concerning Zoning revisions. There is an appearance
of non-transparency. Public review of zoning changes is required by law.
Attachment B-9
From: Morgan Butler [mbutler@selcva.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 30,201 0 554 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: SELC comments on EDAP
Attachments: County draft EDAP (SELC suggestions).docx
Hi Lee,
Great job facilitating at the BOS retreat today; I'm continually impressed with your ability to guide difficult
discussions.
On a somewhat related topic, I had opted to attend this week's roundtable on the economic development
action plan rather than last week's because it better suited my schedule. But as luck would have it, I now have
to head out of town mid-day tomorrow to attend a funeral. (My grandfather passed away Monday evening.) I
regret not being able to attend the roundtable, but I did want to be sure to pass along suggested revisions (and
a few questions) from SELC. Please make sure these are included for consideration by staff and the Board.
Many thanks.
Best,
Morgan
Morgan Butler
Senior Attorney
Southern Environmental Law Center
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 977-4090
Attachment B-9
A- 1
DRAFT Economic Development Action Plan
PREAMBLE:
The County's Comprehensive Plan contains an Economic Development Policy that has a stated purpose
to "provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life." The policy
notes that economic growth and vitality are required to sustain and enhance the human, economic,
cultural, and natural characteristics of our community. The policy also states clearly that Albemarle's
commitment to economic development should be accomplished within the framework of our growth
management objectives. This Action Plan is intended to translate the purpose and goals of the
Economic Development Policy into concrete and measureable actions, being very mindful of the need
to adhere to already established growth management objectives. This is a short-term plan that is
focused on accomplishing the action items within the next three years. Broad-based community input
is critical to the success of the Action Plan and is a key feature of many of the specific strategies and
actions.
Albemarle County's commitments to education and infrastructure form the cornerstone of
Albemarle's quality of life, and, by default, its business growth. In partnership with the University of
Virginia and the Piedmont Virginia Community College, Albemarle County Public School's education
programming - ranging from the County "bright stars" kindergarten program to the Math-Engineering-
Science Academy (MESA) magnet school - help ensure a very highly educated, capable local workforce.
The County has- has committed to iF, managing growth . . 1 -in a manner that best utilizes our infrastructure dollars=
preserves the area's abundant natural resources as well as those industries depending on the natural I resources. With these two commitments, the community kstrives to ad+ku& managed growth
without sacrificing the quality of life. The following economic development action plan builds on these 1 existing- commitments. All objectives, strategies and action items in this plan are intended to
achieve outcomes that are consistent with the goals of the Economic Development Policy section and
all other sections of the County's Comprehensive Plan.
PRIMARY GOAL:
Increase the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base.
o The following measures will be utilized in monitoring and regularly reporting on success in
achieving this goal:
The percentage mix of commercial versus residential real estate tax revenues*
The following commercial revenues: Machinery and Tools Tax; Business, Professional &
Occupational License Fees; Bank Franchise Tax and Public Service Tax
The following additional indicators: Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax, Meals Tax and
job growth by sector
*Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate
OBJECTIVES:
I. Improve the County's business climate and image. (Supports Objective I of the Economic
Development Policy - "Recognize the County's place in the regional economyff)
Attachment B-9
A-2
STRATEGIES
1. EXPAND CONlMUNlCATlONS AND OUTREACH TO THE BUSINESS CONIMUNITY - Convey to the
business community and the Virginia Economic Development Partnership (VEDP) that
Albemarle County is committed to working with businesses to promote the County's economic
vitality.
o Actions
Work with appropriate entities to develop and implement a plan within six
months to raise awareness and to promote County efforts at facilitating business
growth with the VEDP that is compatible with the county's growth management
strategies(e.g. Economic Opportunity Fund as a match for the Governor's
Opportunity Fund)
Maintain active participation in the Charlottesville Regional Chamber of
Commerce and Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development
(TJPED) programs
In 2010, continue an outreach program utilizing TJPED's prospect proposal
system, which will create marketing collateral for business targets. This will
include communicating economic development opportunities with target
companies, VEDP, broker/consultant community, and the entrepreneur
2. INCREASE THE VISIBILITY OF THE COUNTY'S BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT STAFF - Enhance the
visibility and priority of economic development efforts by the County.
o Actions
In next three months, make the Business Development Facilitator a part of the
County Executive's Office while still maintaining close coordination with the
Community Development Departrnent[~ll~bl], and provide regular updates to the
Board of Supervisors on efforts
Within the next three months, enhance the presence of economic development
on the County's web site (underway).
3. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF AND THE BUSINESS
COMMUNITY - Create an atmosphere that recognizes the importance of overall quality of life,
education and business development in contributing to the economic vitality of the
community.
o Actions
Within the next three months, begin regular presentations by various business
interests to staff and the public, with a focus on how the County's land use
regulations and policies affect business decisions. This will provide opportunity
for staff and others to better understand the ws&me&business community's
issues and concerns.
Beginning in the 3rd quarter of 2010, provide the business community and public
a quarterly update of emerging and current development issues. This will focus
on staff or community identified concerns rather than project specific
issues,[m~bz1.
As part of pre-application discussions, continue assigning a staff member to
serve as a single point of contact for addressing new issues on projects. Also,
provide handouts and webpage links for information on development review
Attachment B-9
A-3
(e.g. review process flow-charts, points of contact) that help applicants better
understand the processes for ZTA, ZMA, Rezoning, Special Use Permit, Zoning
Clearance, Sign Review, ARB review
Continue routine survey of applicants as to accuracy and ease of understanding
of processes, tracking of application status, staff's assistance with the application
and any other issues of concern. Survey results will be shared with the County
Executive and the Board of Supervisors to determine effectiveness of programs
and where changes should be considered.
11. Simplify and create w%i&y consistencv in the development review process, giving the applicant
a reasonable expectation for the time and cost needed for development review when applicants
are adhering to the regulations appropriately. (Supports Objective V of the Economic Development
Policy - "Increase local business development opportunities")
STRATEGIES
1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY OF
PLAN APPROVAL - Recognizing a complex plan review can create barriers to new businesses,
I eliminate unnecessary requirements and provide for simplified administrativeeft decisions.
o Actions
In the first half of 2010, hold a work session (already scheduled for May) with the
Board of Supervisors on changes to the process for a Certificates of
Appropriateness (ARB review). (completed)
In the first half of 2010, present recommended changes to the Board of
Supervisors for ministerial applications (e.g. site plans, subdivisions). This will
include timetables for recommended changes. (completed)
In the second half of 2010, present recommended changes '[mwb3]tO the Board of
Supervisors for legislative applications (e.g. rezoning, special use permits). (Note:
This is considered a lower priority to ministerial applications as no complex
applications have been submitted in the last 2 years due to the economy and few
are expected for the next several years.)
2. CONSIDER -PROVIDING SMALL BUSlIV ESSES WITH MORE STAFF 1 ASSISTANCE DURING WTH E DEVELOPMENT REV EW PROCESSES TO FACILITATE SMALL
BUSINESS OPPORTUNTIES - Recognizing small businesses often lack the financial resources and
management expertise to navigate the plan review process in the most effective
manner, provide assistance *during-development -reviews, including
waivers and modifications, using a single point of contact).
o Action
As part of the proposed ordinance changes under #I, include
consideration of how a single point of contact for those businesses may
assist in the processing of an application.
Attachment B-9
A-4
111. Consistent with the established goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan, strategically grow and
attract capital-intensive, knowledge-based and other private sector employers that provide a
diverse array of career ladder employment opportunities to our resident workforce. .(Supports
Objective VI of the Economic Development Policy - "Increase work force development opportunities,
to further career-ladder opportunity and higher wages")
STRATEGIES
1. PROMOTE AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT - Provide direct
assistance to Albemarle County's aspiring entrepreneurs and small businesses.
o Actions
In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, the Small Business Development
Center, the workforce network, the Albemarle County School Division and
other representatives from the education community, and other interested
stakeholders, identify & address existing business needs and implement
regularly scheduled local business panels and provide a larger forum to
collect information, identify and address workforce and other needs of local
business clusters
2. PROMOTE TARGETED BUSINESS AND INVESTMENT- Create an environment that attracts
companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County's business development
objective.
o Actions
Determine target industries; work with a broad-based task force (including
TJPED) to determine the region's target business sectors. These business
targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing
business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development
efforts.- %The selection criteria for targeted industries should include
consideration of each industry's fiscal and ecological short-term and long-term
. . impacts on the Countyv (including whether
the industrv can help the County satisfy its infrastructure needs or will instead
. . exacerbate infrastructure deficiencies)v:
Cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED and
SBDC, provide technical support seminars to support entrepreneurs in targeted
business clusters.
By the first half of 2011, create a plan for developing workforce training
programs (in partnership with PVCC, Workforce Training Center, UVA and the
County school system) tied to target industry or key sectors.
By the second half of 2010, review peer jurisdictions' policies and practices in
attracting targeted business and investment.
Via continued support of local job fairs, continue to showcase our local
workforce talent and local corporate partners.
Utilize TJPED's ExecutivePluse CRM, JobsEQ and other tools to provide an
online feedback loop for policymakers. This should include trend analysis,
Attachment B-9
A-5
identify key issues negatively affecting local companies, and strategies
designed to address key negative issues.
3. COIVIVECT OPPORTUIVITIES WITH RESIDEIVTS - Develop and connect the workforce to existing
and new opportunities to serve the entire employment spectrum in Albemarle County through
workforce programs and other strategies.
o Actions
By the first half of 2011, determine demand occupations for the retraining or
training of dislocated workers and low-income adults, and youth populations in
those occupations.
Market local opportunities to qualified resident workforce with a multi-channel
approach, then connecting people with opportunities through TJPED.
Align targets and demand occupations with student awareness, education and
participation in County public schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways
IV. Consistent with the established goals of the County's Comprehensive Plan, remove obstacles and
expand options for industrial land users. (Supports Objective I1 of the Economic Development
Policy - "Plan for land and infrastructure to accommodate future business and industrial growth")
STRATEGIES
1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO 'THE COUNTY ZOLlING ORDINANCE - recognizing the changing
nature of industrial uses, provide greater flexibility through reliance on performance standards and
lessening dependency on lists of specific uses.
o Action
In first half of 2010, bring proposed ordinance change l[l~lwhqto the Board of
Supervisors for consideration.
2. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR IIVCREASING INDUSTRIAL IIVVENTORY WITHIN ALREADY DESIGNATED
DEVELOPNIENT AREAS -
o Action
As part of future master plans and updates to the County's Land Use Plan,
include consideration of designating more land within existing development
areasllt1111,o for industrial uses.
Continue pursuing strategies to stop the conversion of LI properties to &hw
+commercial, office, and other uses that are not "core" industrial uses.
In the second half of 2010, the County will initiate a county wide rezoning to
LI for RA and R-1 zoned properties in the Development Areas that are
designated as industrial use on the County's Land Use Plan. Only properties
Attachment B-9
. A-6
where the property owner has agreed to accept this zoning change will be
included in this rezoning.
As part of the current effort to update the County's Comprehensive Plan,
include for the Board's consideration a proposed modification of the
Interstate Interchange Policy that might allow lowe impact industrial uses
that serve agricultural and forestal -uses at those
intersections located in the rural areas but a+eA served by highway
access.[mwh71
V. Work with partners to promote agribusiness and tourism as part of a comprehensive economic
development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy. (Supports Objective
1 of the Rural Areas Land Use Policy- "70 support. agricultural lund uses and 1.0 crcal-e oddil-ior?al
markets for agriculturul pl-od~rcts through creative economic urrd Ir~nd use strat-i.qics.", and
Objectives 1 and V of the Economic Development Policy - "Base economic development policy on
planning efforts which support and enhance the strengths of the County "and "Increase local
business development opportunities")
STRATEGIES
1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND IIVVESTNIENTS IN AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM - Continue
working with partners to evaluate strengths and weaknesses.
o Action
Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with the CACVB will
complete a series of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an
interest in agribusiness and tourism in the County. After completing the
roundtables, County staff will present the roundtable findings to the Board of
Supervisors along with any other data or findings that may assist the Board in
setting policy direction.
2. EVALUATE AND REFINE GOALS AND 0B.IECTIVES FOR AGRIBUSINESS AND TOURISM - Assure
that policies, goals and objectives support current priority needs including consideration of
areas such as cottage industries, heritage tourism, and agri-tourism.
o Action
Based on the above assessment and Board direction, include consideration of
this information in updates of the County's Comprehensive Plan and
Strategic Plan and in the agreement with the CACVB.
3. IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS TO MORE AGRESSIVELY PROMOTE IN SUPPORT OF AGRIBUSIIVESS AND
TOURISM - Build on existing assets and offerings to expand options for experiencing the beauty
and heritage of the rural areas.
o Action
Based on the above Board direction, establish specific strategies and action
items for promoting and supporting agribusiness and tourism in the
Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan.
Attachment B-9
A-7
Resources:
Adopted Board of Supervisors '2010 Albemarle County Action Plan -January 6, 2010'
Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce letter of January 26, 2010
This 'draft' economic development action plan builds on the 2009 adoption of the Updated
Economic Development Policy, which focused on the following three short-term priorities:
o Objective I. Strategy 4. Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent
with the goals, objectives and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan,
such as the purchase of local products, establishing a rural-support program and
continuing a dialogue with farm-industry stakeholders.
o Objective II. Strategy 4. Encourage infill development of business and industrial uses in
Development Areas, including consideration of proactively rezoning to light-industrial
uses as needs are identified through Master Plans and other efforts. Initiate zoning text
amendments that further enable business and industrial uses of the appropriate zoning
districts.
o Objective VI. Strategy 3. Increase the use of information gathering strategies such as:
A regional, baseline workforce study to define and benchmark the needs of
"underemployed" and those not in the labor force (as defined by the VA
Employment Commission) as well as employer needs.
A software database, such as Executive PulseO, to identify workforce training
needs and promote workforce training opportunities.
Attachment B-10
Lee Catlin
From: G. Carleton Ray [cr@virginia.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 201 0 11 :46 AM
To: Lee@cms.mail.virginia.edu; "Catlin <Icatlin"@albemarle.org
Subject: Comment
Attachments: Albemarle Econ Dev Plan GCR June '10.docx; ATT333017.txt
Dear Lee: Here's my statement for today's Roundtable.
Looking forward to the meeting.
Best wishes,
Carleton
Attachment B- 10
A- l
Albemarle Economic Development Plan, June 201 0
Comments by G. Carleton Ray, White Hall, Albemarle County
1 July 2010
Rather than dwell on what's in the Albemarle Economic Development Plan. I wish to note
what's left out. There's not a word on this Plan's environmental and social effects. The Plan
simply takes one portion of the Comprehensive Plan with no accountability for the rest.
However, if equal consideration were given to development of a comprehensive conservation
and environmental management plan for the County, an Econon~ic Development Plan could
result in a win-win situation whereby sustainable, environmentally-based. economic
development could occur.
That economic development, environmental conservation, and citizen's wellbeing are
intimately linked is dramatically illustrated by Hurr~icune Kutrinu and Deep~j~zfer Horizon. The
drastic, human-caused reduction of Louisiana's wetlands was a major cause of much of
Katrina's destruction. Our consuinptive way of life promoted the excessive rislts of deep-water
drilling, resulting in losses of fisheries and wildlife that may endure for decades. Similarly,
violeilt June storms in Albemarle caused stornl water to gush up from drains. foreboding future
inundation of businesses and homes. All such events have occurred before, were to be expected,
and are sure to repeat themselves unless we take warning. Already, Albemarle is witness to
degraded rivers, siltation of dams, and impacts on Chesapealte Bay. The unanswered question
is: Are we to witness more of the same?
As structured so far. the Plan is simply a narrowly-based policy instrument, presumably later
to be amplified by the data-analysis necessary to respond to this cluestion. Potentially, the Plan
could have much going for it - notably, its dedication to educatioil and small farms, as well as
the intent to manage growth "to best use our infrastructure dollars in a manner that protects and
reserves the area's abundant natural resources ...." However, the major failing is that the Plan is
vague on all counts, especially the County's marginal environillental track record, witness
urgent water issues and depleted biodiversity. Thus, it remains to be seen how it may be
possible to increase economic investment, agribusiness, tourism, industry. citizens' wellbeing,
and environmental quality all at once.
Clearly, the County is on a collision course between what the Economic Plan suggests, and
maintenance of an attractive and healthy enviroil~nent that supports resources and citizens'
wellbeing. It is worth noting that Albemarle's so-called environmental "health" lies more in its
cosmetic appearance than what an ecologist would observe. Furthermore, the Plan, as stated,
seems based on the mythical "pipe dream" that economic development, in the narrowest sense
of that term, automatically conveys sustainable economic vitality, environmental quality. and
social wellbeing. In actuality, expanded costs of education, infrastructure, public health and
safety, water supply, stormwater run-off, etc., etc., will, as experience amply shows, result in
economic net loss. later to be covered by increased costs, or taxes, or both.
Having served on the County's Mountain Protection Committee, the Mountain Overlay
District Committee. the Biodiversity Work Group, and the Natural Heritage Committee, and
having observed precious little in the way of concrete environmental actions by the Board of
Supervisors, it now becomes absolutely essential to give equal time to the other side of the
development coin, namely environmental conservation and management, including an array of
activities from protection of certain environments that supply resources, to improved and
enforceable County-wide watershed and land-use management practices. Lack of environmental
consideration and details about how citizen's lives might be affected, repeats the mistakes of
history, whereas an alliance of economic development and environmental conservation could
make sense. The alternative is a downward spiral to more of the same that now troubles us.
Attachment B-1 1
Lee Catlin
From: Jerry McCormick-Ray [cr@virginia.edu]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 12:19 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: Re: Correct version of mycomments for Economic Development Action Plan Roundtable
Attachments: County Dev Action Plan.txt; ATT336344. h tm
Lee,
Here is a text version and a copy of it below.
Attachment B-I I
A- l
county Dev Action Plan. txt
Jerry Mccormick-Ray
Comments for Economic Development Action Plan Roundtable
July 1, 2010
Thi s Economi c ~evel opment Acti on Pl an i ntends to translate the county's economi c
development policy into concrete action within the next three years by meeting five
objectives of a "Strategic Plan". Its primary goal is to increase the County's
economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the
commercial tax base. while the plan promotes business as a high priority, its
purpose is to establish county commitments within a short period without
com rehensive accounting for the long-term consequences that more business activity
wily bring.
More specifi call y:
1. The "strategy" does not identify how expanding the commercial tax base will
assure economic vital i ty and future revenues. ~t si mp1 y establ i shes business
partnerships, expands the commercial tax base, insinuates business promotion into
the County's ~xecutive Office, and consumes county staff time and resources to
faci 1 i tate business opportunity.
HOW can tax revenue be generated in a climate of economic austerity? County staff
indicates that market conditions are not expected to im rove over the next 3-5
years. In this new economic age, it is prescient to loo for revenue in new ways
without incurring more costs.
R
he plan does not address business costs incurred to county taxpayers. unless
precautions are explicitly stated, the clean water ~ct and the county's
comprehensive Plan can be undermined, community services for police, health, and
fi re protection reduced, and the i nf ra-structure needed to address resi denti a1
rowth will not be in place, for which county staff recognize, "there are no
?imitations on residential growth in the county and there is a large inventory of
property ready for residential development". ~hese costs and regulated growth need
to be addressed before this Action plan is implemented.
The Plan thus does not fulfill its preamble: "Albemarle County's commitments to
education and infrastructure form the cornerstone of Albemarle's quality of
life.. .~ll objectives, strategies and action items in this plan are intended to
achieve outcomes that are consistent with the goals of the .... county's
comprehensive plan".
2. This open-ended action plan prioritizes development in the 2010-2011 budget and
aims to implement objectives within six months to a year without parallel action
given to soci a1 and envi ronmental precaution.
Example: Develop and implement a plan within six months.. .
Consider amendments to the County zoning Ordinance..; Rezone land..
for industrial uses.. .Modify uses. . .
3. The plan fails to recognize that A1 bemarle's business climate today is favorable.
Business has expanded opportunities with expansion of the university's health care
facilities, sports arena, John ~aul Jones Center, and research parks su plemented by
development of Hollymead, North point, and AI bemarle Place. How wi 11 A1 g emarle
improve on this existing business image, and be prepared once more businesses clamor
to come in?
4. The County ~xecutive office, and web site should promote the comprehensive Plan
and not single out economic growth as a major county priority.
Example: wi thi n next 3 months make Business Development ~aci 1 i tator a part
of the County's Executive office and provide regular updates to the BoS on
efforts ....; ~ssign a staff member to serve as a single point of contact for
Page 1
Attachment B- 1 1
A-2
county DeV ~ction ~1an.txt
addressing new issues on projects. . . ; staff's assistance with the application. . .) .
Note: The Google web-site search engine identifies the ~inance Department as
the county's official web site!
5. The comprehensive Plan, the County's most im ortant document regardin growth,
development and change is marginalized in the P 7 an. ~t places strong emp ! asi s on
protecti ng natural resources, rural 1 and, groundwater and streams, and it recognizes
that agricultural uses are exempt from many water protection regulations, i . e. ,
compliance is voluntary. Implementing this Action plan in the rush to streamline
economic development gives priority to business use of county resources, budget, and
staff time otherwise required to meet needs in the Comprehensive Plan.
such as:
J! to enforce all existing regulations: Erosion and sediment Control
ordinance , ~unoff Control ordi nance , water Resources Protection Areas ordinance,
and stormwater detention requi rements of the Subdivision ordinance, and meet
clean water ~ct requirements for protection of water resources.
J! to carry out recommendations of the Groundwater committee (2001)
fi rst by funding regional groundwater studies to identify sensitive groundwater
areas before removing obstacles and expanding options for i ndustri a1 1 and
users that require or contaminate surface and groundwater.
Page 2
Attachment B- 1 2
Lee Catlin
From: Neil Williamson [neil@freeenterpriseforum.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 3:23 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: Thanks
Attachments: Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan.doc
Lee,
You never fail to amaze me with your facilitating tools. Great job today!
Here is an electronic version of the Free Enterprise Forum statement.
Thanks again,
Neil
Neil Williamson
Free Enterprise Forum
550 Hillsdale Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
434.220.078 1 (office)
434.962.0847 (cell)
Attachment B- 12
A- 1
Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan
Policy Statement
July I, 2010
The Free Enterprise Forum, a privately funded public policy organization, is strongly supportive
of the Draft Economic Development Action Plan. While the document is not perfect, we believe
the specific tactics described in the plan are strategically aligned with the goals of the economic
vitality chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, which we supported and the Board of Supervisors
enacted unanimously.
This action plan contains specific steps, many that have already been initiated and objective
metrics to measure the effectiveness of the econonlic development activities. Those projects that
generate results in the short term should be continued and expanded; those projects that fail to
add value should be discontinued.
We firmly believe economic vitality will be beneficial to everyone who lives here now or
chooses to do so in the future. Albemarle's greatest asset is not the rolling mountains to the
south, not the economic engine of US 29 North, not the new hospital going up in Pantops nor the
moneyed horse estates scattered throughout the county. While all of these contribute to our
community, Albemarle's greatest asset is its citizens (both current and future).
The Free Enterprise Forum is diametrically opposed to government population control and
questions the validity of including any such statements in an economic development action plan.
The Free Enterprise Forum takes issue with those in the community who are opposed with the
concept of economic vitality for fear of population growth. This Action Plan is designed to
address the 30% of our regional workforce who earn less than $22,000 a year. Those in
opposition to econonlic vitality are, consciously or not, perpetuating a permanent underclass.
The latest version of the Action Plan has struck the verbiage "Albemarle County is 'Open for
Business"' this should be restored. The revision, while technically correct, is weak and fails to
convey the urgency the Board of Supervisors has given to economic development.
Albemarle is home to hundreds of employers that do not fit into the category of business. Start-
ups, entrepreneurs, and not for profit organizations contribute greatly to the economic vitality of
our community. The Free Enterprise Forum suggests replacing "business" with "enterprises".
The Action Plan calls for the Charlottesville Area Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) to
work with staff in coordinating rural roundtables. This is neither an area of expertise nor a good
use of time for the CACVB. Many of the recommended strategies for rural economic
development are already enumerated in the comprehensive plan; staff should be directed to work
with The Farm Bureau, Piedmont Environmental Council, Chamber of Commerce Agribusiness
Roundtable and other stakeholders to select the actionable support activities that promote
ecologically sound agricultural activities that provide economic viability by December 3 1,2010.
Promoting Albemarle County's economic vitality is in the best interest of all citizens.
Attachment B-13
Lee Catlin
From: Jeff Werner bwerner@pecva.org]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: Economic Dev Action Plan
Attachments: JBW-Suggestions-7-1-20? 0.docx
Lee, see attached.
Jeff
Attachment B-13
A- 1
Piedmont Environmental Council
Suggested changes/revisions/additions/com~nents to the draft Econoinic Development Action Plan
July 1.2010
Preamble
Delete the second paragraph except for last sentence. If this is an action plan, the specific county assets
referenced in the preamble should have specific actions identified that will further preserve,
maintain, and measure them. For numerous reasons this second paragraph cannot be taken seriously, among
them:
the county's failure to fully implement the Rural Areas Plan and the Natural Resources Plan
(including the Mountain protection Plan);
the significant reduction in ACE funding,
the freezing of county staff positions related to natural resource protection; and
the statement in Chapter 8 of the draft Places29 plan addressing the need to "address the existing
backlog of needed irlfrastructure improvements." [Emphasis added.]
Otherwise, if Quality of Life, natural resources, education, infrastructure, etc. are identified as county assets.
how will these be measured to ensure that the Action Plan contributes positively to maintaining and/or
improving them?
Primary Goal
Draft plan states: "The percentage mix of commercial versus residential real estate tax revenues."
Clarify how these metrics will used.
What is considered good or bad or ideal?
Should there be a goal to increase percentage of agricultural ly-related revenue?
Etc.
Obiective 11, Strategies 1 and 2.
Add to the draft Action Plan
For the purposes of educating the community, the Planning Co~nmission and the BoS, prior to continuing
the debate about which regulations are is unnecessary and burdensome, and what should be done to
revise and amend thern, staff should prepare a review and summary of all necessary regulatory reviews
and which agency is responsible. Staff should identify which regulations are state and/or federally
mandated, which involve review/co~ninent and/or approval from other agencies (VDOT, DEQ, DOH,
Fire Department, ACSA, etc.), which are a function of local policy, which are ministerial, which are
legislative, etc.
Obiective 11, Strate~v 2.
Add to the draft Action Plan
What criterion determines an applicant's need or qualification for an expedited review process? County
regulations are intended to benefit the "general welfare" and not the proprietary interest" of the applicant.
Assistance through the process and even single point of contact is a valid objective, but regulations must
be stringently and equally applied in all cases.
On attract in^ businesses, Obiective 111.
Add to the draft Action Plan
On any circumstances where the county is asked to provide incentives or waiving of fees, etc., link them
to local job creation. Establish an agreement provision similar to that used when granting to GE Fanuc a
low interest loan, whereby businesses receiving assistance/incentives would guarantee that a minimum
ainount of new jobs created will go to local residents. Failure to meet those conditions will result in some
compensation being due to the county.
Attachment B- 13
A-2
Making Albemarle "attractive" to businesses and visitors requires the establishment and preservation of
identifiable entrances to tlie county. Currently, entrances from tlie east and west, via 1-64, from the south,
via Route 29 and Route 20, are rural and without threat of development. However entrance from the
north, via Route 29, is at risk. Tlie county sliould initiate a targeted effort to preserve the rural landscape
along Route 29 between tlie Greene CL and, at least, some point south of tlie intersection with Route
641.
o Si~nilarly, interchanges at 1-64 are also entrances to tlie county. Any changes to uses at these
interchanges must include provisions regarding aesthetics.
On determining: target industries, Obiective 111, Strate~y 2
Tlie first bulleted item, to identify industries that would be fiscally beneficial to the county, should be
elevated within tlie plan. Tlie results of such an analysis would cover all sectors of tlie local economy-
including agriculture and tourism-and would presumably instruct specific actions recommended in
other sections of the plan.
On LI zoninp, Objective IV.
Add to tlie draft Action Plan
Given the amount of L1 land rezoned to other uses-primarily retail-- instruct staff to revise the L1
policies and LI regulations so as to specifically prohibitldiscourage the rezoning of LI land andlor the use
of LI zoned land for purposes other than actual 1,1 uses.
On local agriculture, Objective V.
Amend the draft Action Plan as follows: . . Work with partners to promote ag~:.lct!!.t!!.!:~.. .;l!~~!..~-ellatgIl~ti,s.~~~~.~.s.~. -and tourism as part of a
comprehensive economic development program that recognizes the importance of the rural economy.
(Supports Objective 1 ofthe Rural Areas Land Use Policy- "To support agric.ulturcrl land uses and to create
additional rnurkets for u~~icultl~ralproducts through creutive economic and Iund use strategies. ", und
Objectives I and V oj the Econoniic Developw~ent Policy - "Buse economic development policy on plunning
efirts which support and enhtrnce the strengths ofthe C.'ounty"cind "Increcise local hu.siness development
opportunities '7
STRATEGl ES
I. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN ;=JtIC:l i 1.'1 IJKIi ANI.) 1<1~1.,i~'I'lI~)
LIIJSINE.SSL,S" A- AND TOURISM - Continue working with partners to evaluate ............. -. ........................
strengths and weaknesses.
o Action: Within tlie next year, County staff in cooperation with the CACVB gud_c!~oer
~!.~.~~!:rrz.l.:.ii!.tc .... a.~.e~~c.i.e.s~ ..... i.!!d..ix.~d.~!.i!!.~..~~.~?d .... i~.r,s.a!~..i.z.a~.i~~.n.~~. will colnplete a series of roundtables with
individuals and groups that have an interest in agribi~si~less and tourism in the County. After
completing the roundtables, County staff will present tlie roundtable findings to the Board of
Supervisors along with any other data or findings that may assist the Board in setting policy
direction.
2. EVALUATE AND REFINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR i>J:;_Kl.~Ql'l'l:l<lL ,4NI) IiI~.Il.iZ'l'F,t)
13I.!SIYI~SSliS"~ .................................................................... AND TOURISM - Assure that policies, goals and objectives support
current priority needs including consideration of areas such as cottage industries, heritage tourism,
a~~icultl~~~~~ and agri-tourism.
o Action: Based on the above assessment and Board direction, include consideratio11 of this
information in updates of the County's Comprehensive Plan and Strategic Plan and in the
agreement with the CACVB.
3. IDENTIFY TARGET AREAS TO MORE AGRESSIVELY PROMOTE IN SUPPORT OF
ni;RIC:I~L..'I'I!I~t~ ;\.hI) KII!,A'I'I.3) l3LJSIhI~:SSl1)S?, -AND TOURISM - Build on
Attachment B- 13
A-3
existing assets and offerings to expand options for experiencing the beauty arid heritage of tlie rural
areas.
o Action: Based on the above Board direction, establish specific strategies and action items for
promoting and supporting agribusiness and tourism in the Cornprehensive Plan and Strategic
Plan.
"For p~~rl>oscs (?1'Iliis discussion: (\.g~liqllQ~:e rclales to tlic activity of'prc>tiuci~ig. cultivation, Iiarvcsting. ctc.
oi' local prodiicc a11d:or livcstocl\ (ilicluding eclucstrit~n opcr:+tioris). t~g.rj-g~I~~:Iic~Iiited I3usi1icsscs relatcs t.o
tliosc uctivitics \uliicli support and/or promocc agl.iculturc. Sucli as blacl<snii~lis. f:irricrs, \:c~crinarians, salcs
i:~i'scccllli.rcllfi.rtilizerst filrti-I ~ilrichi~lcry salcs and repair. \vi~lcries, rural 13& 13's. ayitourisrn and ru~.al
toi~risni, IBrrn i.nana.gcr i~lci)n-~c.s. I'arrn stands and Iir~ncrs inurliets. prc)ccssiri:.: ;tnd o~licr valuc-addcif
Sacilitics. etc.
Add to the draft Action Plan
Learn from other counties: Invite from counties that have a specific local ag component in their
econolnic development programs the appropriate staff person to present to the BoS an overview of tlieir
county's ag/support promotion program(s). For example, Ray Pickering from Fauquier Coilnty and Gary
W. Hornbaker from Loudo~ln County, etc.
Implcment the recommendation from the Rural Area Plan to "Establish proactive support of agricultural
land uses tlirough tlie creation of an AgricuIturalIForestal Support Prograln position tliat provides
agricultural assistance tliat includes community education, marketing strategies, the exploration of
agric~~lti~ral support businesses and alternative agricultural uses." Among tlieir duties:
o Provide assistance to local growers/producers in developing value added agricultural products.
o Increasing the promotion of local agricultural industry consistent with tlie goals, objectives and
implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, such as tlie purchase of local products,
establishing a rural-support program atid continuing a dialogue witli farm-industry stakeliolders.
o Dedicate a county web page to agriculture in Albemarle, si~iiilar to Fauquier County, Loudoun
County, and Isle of Wight County.
o Target and recruit processing facilities tliat support local growers and producers.
o Report regularly tlie amount of prime ag soil lost to subdivision arid development.
o Actively seek grant opportunities to assist agric~llt~~re community.
o Coordinate a Farnilalid Exchange (producers/growers looking land for rent, landowners looking
for producers/growers to rent to, etc. )
Provide funding to assist witli tlie PEC's Buy Fresh Buy Locul guide and program.
Per tlie adopted Economic Development Policy. implement the recomlnendatio~i to conduct a "a study of
tlie impact of agriculture to Albe~narle County's economy."
On local tourism
Preserve viewsheds near tourist destinations. Coln~nit to preservation and protection of the viewshcds
from and access corridors to Monticello and the National Park. Instruct staff to evaluate current policies
aiid regulations, and make recommendations for how they might be further strengthened and
ilnpletne~ited.
Capitalize on the Civil War Sesquicentennial, wliicli begins in 201 1 and will continue through 201 5. To
take full advantage oftouris~n activities related to this event, appoint an individual or individuals to
represent tlie county in coordinating witli tlie Virginia Sesquicentennial of tlie American Civil War
Corn~nission and subsequently initiating and coordinating local activities and programs. Since Civil War
activity was limited in Albemarle, include in this tlie promotion of local hotels, restaurants, and tourist
destinations tliat might attract tourists wlio arc visiting nearby areas that have Inore concentrated Civil
War sites.
Attachment B- 1 4
Lee Catlin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jim Dickerson Ljimd@nexet.net]
Thursday, July 01, 2010 8:31 PM
Lee Catlin; 'Neil Williamson'; Susan M. Stimart
Roundtable Meeting
Thank you for your efforts with today's roundtable meeting. We seemed to have gotten off track pontificating on
positions as opposed to reviewing the plan and terms.
With regard to the terms agriculture and agribusiness, if they do not include forestry, industrial forest operations and/or
timber harvesting, then I feel forestry, industrial forestry and/or timber harvesting should be included in the fourth
section which was omitted in today's handout. Timber remains the largest crop in Albemarle County.
Y'all have a great weekend!
Yours in Service,
James Friend Dickerson
www.iamesdickerson.com
jamesdickerson@remax.net
RE/MAX Assured Properties
Inducted into the RE/MAX Hall of Fame 2007
943 Glewood Station Lane Suite 202
Charlottesville, Virginia 22901
434.466.4663 Mobile
866.931.2433 FAX
434.220.7139 Office
Licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia
Equal Housing Opportunities
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
John Dean LjdpubOl@earthlink.net]
Friday, July 02, 2010 12:29 AM
Lee Catlin
input on the draft economic development plan
from: John Dean, 514 Nottingham Rd., Charlottesville 22901
I attended the roundtable session on June 23, and I support many of the comments made in that meeting citing
shortcomings in the draft plan on environmental grounds. I also feel, as did some others, that the two introductory
paragraphs are of little value and are poorly written. In a general sense, I object to the process by which this plan was
initiated, and I have no confidence that public input on this plan will be heeded at all.
Here are my specific comments:
PREAMBLE
A plan like this should have a much clearer statement of its purpose. I feel that the Preamble should provide specific goals
for how the proposed measures would benefit the broad public of Albemarle County. As written, there seems to be a
simple assumption that giving benefits to businesses is always a good thing, and that the County is in great shape. In fact,
Albemarle County faces many challenges, including poverty, underemployment, unsustainable development, trouble with
the water supply, and tensions between urban and rural interests. The plan should state what these challenges are, and
why this economic development plan is necessary in the attempt to address them.
SECTION I
This section should more specifically enumerate the outreach initiatives recommended for improving the economic health
of our community instead of simply targeting the "business community." It should define in more detail what is meant by
the "business community."
Albemarle businesses are very diverse, and among other things it is important to consider farms and other rural
businesses, and already-existing small enterprises of many different types. Albemarle has a growing problem with
suburban sprawl, and I read this section as promoting this sort of new building, since the organized business community
here as been focused to a large extent on this type of activity.
In my view it is not a positive step for our community to promote unsustainable development that provides only low-wage
jobs, and increases many of the problems that are already present in the County. I feel that in managing the economic
development of this community, the local government should be attempting to define what sort of business activity will be
encouraged and what sort of activity has been harmful, and looking for ways to improve the lives of broad public of
Albemarle County.
SECTION I1
This section seems to be mainly about streamlining the processes for new construction, and I am distrustful of its intent. I
am nervous that measures suggested here would promote suburban sprawl by allowing developers an easier path to
project approval without proper public oversight. I question whether this would be a positive step in regard to the
economic health of Albemarle County.
I agree that needless roadblocks should not be placed in the way of those who want to invest in our community, but it is
the job of County government to ensure that when people are allowed to build, that it is beneficial to the public.
SECTION Ill
I like this section better, because it actually mentions the residents of Albemarle County, and it begins to address some of
my concerns in the previous sections.
The statement in bold at the beginning of this section is weak, though. The terms "capital-intensive, knowledge-based and
other private sector employers" is very vague, and means nothirlg to me. I would prefer a more specific statement of the
types of businesses that are seen as beneficial to the community. These could include, for example, a startup software
company in someone's basement which is not capital intensive at all but which could become a reliable employer if it
succeeds.
Subparagraph 3 is the only section in the entire plan dealing with the needs of Albemarle residents who might find work as
a result of the plan. This should be promoted to section level, and expanded considerably. It should address strategies for
promoting the needs of the Albemarle workforce.
SECTION IV
It appears to me that this section was written to benefit a specific project in western Albemarle County.
Personally, I feel that industry is extremely important to any community, and promoting industrial development would
constitute an actual economic development plan. Unfortunately, as anyone can see, history is against us and industry is
moving away from the US. I object if this section was in fact written to benefit a single property owner, but it could be
salvaged. We need industrial development.
SECTION V
I would remove the word "agribusiness" because it makes me think of giant factory farms, which we don't have here. Also,
I would make separate sections for Tourism and for Agriculture, because they are very different industries. I don't
understand how the strategies listed here would work, addressing the very separate needs of these industries.
We need a very specific strategy for assessing the value of the Land Use program. I don't know if this program is
beneficial or harmful to our economic development, but it needs study.
Attachment B- 16
Lee Catlin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kristina M. Hofmann [kmhofmann@paynehodous.com]
Friday, July 02, 2010 12:05 PM
Lee Catlin
Albemarle Co. Economic Development Plan roundtable comment
Ms. Catlin,
I attended the July 1 round table and I made a suggested language change which I would like to reiterate and
clarify. In objective 4, strategy 1, I would suggest the following language change:
1. Consider amendments to the county zoning ordinance - recognizing the changing nature of industrial uses,
promote enterprises use of performance standards and lessen dependence on lists of specific uses by
providing greater clarity, certainty and efficiency through reliance on stable performance standards while
providing greater flexibility by offering many and varied performance standard options to fit a wide array of
enterprises.
I appreciate your consideration.
Sincerely,
Kristina M. Hofmann
Kristina M. Hofmann
Attorney at Law
Payne & Hodous, L.L.P.
414 East Jefferson Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: (434) 977-4507
Fax: (434) 977-6574
kmhofmann@~avnehodous.com
Attachment B- 17
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jay Willer Ijay@brhba.org]
Friday, July 02, 2010 3:00 PM
Lee Catlin
Additional comments re the Albemarle County economic development plan
First of all, I think you've done an amazing job of managing the flow of both roundtable discussions re the pending
economic development plan.
It's been hard to think about specific wording changes to suggest in some cases, simply because the text itself doesn't
bend well to minor wordsmithing.
The preamble may be the best - or most important - example of that. Preambles should be a summary statement of
intent and scope, but should also be somewhat inspiring, loftier than common prose.
A suggestion, after listening to both roundtable discussions:
The County's Comprehensive Plan contains an Economic Development Policy that has a stated purpose
to "provide the local citizenry an improved standard of living and enhanced quality of life." That phrase,
"quality of life", is noted frequently in discussions about Albemarle County. As a Board, we are proud of
that reference, and committed to not just maintaining that goal, but constantly improving our performance
toward it.
When "quality of life" is mentioned, it is often used in reference to our physical setting -the beauty of
Albemarle County -and to the range of opportunities, quality schools and services available to our
residents. But the enjoyment of those County assets is, in many cases, predicated on a strong local
economy. Many of those services and assets are provided for or protected by County funds. Many of
those assets are accessible or enjoyed only when individuals and families have the financial means to
enjoy them.
In 2010, our global, national and local economies are reeling from a series of events that were difficult to
anticipate and may take years to restore. With that backdrop, this Board commits itself to increasing our
efforts to ensure the returning strength of our local economy and of the County's ability to continue to
provide quality services to our residents. The County's Comprehensive Plan provides broad guidance
about education, rural area preservation, environmental sensitivities and other "quality of life" factors, and
those controls underlie these efforts to strengthen our local economy. A strengthened local economy will
help encourage growth from existing local enterprises, provide career-path jobs for local residents,
encourage our youth to remain in this community, and provide a better balance to the county's tax base
so that we can continue to provide the quality services residents expect and deserve.
With those goals in mind, the County hereby sets forth a renewed effort to improve our local economy by
working with existing enterprises to facilitate their growth; identifying and resolving unnecessary hurdles
in business expansion; seeking ways to encourage new opportunities related to local agriculture and
agriculture-related businesses; working to ensure a more consistent match of local job skills and local
jobs; and leveraging the inventiveness and creativity of local residents, our university, and local
businesses to continue to provide a sound economic future - and the quality of life that enables -for all
Albemarle County residents.
One other note:
The primary goal listed in the original document talks boldly about boosting county revenues by expanding the commercial
base. It always makes me nervous to see that so overtly in an economic development plan. If I were a business owner
contemplating moving my enterprise to Albemarle County, it would worry me that the County apparently only sees me as
a cash cow. And ultimately, that's not really the primary goal anyway if you think about the language I've suggested
above and much of the input from the roundtables. The primary economic goal is a sound economy that provides jobs
and career paths for local residents, while also helping generate the County revenue balance that will enable continued
"quality of life" services, education and facilities.
Again, thanks for all your hard work on this.
Have a great weekend.
Jay Willer
Executive Vice President
BRHBA
434.981.8708
Attachment B- 18
Lee Catlin
From: David Shreve [ds2800@comcast.net]
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 3:43 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Cc: 'Elizabeth Burdash'
Subject: ASAP commentary
Attachments: ASAP Action Plan Response E.doc
Dear Ms. Catlin,
Attached is a corrected version of the ASAP statement introduced at yesterday's roundtable discussion. Thanks again for
your assiduous efforts of behalf of this community outreach. We hope that our participation was helpful and constructive,
and we look forward to an ongoing discussion of these matters.
David Shreve
ASAP Vice President
Attachment B- 18
A- 1
Advocates for a Sustainable Albernarle Population (ASAP) Economic
Opportunity Action Plan
The members and Board of Advocates for a Sustainable Albemarle
Population (ASAP) recommend a wholesale rethinking of the rationale for
and the structure of the recently released Draft Economic Development
Action Plan.
In general, we find that it possesses several major weaknesses, including:
1 ) A definition of economic vitality or opportur~ity that is tied too
preferentially to the recruitment of new businesses, instead of to the
cultivation of existing businesses or to the promotion of "organic"
innovation and experimentation within the present Albemarle-
Charlottesville community.
2) A fairy tale conception of potential "savior" corporations, entities that
might somehow bring jobs for the local unemployed and the willingness to
pay a large property tax bill, but no (or even few) imported employees,
no corresponding influx of school-age children, and no demands (or
requirements) for expensive infrastructure improvements or natural
resource depletion.
3) The implicit promotion of an unwieldy and expensive governmental
machinery that would too often engage in the business of picking winners
and pull the county, therefore, further away from a focus on core policies
capable of promoting all businesses and much more widespread
economic opportunity.
4) A fairly significant blindness to the key factors (actually under local
control) that contribute to both inequitable tax structures and an
underperforming economy, the two principal problems that the Action
Plan proposes to remedy.
Given these weaknesses, ASAP believes that the proposed Action Plan might
succeed only in gearing the county for relatively fruitless expansion and
attendant costs very likely to increase taxes and environmental degradation,
and dirriinish the region's quality of life.
Attachment B- 18
A-2
(continued)
As a much more viable alternative, ASAP urges the county to promote economic
development, a sounder tax structure, and the maintenance of our unique quality of
life by focusing instead on the only major factors within its control capable of doing
this simultaneously and effectively. These are:
1 ) Reform of our tax structure: By its consistently regressive character, the current
structure dampens local consumer demand, fails to keep pace with the
needs of any population increase, and necessitates either perpetual tax rate
increases or the progressive degradation of our community's ecosystem
services, natural beauty, and public services as a necessary offset. Because
our property and sales tax base require our citizens to pay a smaller share of
their incomes as their income increases, this stifles consumer demand,
dampens investment and job creation, and produces less revenue than most
modern, livable communities require. Heavy reliance on the property tax also
unnecessarily raises the threshold for business survival, threatening small
business longevity in particular.
2) Expanded public investment: With a more progressive tax structure, under
which taxes relative to income rise gradually, more revenue is generated
with lower effective rates. Also more closely aligned with both ability-to-pay
and the needs of promising but fledgling business ventures (including
agricultural interests we've vowed to support), such a reformed structure
would make possible increasingly generous and stable investments in key
public services. We urge the County Board of Supervisors to recognize this
connection and to make these investments the real backbone of the
county's "economic development" efforts. In education, this represents an
investment in human capital that enhances the productivity of all area
businesses. And in all public service categories this sustains a valuable
workforce that, with its modest incomes, spends virtually all that it earns,
promoting local business activity in a way that targeted development
cannot, in a way that exploits marketplace choice over administrative fiat,
and in a way that ensures the most economic opportunity with the lightest
possible environmental impact.
If we do this right, a small measure of physical and population growth might well
materialize along with advancing economic opportunity. We believe, however, that
an important distinction between the proposed Action Plan and the alternative
Attachment B- 1 8
A-3
approach we recommend is that under our recommended path, we would not have
to accept this growth blindly and the most stable and rewarding economic benefits
would not depend upon it. We could choose .this measure of growth, in other words,
democratically and forthrightly, but only after sizing up the true benefits and costs and
without being backed into a misleading "grow or die" corner.
Indeed, were the county to decide to move beyond the kind of general "economic
development" implied by the ASAP recommendation and strive to "recruit" new
businesses-despite their potential impact on county services and natural resources-
a costlbenefit analysis of such efforts should be required. The County has already
established a Fiscal Impact Advisory Council which could oversee these types of
analyses in cooperation with staff.
This analysis should be completed and shared with the public before any official
recruitment activity begins. Doing so will ensure that economic development efforts
are not based on wishful thinking and questionable premises, but will go forward only if
they can generate tangible, quantifiable benefits to the community. This kind of
complete analysis (that also includes enviror~mental impacts and privatized off-
budget public services) would be both economically smart and politically reasonable.
Lee Catlin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margie Shepherd
Saturday, July 03, 201 0 3:31 PM
Lee Catlin; Board of Supervisors members
Economic Action Plan
Board of Supervisors and Lee Catlin -
You have asked for some responses to the Economic Action Plan - here are my points, based on
reading the plan and on reading the quote from Ken Boyd in C-Ville.
First - the fact that Ken Boyd, with the knowledge of Lindsay Dorrier, Duane Snow, and Rodney
Thomas but NOT with the knowledge of Dennis Rooker and Ann Mallek, had meetings with the
local business community to develop this plan, is suspect right there. Why so secret? Why so
exclusive?
That an Economic Action Plan was formatted by the business community is the second alarm.
This is akin to the oil companies developing the plan for energy development and pollution
controls - and we know how well that one is working out.
Ken Boyd said that this was based on "ideas I've sort of been building on ... and a philosophy
that I have that if we leave people alone to go at their own pace, they'll do the right
thing. "
WHAT????? Maybe many people will. Maybe even some businesses will. But if the news has taught
us ANYTHING in the last few years, it is that we absolutely can not count on businesses to do
the right thing if left to their own devices. Especially big businesses that we might lure in
from outside of the state or country. AIG? Enron? Lehman Brothers? Countrywide?
BP? Locally we've had our own spate of embezzlers, contract-breakers, bait and switchers.
There is no belief in the general public that if you leave business alone, they will do the
right thing.
The Economic Action Plan - even the revised one on the county website - is loaded with red
flags that could be disastrous for Albemarle. Note the language of change to encourage
economic development: "Waivers", "Modifications", "Remove obstacles and expand options for
industrial lan users", "consider amendments to county zoning ordinances", "provide greater
flexibility on standers", "lessening dependence on lists of specific uses."
Then there is a recommendation to rezone RA and RI properties to L1 "only where property
owners agree." What? What happened to a comprehensive plan?
What about the whole community agreeing?
And, as Tom Oliver's article pointed out, the repeated pairing of Agribusiness with Tourism
is particularly disturbing. These are farms, they produce food, that people eat (or drink!)
They are not part of your Disneyland, Mr. Boyd.
And NOWHERE in the Economic Action Plan is there anything about responsible business, about
environmental protections, about maintaining rural areas (quite the opposite - see: rezoning,
waivers...). Or how about any kind of vision for what this would look like. What IS the
appropriate mix of "commercial vs. residential tax revenues"?
Also, this plan talks about creating jobs for the "resident population." Do we have any idea
at all how many people, working in businesses in Albemarle County, actually LIVE in Albemarle
County? It is my guess that with most lower paying positions, they are traveling here from
outside of the county.
Contributing to traffic without increasing property tax revenues. And if they ARE living in
Albemarle County, this means they may be paying property taxes - which we know do not cover
the costs required for services - but they would be adding to the burdens on our schools,
libraries, fire and rescue and all the other underfunded services we are supposed to provide.
In the opening paragraphs of the Action Plan is the statement, "Albemarle County's
commitments to Education and infrastructure form the cornerstone of Albemarle County's
quality of life, and, by default, its business growth."
I think this new plan turns things around - hoping that business growth will provide
something for the rest, by default.
The last budget cycle, with the four
eager-to-please-the-business-people-no-matter-what members of the board of supervisors let
the county know that they clearly did NOT have commitments to education, and as all
infrastructure projects were put on hold, that's gone, too.
The language of the plan, the commitment to the environment, the commitment to the people,
the idea of some vision for a quality future for our county - all this needs to be rethought
before we go selling Albemarle County's soul to the business community.
We can do better.
Margie Shepherd
Attachment B-20
Lee Catlin
From: RRHumphris@aol.com
Sent: Monday, July 05,2010 1252 AM
To: Lee Catlin
Cc: riverstreet4444@yahoo.~om; dsrooker@earthlink.net; Duane Snow; Rodney Thomas; Ann
Mallek; Ken Boyd
Subject: Comments to Draft Economic Development Plan
Attachments: BOS Comments-EconPlan 7-3-1 0.doc
Hi Lee,
The attachment is the word document of the comments below. I don't see how you do the job you do
-- but you sure are good in everything I've seen! Good Luck!
Bob Humphris
3 July 2010
Comments - DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The stated primary goal of this proposed Economic Development Plan (the Plan) is to "Increase
the County's economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by
expanding the commercial tax base."
A majority of the Board of Supervisors apparently strongly believes in:
no new taxes,
cutting operation expenses to an absolute minimum,
obtaining new revenues from economic development by expanding the commercial tax
base,
soliciting new economic opportunities or jobs for our unemployed, under err~ployed and
upcoming children.
These stands certainly are appealing to the average citizen in today's hard times. Just the
platform of "NO NEW TAXES" is very attractive and certainly swayed many voters at election
time.
However, historical data and analysis do not support the arguments listed above:
Our unemployment rate has historically been almost the lowest in the state and way
below the national and state average (even in these difficult economic times),
Our tax rate is low in comparison with other comparable counties,
We have been on or near the top of most every national list of the "best place to live"
and many other categories,
New businesses typically create more population - since new businesses cannot find
sufficient local workers (i.e., the G.E. expansion case in the 1990's),
Residential taxes paid are less than services required. As the population grows, the net
result is that the increased revenues from new commercial taxes are insufficient to
provide the necessary services for the increasing population - and the tax rate
increases. This is vividly demonstrated by the ASAP charts, which show the tax rate
increasing with increasing population of various Virginia counties.
So, a majority of this Board is trying to have the County use taxpayer dollars to play a role in
expanding the commercial tax base to increase revenues to potentially reduce the tax
burden on residents. BUT, just the opposite is very likelv to occur - instead of lowering our
tax burden. the tax rate will increase.
This scenario must be addressed somewhere in the Plan. As now written, the Plan states only
the advantages and additions and modifications to the Comprehensive Plan and fails to state
disadvantages.
I don't believe that there is any mention in the Plan of the extremely pertinent objective to
emphasize the hiring of local workers. This should be added, along with requiring that certain
information on new b~~sinesses contacting the County be documented:
Initial nurr~ber of anticipated total workers (by category) and percent of local workers
expected,
A projection for the first five or ten years of the total number of workers and the
percent of those who would be local,
When new companies relocate to Albemarle County, they should be required to
present to the Board annual summary reports which would include the aforesaid
worker information and anticipated burdens on water and sewer, transportation,
educational and other infrastructure.
There are many worthwhile "Actions" and "Strategies" listed in the Plan. However, a cost-
benefit analysis, which anv financial expert or fiscal conservative would recommend, should
be included. I firmly believe that the Countv should not be in the business of soliciting new
development which will result in hipher tax rates.
Thank you,
Robert R. Humphris, Sr.
109 Falcon Drive
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Attachment B-2 1
Lee Catlin
From: John Lowry ~ohnlowry@lowryforalbemarle.com]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:37 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: Re: Copy of your comments re: the Economic Development Action Plan
Attachments: Roundtable document for ED 0ffice.docx; Roundatable page 2.docx; Rationale for Economic
Development Office in Albemarle Countypage 3.docx
Here are electronic copies of comments for the Action Plan roundtable. Page two of my lists counties (not
cities) so smaller number by 9 - when I passed out hard copy to everyone I did not "save" the city list- the point
is pretty obvious, however!
What I did not say in the roundtable but might add here is an Economic Development staff does not necessarily
mean new hires - could be existing staff doing multi - tasking. For the right people it could be fun!!
Lee- as I gave said publicly many times I really appreciate the good work of Albemarle county staff. A good
friend and one time client of mine was George Long - long ago head of Virginia Association of Counties.
George knew county government and George had VACO located here in Albemarle - speaks volumes ... Cheers
JL
Attachment B-2 1
A- l
Page 1
Draft Econo~nic Action Plan
Roundtable Discussion
June 23,2010
Specific suggestion to add an eleille~lt under:
Objective 1 Improve the County's business cli~nate and image.
Strategy 2 Increase thc visibility of County's Business Development Staff
Proposed chan~e:
Within the time period of the action plan (three years) the County will create an Econo~nic
Development Office. This office will be part of the County Executive's Office and will have line
authority and responsibility for pronloting economic development as a part of the County's
Strategic Plan.
Attachments below in support of this addition to the Action Plan
1) Table listing the approach to Economic Development by twenty-one other localities in the
Commonwealth.
2) Rationale for having an Office of Ecoilonlic Development in Albeinarle
3) Hypothetical means to support an annual operating budget for an ED office.
June 23,2010 Roundtable discussion handout
Attachment B-2 1
A-2
Survey of Cities and Counties with an Economic Development Office:
Counties:
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
CULPEPER COUNTY
FAUQUIER COUNTY
FREDERICK COUNTY
GLOUCESTER COUNTY
HANOVER COUNTY
ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY
JAMES CITY COUNTY
LOUDOUN COUhTTY
LOUISA COUNTY
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
ORANGE COUNTY
recent population
3 1 1,000
44,000
66,000
7 1,000
38,000
99,000
34,000
60,000
269,000
3 1,000
84,000
32,000
office title and notes
Economic Development office
(ten staff members)
Department of Development
Dept of Economic Development
(director + three staff)
Winchester-Frederick
Economic Commission
Dept of Economic Development
Director's Office Hanover
County Econ Development
Office of EconomicDevelopmnt
Office of EconomicDevelopmnt
(director + staff of 3)
Dept of Econ Development
Economic Developmnt Director
Dept of Econ Development
(director + staff of 3)
Economic Development Office
SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY 1 19,000 Economic Development Dept
Attachment B-2 1
A-3
Rationale for Economic Development Office in Albemarle County
Why doesn't Albemarle County have an Economic Development Office?
* Everyone else has one. Including our immediate neighbors, even counties and cities
half our size have a named office. Typical size is a director and three staff positions.
* An Office of Econoinic Development is where businesses would go to check out their
ideas. A Director of ED would be an in-house advocate. The Director would help
business men and women coordinate their ideas with Albemarle County's stated
policies and departments.
* Line Authority allows constructive communication. An office has responsibility to
achieve results within our Strategic Plan. Good ideas get a sponsor. Poor ideas get
nipped in the bud. An office has the job of working for responsible growth each and
every day.
* Coordinating economic vitality with other advocate groups is a good idea. However,
TJPED, the Chamber or any other business entity is going to serve their own interests
first. The County needs its own office to make sure the county's needs are served.
Attachment B-22
Lee Catlin
From: John Lowry Ljohnlowry@lowryforaIbemarle.com]
Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 3:42 PM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: RE: last page
Attachments: Economic Development income 4.docx
I seem to have missed final handout page - attatched herewith!
Economic Development Authority
Source of revenue
Attachment B-22
A- I
Consider how an Office for Economic Development might have an annual operating budget.
The Economic Development Authority has issued a face value over the past seven years of about
$500MM bonds in the name of the County of Albemarle. Each issuer is charged an application
fee as they go into the review period before issuance. At present, once issued, there are no more
revenues to the county for these bonds outstanding.
One way to create a regular revenue stream to the county would be to charge annually five or ten
basis points (5 or 10 hundredths of 1%) to each issuer for that amount of bonds face value that is
outstanding at the beginning of our fiscal year (Albemarle starts each July 1). In the example of
$500MM for the last several years there would be about $250,000 for a 5 basis point charge each
year. This revenue could then support an Economic Development Office annual budget.
A second way the EDA could generate revenue would be to charge an annual fee to those who
issue in our name. There are at present 52 issues of Albemarle County Economic Development
bonds outstanding. Were the county to bill each issuer a $500 fee each year, there would be an
annual operating income of $25,000. This is a smaller number than the previous example, but
shows another way that revenues from an existing authority could make an economic office self
supporting.
A third way to create the means to fund an economic development office would be by creating a
Community Development Authority. Albemarle County is itself rated "AAA". It is quite likely
the rating authorities would rate a CDA a notch or two lower (perhapsnA" rated) to create the
ability for the county to borrow money with which to finance itself. The success of economic
vitality could then be used to pay off indebtedness over time.
These are three examples of how an Economic Development Office could self fund.
The goal of economic activity is, among other tl~i~lgs, to create more revenue for the county. I am
happy to explain how many $ millions we are presently missing. The increased activity would be
in the growth area and create jobs for our citizens.
Attachment B-23
Lee Catlin
From: Dawn Story [dawn@newmoonnaturals.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 06,2010 9:37 AM
To: Lee Catlin
Subject: recommendations from Dawn Story
Attachments: RECOMMENDATlONSalbemarlecountyEDAP.docx
Hello Lee,
Sorry to have fallen off the planet. I've been consumed with family/holiday, etc! Hope you had a nice one!
Here is the electronic copy of the recommendations I presented at last Thursday's round table. Please let me know if
there is anybody else to whom I should send this. I truly hope the county will consider elevating the status of agriculture,
not only an economic driver, but as a solution to so many of our current challenges, as well as those we are likely to face
in the future. I'd be interested in your personal feedback if you'd care to share.
Thanks again for the opportunity to participate in the democratic process! It will be exciting to see how the community's
collective wisdom will be gleaned to plan for a resilient future.
" Dawn Story
Attachment B-23
A- l
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REVISIONS OF THE
ALBEMARLE COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ACTION PLAN
Offered by Dawn Story
June 30,2010
In considering strategies for a new Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan, we need to look no further
than the prospects of investing in a resilient, sustainable and viable local food and agriculture economy. According to a
recent report issued by Packaged Facts, local food sales within the U.S. are expected to reach $7 billion by 2011. This
trend holds steady despite the recent downturn in the economy, as more and more consumers seek healthy food that
allows them to support agriculture and fisheries in their local communities. In fact, if Albemarle County residents spent
only $10 of their food budget per week on locally produced food, this would generate over $20 million to our local
economy. Given the additional security that everyone needs to eat, this is a segment of our economy that has perpetuity
and is deserving of much further research, strategic planning and follow-through.
Investing in our local foodlag economy has what is called a "multiplier effect", meaning that the benefits of creating
sound and secure community food systems can be felt far and wide across a region's various sectors and can address
many issues at once. For instance, above and beyond generating wealth (both monetary and non-monetary) that stays
in our community, local food systems offer the following benefits:
1. Create more jobs
2. Sustain family farms by making them more viable
3. Preserve open space
4. Create food security for the citizens of Albemarle County
5. Grow a new generation of farmers
6. Reduce our dependence on fossil fuels
7. Decrease our food miles
8. Increase health and well-being of our citizens
9. Preserve heritage skills, livestock breeds and cuisine
10. Promote the humane treatment of animals
11. Reduce our environmental impact by using sustainable growing methods
12. Connect those that produce food with those who consume it
13. Connect rural and urban residents
14. Reconnect people with the source of their food
15. Build soil
16. Conserve water
17. Diversify farming activities
All over the nation, both state and local governments are recognizing the connection between economic development,
food access, food security, public health, hunger and labor and are creating Food Policy Councils to forge policies for
just, healthy food systems. These councils act as both forums for food issues and platforms for coordinated action
amongst sectors of a community that are not generally linked together. Their strength lies in their ability to pull together
Attachment B-23
A-2
the wide-ranging sectors that comprise a food system and address them from a more holistic perspective. Thus, council
members often include a diverse group of representatives such as local politicians, county staff, farmers and food
producers, food distributors, consumers, transportation officials, school district officers, economic development staff,
health department officials, non-profits working on agricultural issues, extension agents and so on. Please refer to the
document "Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned" by the Institute for Food and Development Policy for more details.
Another glowing example of a region's collaborative efforts and forward-thinking to secure a thriving community food
system as a driver for their local economic engine comes from North Carolina. Please refer to the document, "From Farm
to Fork: A Guide to Building North Carolina's Sustainable Local Food Economy" for details. It is just one example of many
initiatives that are taking advantage of the triple bottom line -that is, people, planet and profit - that is a resultant
benefit of this strategy.
When developing strategic plans for any community's future (microcosm), it is also important to take into account a
more holistic picture of what is occurring at the macrocosm level. Right now, the world is facing a confluence of crises
that are impacting our current lifestyles and will likely change the way we habit the planet into the future. The existing
dilemmas we are experiencing - including our current energy, environment, economic, social, health care, and food
predicaments - largely hinge upon our present society's dependence on fossil fuels and are compounded by the fact
that these limited sources of energy are major contributors to global climate destabilization. While there may be
lingering dispute over the minute details, the facts associated with these crises have been available to the general
populace, the media and our government for at least a decade.
With this in mind, it would be wise for any community looking to project into the future - including the crafting of a new
Economic Development Action Plan -- to plan for the uncertainties associated with our current energy volatility,
environmental fragility, economic recessions/depressions, social alienation, health epidemics, population overshoot,
water shortages and food/agriculture vulnerabilities. Our recent experiences with erratic weather patterns, gasoline
price spikes and shortages and the growing number of homeless and hungry within our community are only just a few
examples of the vulnerabilities we face as we head toward an uncertain future. In short, we'd be prudent to plan ahead
and prepare for a county-wide transition toward a future less dependent on fossil fuels, less carbon-intensive and more
community-oriented.
Over the last few decades, we have become a society largely dependent on outside sources for almost everything,
including what we eat. While the globalization of our food supply has offered many advantages (such as being able to
eat whatever want, whenever we want it), it has also made us more vulnerable. In fact, we are far more vulnerable than
we were before the Great Depression due to the fact the American food system now relies on massive fossil fuel inputs,
toxic chemicals and parts and machinery manufactured overseas and due to the fact that only a shrinking percentage of
the population knows how to grow food (less than I%), let alone how to cook with fresh produce.
In order to withstand the shocks of fuel price spikes, food supply disruptions, or transient economic or geopolitical
events and, thus, become more resilient, we need to "relocalize" our food systems. Relocalization means decentralizing
our food production and distribution systems and going back to producing more of our basic food necessities locally. We
must reinvent the way we feed ourselves through a transitional process of planned, incremental, and rapid changes in
order to avoid the likely chaos that will ensue should we wait until further systemic breakdown.
The transition process will succeed by creating more resilience within our current food system. This is important because
resilient food systems are able to withstand greater magnitudes of disturbance and shock before losing their capacity to
function. One quality of resilience is redundancy (an example of this in action would be stocking of larger inventories in
our grocery stores as opposed to our current "just-in-time" delivery systems). Another quality of resilience is diversity
Attachment B-23
A-3
(meaning farms producing a multitude of crops as opposed to mono-cropping). And yet another is dispersion and
decentralization, as opposed to centralized control over our food system.
Our new food system will require more farmers and more people consuming more food that is produced close to home.
In her recent book, "A Nation of Farmers", which was inspired by Thomas Jefferson's vision for an agrarian society,
Sharon Astyk suggests we'll need 100 million farmers and 200 million home cooks in order to feed ourselves in times
ahead. Any new policies being scripted by Albemarle County should include strategies that will manifest this vision. The
good news is that we have a golden opportunity to address so many of our current crises by creating resilient,
sustaina~le community food systems through well-thought out strategies in support of sustainable agriculture and local
food production.
All of this being said, I propose that the new Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan be designed to rest
upon the strong legs of a thriving, viable and resilient agricultural community - one that is not vulnerable to the whims
of far-away CEOs and to the uncertainties of our future. Our plan should tap into the far-reaching economic potential of
a sound, secure and just community food system that will have the ripple effects of creating new economies for both
farmers and citizens alike and that will generate wealth that will actually stay in our community.
Given the somewhat daunting task of reconstructing our food system, I recommend that we slow down and take the
necessary time to digest the potential effects of an uncertain and lower-carbon future rather than rushing through some
superficial policy. By forming a working group (such as a Food Policy Council) that includes bringing the various sectors
of our community together to collaborate on research, assessment, strategic planning and implementation, we will be
able to transform such challenges into golden opportunities for more resilient and vibrant communities.
In addition to a Food Policy Council, I propose the following recommendations to deliberately and strategically
reconstruct our foodshed, elevate the practice of agriculture and create a resilient and relocalized community food
system that includes all of the processes involved in feeding people as follows:
The Albemarle County Economic Development Action Plan should:
Strive to increase the quantity and quality of agricultural activity and food production in Albemarle County; support
the ability for farmers and food entrepreneurs to get their products to market; and protect citizen's rights to make
personal food consumption choices as follows:
1. Allow residents to keep scale-appropriate poultry flocks, including within the R1 district
2. Provide funding and/or collaborate with other groups to create a locally-based processing facility for livestock
(ie: slaughterhouse, mobile abattoirs)
3. Create tax incentives for all agricultural endeavors, including farms that comprise less than 5 acres
4. Provide financial assistance to both new and existing farms and food entrepreneurs
5. Collaborate with the Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services to reduce the regulatory burdens
that create obstacles for agricultural endeavors
6. Collaborate with the Virginia Department of Health to reduce the regulatory burdens that create obstacles for
agricultural endeavors
7. Reduce the zoning restrictions and expedite special permits for projects focusing on local food production,
distribution, sales and consumption
8. Coordinate with existing state and federal initiatives to bring these programs to Albemarle County (Farm-to-
School, SNAP, etc)
Attachment B-23
A-4
9. Coordinate with existing task forces/committees currently engaged in dialogue and programming relative to
agriculture (VACO, VADO, VDACS, VDH, Virginia Food Policy Council, etc)
10. Collaborate with other groups to create a marketing "brand" for Albemarle-grown products (PEC, Local Food
Hub, etc)
11. Work with Albemarle County schools to get agriculture into the curriculum (Farm-to-School Programs)
12. Educate school cafeteria workers on the health benefits and cooking techniques for fresh produce
13. Designate land on school property specifically for food production (to be used both for gardening lessons and
food for school meals and snacks)
14. Educate citizens on the benefits of consuming locally-produced food, including provide support PEC's Buy Fresh
Buy Local program through funding and website link from county web page
15. Educate citizens on the importance of growing at least some of their food by encouraging the creation of Victory
Gardens and converting lawns into food production
16. Work with homeowners associations and neighborhoods to reduce obstacles to home food production and
entrepreneurship
17. Create new farmers markets and venues for direct exchange of locally produced food between producers and
consumers
18. Support new and existing farmers markets by reducing the zoning restrictions, fees and time delays that
currently create obstacles
19. Support new and existing community gardens by reducing the zoning restrictions, fees and time delays that
currently creating obstacles
20. Support home-based value-added food production by reducing the regulatory burdens currently creating
obstacles
21. Convert abandoned lots into urban/community gardens
22. Provide funding for Community Food Projects, especially those relative to food justice, food distribution and
value-added food production
23. Create and support farm training programs to incubate a new generation of farmers, including training for
immigrants, refugees, unemployed and homeless
24. Create and support farm labor programs to support farmers in need of human energy, including placement of
trained immigrants, refugees, the unemployed and the homeless
25. Create and support a food entrepreneurship/food incubator program designed to launch new, locally produced
value-added food products that includes community kitchen space, a cannery, small business assistance,
marketing and distribution assistance, and general entrepreneurial support.
26. Provide support for local food aggregators and distributors (Local Food Hub)
27. Create tax incentives for businesses that use locally produced food (caterers, restaurants, hotels, schools,
retailers, etc)
28. Support programs and businesses that work to protect our heritage culinary and agricultural traditions and skills,
heritage seeds and plants (Southern Exposure Seed Exchange, Backyard Revolution, etc)
29. Create an emergency preparedness plan for food supply interruptions
30. Create a goal for reducing our local "foodprint" (the energy impact of our collective food consumption)
31. Support and implement EBT and SNAP programs to enable fresh, healthy, locally produced food to get reach all
segments of the populace including the underserved and senior community
32. Ensure fair practices for farm labor (living wages, bi-lingual communication, adequate housing and health care,
etc)
33. Collaborate with the University of Virginia's Urban & Environmental Planning Food Systems Class in conducting
research relative to Albemarle County's agricultural "status quo ", as well as create recommendations based on
findings
Attachment B-23
A-5
34. Create incentives to "grow" soil that is being lost at an alarming rate and that is crucial to all sustainable
agricultural endeavors; provide incentives for small and large scale soil-building and cornposting projects
35. Create disincentives for energy/soil waste and incentives for using less energy/soil
36. Collaborate with state and federal government to ensure that consumer's rights to make food choices as they
see fit are protected and that GMO and irradiated foods are clearly labeled as such
37. Hire someone for the approved Albemarle County agricultural/rural economic development position to oversee
all of the above
38. Create a diverse advisory council (Food Policy Council) to work in tandem with aforementioned agricultural
officer so that all stakeholders are able to participate and/or advise on agricultural policies and programs
References:
Economic Development Action Plan
Roundtable Notes, w/o refinements
Preamble, Goal, Objective 1
June 23rd Roundtable
1. Primary goal – how does data demonstrate success with goal? No measures for rural economy.
2. Compatibility with sustainability? Criteria should related to sustainability and natural resources
(Sierra Club)
3. Capture “business” to include non-profits, niche farming, and other enterprises
4. Preamble- 2nd paragraph, disagree with “proven track record”, “achieved”, really doesn’t
address environmental issues, further work sessions?
5. Preamble – 2nd paragraph, strike everything but last sentence
6. Objective 1, Strategy 2 – Create an Economic Development Office, “line authority”, (See
handout for ways to fund and details)
7. Objective 1, Strategy 1 – expand organizations to include Charlottesville Incubator , Business
Innovation Council
8. Objective 1, Strategy 1 – Emphasis on existing businesses
9. Preamble – “Community has sought…”
10. Consider impacts from local businesses versus attracted businesses moving into County.
July 1st Roundtable
1. Preamble, para 2: “proven track record” don’t agree with statement. Sierra Club offers
alternative statement, previously submitted
2. Talk about what the County strives to do for protection of natural resources
3. Include chart from Board Retreat handout for economic status with this document
4. Provide comparisons for review times to other localities
5. In favor of outreach and streamlining,
6. Preamble, para 1: short term goals in plan, but should nurture long term goals
7. Need to clarify how performance measures will achieve goal of plan
8. Need stronger emphasis on providing jobs
9. Preamble, para 2: “consistently” , emphasis on providing jobs
10. Use unemployment as a performance measure
11. Use underemployment, not just unemployment
12. Objective 1, Strategy 3: Notify business community and others on proposed changes to
ordinances, post notices consistently, formalize process for receiving input on proposed changes
13. Consider revising statement to public education commitment
14. Reconcile frozen positions against expectations for community (contrary to job creation)
15. Primary goal: more emphasis on cost controls as well as revenue enhancement
16. Objective 1, Strategy 1: “and leadership of Commonwealth” “Commonwealth’s vitality”
17. Remove obstacles to building retail,
18. Market based solutions should include pricing to impacts on natural resources,
Objective 2
June 23rd Roundtable
1. Include written schedule for when approval can be expected (action 3, strategy 1)
2. Define periods of time for completion,
3. Look at effectiveness with respect to quality of life
4. Strategy 1, “ reduce unnecessary or inappropriate complexity”
5. Clarify for Board what requirements are mandated by others vs. County imposed
July 1st Roundtable
1. Strategy 1: remove note on lesser demand for complex rezonings and special use permits
2. Strategy 1: echo same comment as above, remove note on priorities
3. Ask rezoned property owners why they aren’t proceeding now
4. Strategy 1: efficient applications, but insert “without eliminating environmental safeguards”
5. Need to better understand impacts created by new development before making changes,
“speed should not overtake safeguards and environmental quality”
6. Strategy 1, 3rd bullet – emphasize common sense in process
7. Look at eliminating rules (red tape) to achieve goal to provide jobs, streamline process
8. Regulations serve a purpose (oil spill)
9. Making process simple to help better protect, market based conservation solutions should be
added to plan (wetland mitigation bank should be exempt from stream buffer regs) “Purchase
stormwater credits”
10. Supports market based solutions, using nonprofit organizations and credits
11. Strategy 2: simplify process for all applicants
Objective 3
June 23rd Roundtable
1. Evaluate for compatibility with other sections of the Comprehensive Plan, Don’t partner in
development proposals that promote growth, make sure supporting sustainability
2. County doesn’t have role with respect to population (response to #1)
3. Employers should be broader to include other entities that provide jobs
4. “fiscally and ecologically beneficial to the County”, “do no harm”
5. General environmental protection concern
6. Looking for some declaration that need to also consider impacts created by growth (air quality,
traffic, etc)
7. “ capital-intensive, knowledge-based, or other…” keep open to capital intensive industries that
provide good jobs
8. Strategy 1 – need to work with organizations that support potential and new businesses
(entrepreneurs), become partner in Charlottesville Business Incubator
9. To create jobs for people that are here by people that are here, support business incubators
10. Recognize need to allow generations of families to find jobs rather than need to leave
11. Focus on better quality jobs, skill trades
12. Focus on existing residents first, then other strategies, career paths, training
13. Apply economic development fund to small, new businesses
14. Put strategy 1 as action under strategy 2, homegrown businesses with promote and support
small business growth, “align targets” – not sure what means? (handout)
15. Be strategic in geographic location of jobs
16. “targeted” versus designed to lift all businesses, targeted may be too small a club
17. “attracts and retains”
July 1st Roundtable
1. Provisions for assistance in exchange for commitments to local jobs, with recourse if fails,
recognize “front doors” to community as attractors and preserve entrances to County
2. Home based businesses in RA should be examined (e.g. broadband provided to homes)
3. RA businesses deserve a separate bullet or strategy, need vibrant rural economy, seek
sustainable opportunities for RA that help protect w/o sacrificing protections of RA
4. Strategy 2: Don’t get into picking winners and losers, focus on types of industry and allow
natural growth
5. Agrees with comment on not picking winners
6. Strategy 2: substitute enterprises for industries, nurture local enterprises and attract good
businesses
7. Open up to all interested parties, avoid closed feeling by repeated mention of TJPED and C of C
8. Avoid undermining quality of life by attracting, (question: do we have a cap on growth in mind?)
9. Strategy 2: who is in charge of selecting target industries? Keep broad based task force open to
many
10. Attracting new industries who bring in workers versus hire local, need to avoid, recognize may
hurt existing local businesses and result in poorer paying jobs, avoid encouraging faster
population growth, need to support local people
11. Need quality of life metric as part of goal, redevelopment should be emphasized, less emphasis
on greenfields,
12. Clarify difference between fiscal impact and economic impact, looking at supporting local
businesses
13. Avoid micromanagement of development, some loss of jobs can help better position for future
14. Strategy 2, 3rd: stronger wording about entrepreneurial relationship between startups and
university
15. Avoid picking winners and losers
16. Need transportation plan to support development, emphasis on transit
Objective 4
June 23rd Roundtable
1. “within already designated development areas” important to keep in document and prominent
throughout document
July 1st Roundtable
1. Slippery slope with ordinance changes, comprehensive land use plan (resource plan) should be
more strongly emphasized,
2. Strategy 1: change “flexibility” to “clarity, certainty”
3. Recognize groundwater as resource, need to survey all sensitive areas and understand impacts
before proceeding
4. Need equal urgency on other parts of Comprehensive Plan, (e.g. mountain protection)
5. Stronger statements needed on keeping LI as LI rather than rezoning to other uses
Objective 5
June 23rd Roundtable
1. Agriculture supports existing population. Value added by supporting local population. Fund Ag
Support position. Look for symbiosis with ag and natural resource protection (Tom’s handout)
2. Use term “agriculture’” rather than “agribusiness”
3. Broader statement to support local agriculture
4. Evaluate Ag Support position as separate action item
5. Recognize most farms are small and cannot provide sole income for most families, recognize
need for supplemental income for farmers
6. Master planning should be mentioned to provide jobs (glue that provides jobs)
7. Master plans subordinate to other parts of plan, (broader point than this objective)
8. Separate working group needed to focus agricultural issues
9. Separate agriculture from tourism
10. Look at sixth objective related to business tax policy (overall question)
11. Need to capture ancillary economic benefits of agricultural activities
July 1st Roundtable
1. Insert “agriculture” first, recognize industry development for agriculture will take a larger effort,
“Assess current programs and investments in agriculture “
2. Include “other related businesses” with above
3. No need to involve CACVB in initial efforts, start with work already in RA plan
4. Add section about direct marketing of agriculture production, include agriculture support
position called for in RA plan
5. Recognize multiplier effect of keeping agriculture dollars in county, focus on local production
6. Support signage for rural area businesses, may be too narrow as written, broaden to recognize
other rural area businesses, recognize infrastructure for rural area activities (e.g. bike lanes)
7. Elevate status of this objective, has comments will email to Lee
8. Look at obstacles to agriculture before other efforts
9. Add cottage enterprises, separate tourism from agriculture and agribusiness, recognize rural
area attraction for tourism,