Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-11-03Tentative BOARD OF SUPERVISORS T E N T A T I V E NOVEMBER 3, 2010 9:00 A.M., AUDITORIUM COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Recognitions: a. Virginia Farm-to-School Week. 5. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 6. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 7. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). 9:45 a.m. – Public Hearing: 8. PROJECT: SP-2010-00016. Forest Lakes Farmers’ Market (Sign #37). PROPOSED: To allow a farmer's market one (1) day a week from 4:00pm to 7:00pm during the months of April through September. ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: Planned Use Development (PUD) - residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.3.2(9) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Community - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No X. LOCATION: 1650 Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670), in the Forest Lakes South development. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 046B5-00-00-001B0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna. 9. PROJECT: SP-2010-00019. Afton Farmers' Market (Sign #48). PROPOSED: To allow a farmers' market two (2) days a week from 3:00pm to 8:00pm. ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); Entrance Corridor (EC) - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 10.2.2 (54) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes X. LOCATION: 9264 Critzers Shop Road, approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Route 151 and Route 637. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06900-00-00-01300. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall. 10. PROJECT: SP-2008-00056, Unity Church (Sign #6). PROPOSED: Request to add 54 parking spaces to provide additional parking for church services. ZONING CATEGORY/ GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots). SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101103/00_Agenda.htm (1 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:59:16 PM] Tentative development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes. LOCATION: 2825 Hydraulic Circle, approximately 800 ft. north of intersection with Whitewood Road. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100000000400. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett. 11. An ordinance to amend Chapter 10, Offenses – Miscellaneous, of the Albemarle County Code. The proposed ordinance updates criminal offense provisions in the County Code to more closely parallel the Virginia Code provisions; repeals § 10-118 related to Sunday closings that is no longer applicable under State law; amends § 10-107 relating to discharging firearms in residential districts to specify exceptions and to update the definition of residential district to include the Neighborhood Model District (NMD); and adds § 10-124 to make it unlawful to urinate or defecate in public. 10:45 a.m. – Action Item 12. PROJECT: SP-2009-00034. RE-STORE'N STATION (Signs #33&36). Conditions of Approval. (Deferred from October 13, 2010) 11:00 a.m. – Presentations Items 13. 11:00 a.m. - Board-to-Board, School Board Chairman. 14. 11:15 a.m. - Presentation of ASAP's County-funded research findings, Jack Marshall. 15. Closed Meeting. 16. Certify Closed Meeting. 17. Boards and Commissions: a. Vacancies/Appointments. 18. 1:45 p.m. - Economic Vitality Action Plan Update. 2:00 p.m. - Work Sessions: 19. 2:00 p.m. - Five-Year Financial Plan. 20. 3:30 p.m. - Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan. 21. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 22. Adjourn to November 5, 2010, 11:00 a.m., Room 241. C O N S E N T A G E N D A FOR APPROVAL: 7.1 Approval of Minutes: July 14, 2010. 7.2 Willis Drive Road Name Change. 7.3 FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101103/00_Agenda.htm (2 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:59:16 PM] Tentative 7.4 FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. FOR INFORMATION: 7.5 FY2011 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers for State. Return to Top of Agenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page file:////coba-webapp01/BOSForms/Agenda/2010Files/Migration/20101103/00_Agenda.htm (3 of 3) [10/1/2020 2:59:16 PM] COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Willis Drive Road Name Change SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of road name change of W illis Drive to Martha Jefferson Drive STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Cilimberg, Weaver, and Slack LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Part I, Section 6 (e) of the Albem arle County Road Naming and Property Numbering Manuel, road name change requests shall be forwarded to the Board for approval upon validation of the following: That the landowners of more than fifty (50) percent of the parcels served by the road have sign ed a petition in favor of a common road name, and that the proposed road name is otherwise consistent with the road name guidelines set forth in the Manual (i.e., that it is not a duplicate name, is limited to three words, and does not exceed sixteen chara cters and/or spaces). DISCUSSION: A majority of the landowners of the pro perties served by Willis Drive submitted a request to change the road name of Willis Drive to Martha Jefferson Drive (Attachment A). The proposed name is a common road name within the meaning of the Manual and is consistent with the Manual’s other road name guidelines. A map showing the location of th e road is attached (Attachment B). BUDGET IMPACT: There is no anticipated budget impact. The landowners will be responsible for th e costs associated with new signage. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board approve changing the road name of Willis Drive to Martha Jefferson Drive and authorize staff to implement the change. ATTACHMENTS A – Willis Drive to Martha Jefferson Drive Letters B – Martha Jefferson Drive Map Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda I -6 4 RICHMOND RDSTATE FARM BLVDPETER JEFFERSON PKWYW ORRELL DRWILLIS DR Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services(GDS). Map created May 2010By Andy Slack GIS Specialist IINote: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description. Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 30, 2009. Road Name ChangeWillis Drive 4Roads07601,520 2,280 3,040380Feet New Road Name Martha Jefferson Drive Charlottesville Exit 124 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2010 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriation #2010104 and #2010105 for various school programs STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Davis, and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total e xpenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The total of the requested FY 2010 appropriations, itemized below , is $185,940.92. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of two (2) FY 2010 appropriations as follows: Two (2) appropriations (#2010104 and #2010105) totaling $185,940.02 for school programs A description of this request is provided in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $18 5,940.02 and the approval of Appropriation #2010104 and #2010105. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2010104 $182,484.31 Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 127,525.16 Other Fund Balances 54,959.15 This appropriation requests includes three items: From the September 23, 2010 School Board Meeting agenda: The School Bus Replacement Fund has an unexpended fund balance from FY 08-09. This request is to re-appropriate $50,000.00 in available funds for FY 09-10. The Internal Service-Vehicle Maintenance Fund reflects the cost of repairing vehicles not operated by the school division and provides the school division with some revenue associated with these repairs. Expenditures have exceeded appropriations for FY 09-10. This agenda item requests appropriation of $127,525.16 in additional received funds to cover the increase and to balance this fund. The McIntire Trust is a trust fund established by Paul G. McIntire for the Albemarle County Public Schools. The income from this fund shall be applied to the annual purchase of two silver medals to be presented by the School Board of Albemarle County to one male and one female County high school graduate selected for their outstanding character and academic achievement. Along with the medal, the fund provides a cash award of $100.00 to each recipient. This fund expended $4,959.15 beyond its appropriated budget. This request is to provide $4,959.15 to balance this fund. Appropriation #2010105 $ 3,456.61 Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 3,456.61 From the October 14, 2010 School Board Meeting agenda: This request is to appropriate a refund in the amount of $3,456.61 from Follett Library Company as a result of a credit balance on accounts that had been set-up for Baker Butler Elementary School. The expenses were related to a Book Fair held at Baker Butler Elementary School. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY 2011 Budget Amendment and Appropriations SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Approval of Budget Amendment and Appropriations #2011048, #2011050, and #2011051 for various school and local government programs and projects STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Davis; and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: X INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Virginia Code § 15.2-2507 provides that any locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate amount to be appropriated during the fiscal year as shown in the currently adopted budget; provided, however, any such amendment which exceeds one percent of the total expenditures shown in the currently adopted budget must be accomplished by first publishing a notice of a meeting and holding a public hearing before amending the budget. The Code section applies to all County funds, i.e., General Fund, Capital Funds, E911, School Self-Sustaining, etc. The total of the requested FY 2011 appropriations itemized below, minus the appropriation which is a transfer, is $1,092,089.18. A budget amendment public hearing is not required because the amount of the cumulative appropriations does not exceed one percent of the currently adopted budget. DISCUSSION: This request involves the approval of three (3) FY 2011 appropriations as follows: • One (1) appropriation (#2011048) totaling $119,977.52 for various school programs and projects • One (1) appropriation (#2011050) totaling $972,111.66 for various school programs and projects • One (1) appropriation (#2011051) transferring $150,000 from Parks and Recreation Athletic Field Development to the AHS and WAHS Turf Field projects RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval of the budget amendment in the amount of $1,092,089.18 and the approval of Appropriations #2011048, #2011050, and #2011051. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Appropriation Descriptions Return to consent agenda Return to regular Agenda Attachment A Appropriation #2011048 $119,977.52 Revenue Source: Local Revenue $ 56,197.61 Federal Revenue 63,779.91 This appropriation includes ten (10) School Division requests: From the September 23, 2010 School Board Meeting agenda: • An appropriation is requested for a donation that Sutherland Middle School received in the amount of $500.00 from James E. Caton. The donor has requested that this contribution be used to fund any instructional needs at Sutherland Middle School. • An appropriation is requested in the amount of $6,500.00 for a grant awarded to the Community Public Charter School to participate in the Istation Pilot Program. Istation is a software based internet delivered adaptive testing system used to determine each student’s overall reading ability and then adapts difficulty of questions based upon performance. The program has both direct reading intervention strategies as well as a reading support program embedded in Science and Social Studies content. • A FY 10/11 re-appropriation is requested for the $6,614.23 FY 09/10 Technology Challenge Grant fund balance. The mission of the Technology Challenge Grant is to improve student academic achievement through the use of technology in schools in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Technology Challenge Grant is responsible for the following major programs and/or services: Teacher Training and Technology Curriculum Development. The funds will be used for professional development. • A FY 10/11 re-appropriation is requested for the ARRA Title II, Part D, fund balance retained by the state in the amount of $39,625.68. These funds will be used to provide the following services and supports: University courses to support teachers in reaching state and national certification standards in the use of technology in the classroom, workshops/staff development for teachers and a computer/technology literacy assessment tool. • An appropriation is requested in the amount of $36,297.61 for anonymous donations to be used for payroll and benefits at the Community Public Charter School. This school provides an alternative and innovative learning environment, using the arts, to help children in grades six through eight learn in ways that match their learning styles; developing the whole child intellectually, emotionally, physically and socially. Seeking to serve students who have not succeeded in school, the program will close their achievement gap by offering a balance of literacy tutorials and an arts-infused curriculum in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Community Public Charter School is responsible for the following major programs and/or services: 6th and 7th Grade Instructional Program, Literacy and Arts Infused Education, Choice Theory School Development; and Mastery Learning. • An appropriation is requested in the amount of $500.00 for a donation received from Daniel and Harriet Mohler for the Greer Elementary School. The donors have requested that this contribution be used to help offset any expenses for a student in need, such as a pair of shoes, a school supply, or a scholarship towards a club or activity. • An appropriation is requested for $17,300.00 in payments from Utopian Wireless. Utopian Wireless has agreed to pay the Albemarle County Public Schools in monthly installments for the leases of its broadband channel capacity. Two checks from Utopian Wireless totaling $17,300.00 were received for their August payment. Albemarle County Public Schools is committed to maximizing student achievement and fostering collaboration amongst professional learning communities and stakeholders. Funds received from Utopian Wireless will be used to acquire specialized contracted services needed to migrate the current ACPS Intranet instance to a new, functionally enhanced platform that will also serve as the foundation for future development. This foundation will serve as an optimized environment that will allow for increased collaboration and communication. Future development will involve deployment of a security gateway, single sign-on platform, collaboration environments, social networking and user profiles. • An appropriation is requested in the amount of $1,600.00 in donations from the Albemarle High School Football Boosters for Albemarle High School to help fund the installation of the synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. • An appropriation is requested for $1,040.00 for the additional School Improvement Funds provided to Albemarle County Public Schools under Title I, Part A, Section 1003(a) of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The approved school, Mary Carr Greer Elementary, has been awarded these funds and will use them to purchase additional iPads. • An appropriation in the amount of $10,000 is requested to appropriate the increased funding provided to the Race to GED Fund. This Fund allows the County to substantially increase the number of students seeking a General Equivalency Diploma (GED) through its Adult Education Program and to increase the number of student hours and students passing the GED in support of the Division’s strategic plan. The Race to GED Fund is responsible for the following major programs and/or services: Expansion of GED classes; and Outreach to GED students. Funding for FY10/11 was increased by $10,000 from the original budget amount of $30,000. The funds will be used for salaries, benefits, GED testing and leases/rentals. Appropriation #2011050 $972,111.66 Revenue Source: Local Revenue (donations/grants) $ 929,797.19 Federal Revenue 42,314.47 This appropriation includes twelve (12) School Division requests: From the October 14, 2010 School Board Meeting agenda: • A request to appropriate $433,652.89 for the installation of the synthetic turf field at Albemarle High School. This appropriation includes donations of $2,300.00 from Monticello High School, 4,700.00 from Albemarle High School, and $426,652.89 from the Community Foundation, previously identified as an anonymous donor. In addition, Appropriation #2011051 below identifies $75,000 to be appropriated from the Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation’s capital budget to the AHS turf field. Due to a renegotiation for the construction/installation of the turf field from $650,000 to $552,000, AHS now has the funding required for the commencement and completion of the turf field installation with these two appropriations. • A request to appropriate $443,822.11 for the installation of the synthetic turf field at Western Albemarle High School. This appropriation includes donations of $6,119.00 from Western Albemarle High School, $25,000.00 from Bio-Cat, Inc., $2,300 from Monticello High School and $410,403.11 from the Community Foundation, previously identified as an anonymous donor. In addition, Appropriation $2011051 below identifies $75,000 to be appropriated from the Albemarle County Department of Parks and Recreation’s capital budget to the WAHS turf field. Due to a renegotiation for the construction/ installation of the turf field from $650,000 to $552,000, WAHS now has the funding required for the commencement and completion of the turf field installation with these two appropriations. • A request to appropriate $97.63 for a donation received by Crozet Elementary School from Target. Crozet Elementary School takes part in the Take Charge of Education donation program at Target. The Take Charge of Education donations are accumulated when individuals make purchases at Target using their REDcard and designating a specific school. Target donates up to 1% of those purchases to the eligible K-12 schools as designated and distributes the checks in September each year. These funds will be used for educational supplies needed at Crozet Elementary School. • A request to appropriate a donation received by Stone Robinson Elementary School in the amount of $15,238.70 from the Stone Robinson PTO to be used to help fund the renovation of the main playground at Stone Robinson Elementary School. • A request to appropriate a $20,000.00 grant that State Farm Insurance Company has provided to Albemarle County Public Schools. These funds will be used to support the M³- Math, Men, & Mission Program. This program is designed to provide African-American males with a solid pathway for future success through increased opportunity for rigorous coursework, consistent opportunities for mentoring and support, and service learning to expand their influence to others in the community. This program will focus on students in their middle school years and will provide rigorous pre-algebra curriculum through instructional approaches that address their specific learning needs. • A request to appropriate a grant in the amount of $6,000.00 awarded to Albemarle County Schools from Better Living, Inc. for teachers’ staff development. Stipends in the amount of $1,000.00 each will be provided as Golden Apple Awards to the following recipients: Cheryl Brooks-Davis at Agnor-Hurt; Jim Loffredo at Scottsville; Craig Jennings at Burley Middle; Jennie Critzer at Walton Middle; Katie Owens at Monticello High and Susan Horton at Murray High. • A request to appropriate a $5,000.00 grant awarded to Stone Robinson Elementary School from the Bama Works Fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used for renovation of the school’s main playground. • A request to appropriate a $500.00 donation provided to Baker Butler Elementary School from Lorri and Paul Haney to be used to help purchase instructional materials for the fourth grade class at Baker Butler Elementary School. • A request to appropriate a $3,000.00 grant awarded to Jack Jouett Middle School from the Bama Works Fund of Dave Matthews Band in the Charlottesville Area Community Foundation. These funds will be used to purchase new band instruments. • A request to appropriate a grant in the amount of $492.66 provided to Meriwether Lewis Elementary School from the Virginia Education Association. These funds will be used to implement teacher Anne Straume’s project titled “Peeking at the Past to Paint the Present”. Students will study about Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Columbus and the New World through stories, plays, poetry, websites, music and artwork. At the conclusion, students will create a fine-arts museum which will showcase their replica pottery pieces from each time period. • A request to appropriate a $42,314.47 USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program grant that has been awarded to two Albemarle County Elementary Schools; Greer Elementary received $30,262.88 and Yancey Elementary received $12,051.59. These funds will be used to provide students with nutrition education and a fresh fruit or vegetable snack twice a week. • A request to appropriate a $1,993.20 donation provided to Henley Middle School from Henley’s Parent and Teacher Support Organization to assist in the funding of the “Enrichment Time before 9” program for the month of September at Henley Middle School. Appropriation #2011051 $150,000.00 Revenue Source: Transfer from CIP $ 150,000.00 On December 9, 2008, the Board of Supervisors approved funding in the amount of $225,000.00 from the Parks and Recreation capital budget to be used towards the synthetic turf projects for all three County high schools contingent upon a memorandum of understanding from the School Superintendent and the County Executive. The MOU was executed on May 6, 2009. Funding for Monticello High School was previously appropriated on May 4, 2009. This request will transfer $75,000.00 from the Parks and Recreation capital budget (Athletic Field Study/Development) to both the Albemarle High School and Western Albemarle High School turf field projects, for a total transfer of $150,000.00. COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: FY2011 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers for State SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Report on non-cash proffers and cash proffer revenue and expenditures for the 1st Quarter of FY 2011. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, and Higgins; and Ms. McCulley, Ms. Baldwin, and Ms. Ragsdale LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: AC TION: INFORMATION: X ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: Beginning in 2007, the Board directed staff to provide a quarterly update on the status of cash proffers. Since that time, staff has continued to improve and expand these reports. The most recent reporting changes include the addition of designated non-cash proffer improvements that both benefit the County and mitigate the impacts of development. This report includes proffer activity (both cash and non -cash improvements) for the months of July through September of 2010 (FY2011 1st quarter). Also attached (Attachment B) is the annual state cash proffer report (the Com mission on Local Government 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments). This information is mandated by the State and reports the amount of cash proffers collected, pledged and expended during each fiscal year for Virginia localities. DISCUSSION: Cash Proffers July – September 2010 (1st Quarter) A. Proffered: No rezonings were approved in this quarter with cash proffers. ZMA 2008-03 Albemarle Place was amended but did not change the cash amounts originally proffered with this development. B. Total Obligated Cash Proffers: Since no new rezonings containing cash proffers were approved during the 1st quarter, the total obligated cash proffers remains the same : $38,851,330. C. Revenue: The County received a total of $37,700 in cash proffers during this quarter. The contributions are from Belvedere ($2,500 for affordable housing) and Liberty Hall ($35,200 for Capital Improvement Projects serving Crozet). D. Total Interest Earnings: The interest earned during this quarter from collected cash proffers is $287 for a total of $317,512. E. Expenditures: Grayrock Proffer funds of $74,880.00 were appropriated to the Downtown Crozet Regional Stormwater project during this quarter. F. Current Available Funds: As of October 6, 2010, the available cash proffer fund balance is $750,317. Some of these funds were proffered for specific projects while others may be used for ge neral projects within the CIP (see Attachment A). Non-Cash Proffers Proffered: Two previously approved rezonings involving non-cash proffers were amended this quarter as follows: A. The Fontaine Research Park (ZMA 2007 -13) rezoning was approved to allow additional building area in the research park up to 875,000 square feet with associated transportation impacts being mitigated through proffers. The proffers continue to provide for a pedestrian system to serve buildings within the park, maintenance of landscaping along Fontaine Avenue, adherence to architectural guidelines and a Transportation Demand Management Plan. Transportation improvements to Fontaine Avenue and the U.S. Route 29 Bypass are proffered and tied to development of the park, including construction of a section of sidewalk, traffic signals and additional traffic lanes/ramps. The proffers also provide for construction of the Sunset Avenue/Fontaine Connector Road to the extent and under the circumstances prescribed in the proffers . AGENDA TITLE: FY2011 1st Quarter Cash and Non-Cash Proffer Report and 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers for State November 3, 2010 Page 2 B. The Albemarle Place (ZMA 2008-03) rezoning amended the proffers and code of development associated with the initial rezoning of Albemarle Place (ZMA 01-07). The proffers which relate primarily to transportation improvements on Route 29 and Hydraulic now contain more detail regarding timelines and execution and provide for a new phasing plan. A new proffer was added to provide options regarding road improvements in the City. Parks and Greenways: Staff is reporting quarterly on certain non -cash proffers to include Transportation, Affordable Housing, Parks, Fire Rescue, Schools and other Land Dedications. ZMA1999 -16 Old Trail Village proffered a 25-acre park (Western Park), a 10.8 acre greenway area, and a 6.7 acre greenway area to be dedicated to the County for public use. During this quarter, the Western Park and the greenway areas were dedicated to the County. 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments for the Commission on Local Government During Fiscal Year 2010, the County collected $122,879 in cash proffers and expended $191,409. There were no cash proffers pledged during this year, as there were no rezonings app roved involving cash proffers (Attachment B). Compared to last year, the County collected significantly less in cash proffers, less than half the amount reported on the FY 2009 State Survey. Expended cash proffers were allocated primarily to roads and other transportation projects in FY 2010. Please see Attachment C for further comparisons of the past five fiscal years in terms of proffers pledged, collected and expended. BUDGET IMPACT: Cash proffers are a valuable source of revenue that help fund import ant County projects that would otherwise be delayed and/or funded by general tax revenue. Non -cash proffers provide improvements that might otherwise be funded by general tax revenue. One dedicated full -time staff person continues to monitor and collect pr offered funds, improvements and land dedications with the assistance of other County staff and outside agencies. RECOMMENDATIONS: This summary is provided for information on proffer activity and no action is required. Staff welcomes any comments for improvements to the report that the Board may wish to see in the future. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A- Cash Proffer Summary Attachment B- 2010 Annual State Cash Proffer Report Attachment C- Cash Proffer Activity FY 2004-2010 Return to consent agenda Return to regular agenda Attachment A- Cash Proffer Summary 1st Quarter FY 2011 (July-September 2010) $432.86 Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment B Commission on Local Government 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments QUESTIONS? CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, (804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov Page 1 of 2 4/16/10 Date: September 30, 2010 Locality: County of Albemarle County City Town Name: Sarah D. Baldwin Title: Senior Planner Phone: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Email: sbaldwin@albemarle.org YES NO Did your locality accept cash proffers at any time during the 200 9-2010 Fiscal Year? If you answered "No" for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year, additional information is not needed. Please return the survey to the Commission on Local Government as indicated on the next page. If you answered "Yes" for the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year, provide the following information concerning the cash proffers accepted by your locality: (See definitions on next page.) FY2009-2010 1. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Collected by the Locality during the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year: $ 122,879.00 2. Estimated Amount of Cash Proffers Pledged during the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time: $ 0 3. Total Amount of Cash Proffer Revenue Expended by the Locality during the 2009-2010 Fiscal Year: $ 191,409.66 4. Indicate the Purpose(s) and Amount(s) for Which the Expenditures in Number 3 Above Were Made: Schools $ Roads and Other Transportation Improvements $ 189,571.66 Fire and Rescue/Public Safety $ Libraries $ Parks, Recreation, and Open Space $ 1838.00 Water and Sewer Service Extension $ Community Centers $ Stormwater Management $ Special Needs Housing $ Affordable Housing $ Miscellaneous $ Total Dollar Amount Expended (Should Equal Amount in Number 3 Above) $ 191,409.66 Please see other side. Comments: Use additional sheet if necessary. Attachment B Commission on Local Government 2010 Survey of Cash Proffers Accepted by Local Governments QUESTIONS? CONTACT ZACK ROBBINS AT THE COMMISSION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, (804) 371-8010 or zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov Page 2 of 2 4/16/10 Please complete this form and return it to the Commission on Local Government by September 30, 2010, using one of the following metho ds: •By Mail: Zack Robbins Commission on Local Government 600 E. Main Street, Suite 300 Richmond, VA 23219 •By Fax: (804) 371-7090 •By E mail: A Microsoft Word template of this form may be downloaded at http://www.dhcd.virginia.gov/CommissiononLocalGovernment/pages/cashproffersurvey.htm Once completed, send it by email to:zachary.robbins@dhcd.virginia.gov DEFINITIONS Cash Proffer: (i) any money voluntary proffered in a writing signed by the owner of property subject to rezoning, submitted as part of a rezoning application and accepted by a locality pursuant to the authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303, or § 15.2-2298, or (ii) any payment of money made pursuant to a development agreement entered into under authority granted by Va. Code Ann. § 15.2-2303.1. Cash Proffer Revenue Collected [§15.2-2303.2(D)(1), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of revenue collected from cash proffers in the specified fiscal year regardless of the fiscal year in which the cash proffer was accepted. Unaudited figures are acceptable. Cash Proffers Pledged and Whose Payment Was Conditioned Only on Time [§15.2-2303.2(D)(2), Code of Virginia]: Cash proffers conditioned only on time approved by the locality as part of a rezoning case. Unaudited figures for the specified fiscal year are acceptable. Cash Proffer Revenue Expended [§15.2-2303.2(D)(3), Code of Virginia]: Total dollar amount of public projects funded with cash proffer revenue in the specified fiscal year. Unaudited figures are acceptable. Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment C-Cash Proffer Activity FY 2004-2010 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 A B C D E F G H I J K L Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended 0.00 67,600.00 100,744.02 1,164,000.00 31,000.00 172,593.75 405,000.00 11,000.00 12,690.10 0.00 0.00 487,761.67 0.00 524,600.00 629,538.86 0.00 59,000.00 217,159.12 0.00 200,000.00 10,400.00 165,257.20 332,500.00 131,300.00 109,666.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,134,000.00 0.00 0.00 3,000.00 53,000.00 50,000.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,344.00 9,415.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 435,250.00 0.00 0.00 366,000.00 355,000.00 0.00 $59,000.00 $284,759.12 $100,744.02 $3,421,011.67 $41,400.00 $337,850.95 $1,631,100.00 $1,189,182.86 $181,772.23 Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended Proffered Collected Expended 0.00 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 0.00 22,844,858.80 230,443.11 59,161.00 0.00 15,130.56 0.00 0.00 75,129.00 0.00 18,230,800.00 1,300.00 475,000.00 0.00 373,617.00 66,000.00 0.00 0.00 189,571.66 875,000.00 0.00 554,850.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 550,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 961,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 1,838.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 678,065.00 27,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 35,750.00 0.00 $44,169,723.80 $262,743.11 $1,589,011.00 $0.00 $441,747.56 $66,000.00 $0.00 $122,879.00 $191,409.66 Return to exec summary FY 2004-2005 FY 2005-2006 FY 2006-2007 FUND TYPE Fire & Rescue/Public Safety Schools Proffer Activity FY 2004-2007 General CIP Fund Water & Sewer Service Extension Roads & Other Transportation Costs Libraries Parks, Recreation & Open Space Stormwater Management TOTALS Proffer Activity FY 2007-2010 FY 2007-2008 FY 2008-2009 FY 2009-2010 Special Needs Housing Affordable Housing Parks, Recreation & Open Space Water & Sewer Service Extension Stormwater Management Special Needs Housing Affordable Housing TOTALS FUND TYPE Schools General CIP Fund Roads & Other Transportation Costs Fire & Rescue/Public Safety Libraries COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4012 October 6, 2010 Scott Elliff 1885 Kernood Place Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 RE: SP 2010-00016 Forest Lake (Sign #37) Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1B Dear Mr. Elliff: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 2010, recommended approval by a vote of 7:0, of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Site lay-out should be in general according with the application and the application plan. 2. The time of operation limited to one (1) day per week, Tuesdays, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 3, 2010. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to regular agenda If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Current Development Division SF/CH Cc: Forest Lakes Community Association Inc 1828 Pavilion Circle Charlottesville, Virginia 22911 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2010-16 Forest Lakes Farmers Market Staff: Summer Frederick Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 21, 2010 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not scheduled Owners: Forest Lakes Community Association, Inc Applicant: Scott Elliff Acreage: Approximately 6.55 acres Special Use Permit (SP 2010-19): To allow a farmers' market one (1) day a week, Tuesday, from 4:00pm to 7:00pm. Section 10.2.2 (54) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets. TMP: Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1B Location: 1650 Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670), in the Forest Lakes South development. Existing Zoning and By-right use: Planned Use Development (PUD) - residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses Magisterial District: Rivanna Conditions: No Proposal: To operate a farmers’ market on-site one (1) day a week from 4:00pm to 7:00pm. Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Development Area: Hollymead Community Comprehensive Plan Designation: Neighborhood Density – residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses; and Institutional – schools, universities and colleges and ancillary facilities and public facilities and utilities. Character of Property: The site is developed with a neighborhood swim club, tennis courts, and associated parking area. Use of Surrounding Properties: The site is surrounded by single-family residential units and other recreation uses. Factors Favorable: 1. The farmers’ market would promote and preserve agricultural businesses in the County. 2. The farmers’ market helps promote neighborhood focused activities. Factors Unfavorable: Staff has identified no unfavorable factors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit, with the following conditions: 1. Site layout shall be in general accord with the application plan submitted. 2. Addition of No Parking signs along Ashwood Boulevard in front of the existing Swim and Tennis Club. STAFF: Summer Frederick PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: Not scheduled SP 2010-16 Forest Lakes Farmers Market PETITION PROJECT: SP201000016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market PROPOSED: To allow a farmer's market one (1) day a week from 4:00pm to 7:00pm during the months of April through September. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Planned Use Development (PUD) - residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses SECTION: 20.3.2(9) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Community - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes____No__X__ LOCATION: 1650 Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670), in the Forest Lakes South development TAX MAP/PARCEL: 046B5-00-00-001B0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna CHARACTER OF THE AREA The subject parcel is currently the site of a neighborhood swim & tennis club, and associated parking areas. The surrounding parcels are primarily single-family residential, with other recreational uses as well. (See Attachment A, Location Map) SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL SP 2010-16, Forest Lakes Farmers Market. This proposal is to operate a farmers’ market one (1) day a week, between the hours of 4:00pm and 7:00pm. (See Attachment B, Special Use Permit Application with plan) PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY SDP1993-64: Forest Lakes Clubhouse: Site plan to construct Club House and associated recreation facilities. SDP1995-043: Forest Lakes South Clubhouse: Minor Amendment to alter landscaping on Clubhouse parcel. SP2004-17: Forest Lakes South Swim and Tennis: Special Use Permit for residents of both Forest Lakes South and Forest Lakes North neighborhoods to use the swim and tennis club. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan This property is located in the Hollymead Community, and is designated Neighborhood Density Residential, and Institutional in the current Land Use Plan. The purpose of the Neighborhood Density Residential designation is to provide for residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale, non-residential uses. The proposed use of a once-a-week farmers’ market is a small-scale, non-residential use and so does not conflict with this purpose. STAFF COMMENT SP 2010-19. Regarding the provisions of Section 31.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, staff notes the following: 31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Parcel 1B is an approximately 6-acre piece of land located within the Forest Lakes South subdivision (See Attachment A, Location Map). The surrounding properties include both single-family residential, and other recreational uses. The proposed farmers’ market will not be a detriment to adjacent properties, nor will it change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The stated intent of the Planned Unit zoning district is: to serve as neighborhoods or mini-neighborhoods within designated communities and the urban area. A farmers’ market is a commercial use that directly supports neighborhood or mini-neighborhood activities by providing residents the opportunity to purchase fresh, locally grown produce . with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-right uses in a Planned Unit district include various types of residential, public, institutional, and neighborhood related uses. A farmers’ market isa use that supports neighborhood functions, so it will be compatible with by-right uses in the district. with additional regulations provided in section 5, Section 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets lists the following regulations that apply to the proposed farmers’ market (Staff comments is provided for each provision in italics.): a. Zoning clearance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance issued by the zoning administrator as provided by section 31.5 before the use is established as provided herein: 1. Application. Each application for a zoning clearance shall include a letter or other evidence from the Virginia Department of Transportation establishing that it has approved the entrance from the public street to the proposed use and: (b) Farmers’ markets. For farmers’ markets, an approved site plan waiver as provided in section 32.2(b). The applicant will be required to apply for Zoning Clearance if the Special Use Permit is approved. b. Structure size. Structures used in conjunction with a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market shall comply with the following: 3. Farmers’ markets. Any new or existing permanent structure may be used for a farmers’ market without limitation to its size. The applicant is not proposing to use any structures for the farmers’ mark et. It is intended that vendors will provide their own tents, tables, or other necessities from which to sell their produce. c. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following minimum front, side and rear yard requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. New permanent structures and temporary structures. The minimum front, side and rear yards required for any new permanent structure or temporary structure shall be as provided in the bulk and area regulations established for the applicable zoning district, provided that the minimum front yard on an existing public road in the rural areas (RA) zoning district shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction. 2. Existing permanent structures. If an existing permanent structure does not satisfy any minimum yard requirement under subsection 5.1.47(c)(1), the minimum yard required shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the street, road, access easement or lot line on May 5, 2010 and that distance shall not be thereafter reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the structure shall be no closer to a street, road, access easement or lot line than the existing structure. The area in which the farmers’ market is proposed to take place meets all current yard requirements. d. Parking. Notwithstanding any provision of section 4.12, the following minimum parking requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. Number of spaces. Each use shall provide one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of retail area. 2. Location. No parking space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-way. 3. Design and improvements. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance, the zoning administrator shall identify the applicable parking design and improvements required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed appropriate in the context of the use. The zoning administrator shall consult with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to the minimum design and improvements. Compliance with the identified parking design and improvements shall be a condition of approval of the zoning clearance. The applicant has provided for the appropriate number of spaces, as required. All pro posed parking spaces meet location and design requirements. It is noted that it is possible for patrons to pull off along Ashwood Boulevard, and park within the right -of-way. The applicant has agreed to monitor the situation, and staff recommends the addition of No Parking signs along this portion of road (See Attachment B, Special Use Permit Application with plan). and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes that the proposed farmers’ market will provide a needed service to area agricultural businesses, as well as local residents. It is using an existing large parking lot providing an in-town venue for farmers to sell their products, helping to promote and preserve the agricultural nature of the County as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, a representative of Fire/Rescue, VDOT staff, Architectural Review Board staff, and Current Development staff have reviewed this proposal, have indicated no objection to the proposed farmers’ market use, and have made no recommendations for additional improvements to address health and safety considerations. SUMMARY SP 2010-16. Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this application for a farmers’ market: 1. The farmers’ market would promote and preserve agricultural businesses in the County. 2. The farmers’ market helps promote neighborhood focused activities . Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of SP2010-19, with the following conditions: 3. Site layout shall be in general accord with the application plan submitted. 4. Addition of No Parking signs along Ashwood Boulevard in front of the existing Swim and Tennis Club. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Special Use Permit Application with plan Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 1 SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market (Sign 37). PROPOSED: To allow a farmer's market one (1) day a week from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the months of April through September. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Planned Use Development (PUD) - residential (3 - 34 units per acre), mixed with commercial and industrial uses. SECTION: 20.3.2(9) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Neighborhood Density in the Hollymead Community - residential (3-6 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small - scale non-residential uses. ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No. LOCATION: 1650 Ashwood Boulevard (Route 1670), in the Forest Lakes South development. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 046B5-00-00-001B0. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna (Summer Frederick) Ms. Frederick presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for special use permit, SP-2010-00016, Forest Lakes Farmers Market. The proposal is to allow a farmer's market one (1) day a week on Tuesday from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the months of April through September. The site is the current site of the Forest Lakes Swim and Tennis Club with associated parking. The applicant proposes to use the existi ng parking lot as the site for the farmer’s market with vendors providing their own tables, tents, etc. from which to sell produce. Concerns from VDOT and the County Zoning Division were raised regarding the possibility of traffic stopping along Ashwood and simply pulling off the road to park. Hence the condition in the recommendation for posting no parking signs in this portion of Ashwood Boulevard. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with the following conditions: 1. Site lay-out should be in general accord with the application and the application plan. 2. Addition of No Parking signs along Ashwood Boulevard in front of the existing Swim and Tennis Club. Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. He noted in the agenda it says during the months of April through September, but it is not in the conditions. Ms. Frederick replied that is correct, but this specific application is for those months. Mr. Zobrist suggested that they address the condition. Ms. Porterfield asked what the parking situation is when they have swim meets and if they park on Ashwood Boulevard. Ms. Frederick replied that it was her understanding from the applicant that the parking lot is full during swim meets, but they do not park on along Ashwood Boulevard. Ms. Porterfield asked if the No Parking signs will be permanent, and Ms. Frederick replied yes that was staff’s recommendation. Ms. Porterfield asked if the signs will not affect any other use of the facility. Ms. Frederick replied that it is not anticipated that it will. Ms. Porterfield asked if that was because they were not parking there now, and Ms. Frederick replied that is correct. Mr. Franco pointed out that they are parking there now during swim meets. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 2 Mr. Lafferty assumed that they have permission from the swim club to do this, and Ms. Frederick replied yes that was correct. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to come forward to address the Commission. Scott Elliff, Board member of Forest Lakes Community Association, said they own the Swim and Tennis Club. They have been operating the Farmers’ Market for three years. At the time it was the only farmers’ market that was inside a private residential community in the state as far as they could tell. It is a terrific addition to their overall community. He made the following comments: The addition of the No Parking signs is a problem. People park there all the time for the swim meets, but it is not a problem for the Farmers’ Market at all. They would be overjoyed if they ha d so many people that they needed to park all the way out on the street. Except occasionally, such as on opening day, there really is no problem at all. However, on swim team nights people definitely park on Ashwood Boulevard. When talking to staff, as it says, the applicant has agreed to monitor the situation. That is what they have been doing for the swim meets for ten years since there is no other place to park. There are hundreds of people that come to those swim meets. If they put up permanent No Parking signs it would be a disaster there for those nights. He suggested not having that condition and to simply let them continue to monitor it. They pay to bring in extra police patrols to make sure they monitor traffic during swim meets. They do that on busy Farmers’ Market days as well. Therefore, they would not be solving a problem for the Forest Lakes Farmers’ Market, but creating a huge problem for swim meets and also for the occasional special event that occurs. They have fund runs, fund raisers, ou tdoor events and so forth that use that area. Mr. Loach asked if he said they have been running the Farmers’ Market for three years, and Mr. Elliff replied that was correct. Mr. Loach asked what the change is from what they are doing now to this propos al. He assumed they have not had problems with parking in the past. Mr. Elliff replied that there was no change. They were simply asked to file this application because of a change in County ordinance. They have been running the farmers’ market with no issue at all until somebody came to them and said please would you file some documents. He considered this to be a pretty proforma thing until he found out about the No Parking signs. Mr. Loach said that he assumed that it was alright with the Associa tion that they will be able to monitor the parking as they are now even with the swim meets. Mr. Eliff replied that they have not had any problem with that. Swim meets have been going on for ten years and there really has not been any problems recognized in the community. It is something that is done and handled as a matter of course. Ms. Porterfield noted that she was a mother of an older swimmer and remembers all of this and there was never a place to park. Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter brought before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. Mr. Franco asked why staff made the recommendation for No Parking signs. Ms. Frederick replied that the recommendation came out of concerns from VDOT and the County Zoning Division who were concerned about cars pulling off of Ashwood Boulevard and parking in that grassed area. Mr. Franco noted that it works for the swim meets and there is no other option. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 3 Mr. Loach suggested that the motion be made without the condition. Motion: Mr. Franco moved for approval of SP-2010-00016, Forest Lakes Farmers’ Market, with the condition that it is in general accord with the application plan submitted. The motion does not include the No Parking sign condition. Mr. Kamptner asked if there was a desire to add a condition related to the season, and the days and hours of operation. Mr. Franco asked to keep it to the one (1) day a week from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. With respect to the seasons he thought that the application said weekends and sometimes during the winter. Mr. Zobrist noted the application just says April to September. Mr. Franco restated that the motion is for approval with two conditions that the site lay-out be in general accord with the application plan and with the time of the operation being limited to one (1) day a week, Tuesdays, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. Mr. Zobrist asked for an amendment that it be in accordance with the application filed and the application plan. Mr. Franco accepted the amendment. Amended Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of SP-2010-00016, Forest Lakes Farmers Market with the conditions recommended by staff, as amended. 1. Site lay-out should be in general accord with the application and the application plan. 2. The time of operation limited to one (1) day per week, Tuesdays, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. The condition was not included regarding providing “No Parking” signs on Ashwood Boulevard. The motion carried by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach noted that SP-2010-00016, Forest Lakes Farmers Market, will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions in the staff report. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 October 21, 2010 Olive View Farm 9264 Critzers Shop Rd Afton, VA 22920 RE: SP201000019 Afton Farmer's Market Tax Map 69 Parcel 13 Dear Olive View Farm: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 2010, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above-noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Site layout shall be in general accord with the application plan submitted. 2. The farmers’ market shall be allowed two (2) days a week on Tuesday and Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Staff to work on the condition to clarify prior to Board of Supervisors meeting) Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 3, 2010. View staff report and attachments View PC minutes Return to regular agenda If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Current Development Division COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP 2010-19 Afton Farmer’s Market Staff: Summer Frederick Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 21, 2010 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not scheduled Owners: Kenneth D or Yvonne G B Harris Applicant: Olive View Farm Acreage: Approximately 11.5 acres Special Use Permit (SP 2010-19): To allow a farmers' market two (2) days a week from 3:00pm to 8:00pm. Section 10.2.2 (54) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets. TMP: Tax Map 69, Parcel 13 Location: 9264 Critzers Shop Road, approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Route 151 and Route 637 Existing Zoning and By-right use: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); Entrance Corridor (EC) - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access Magisterial District: Whitehall Conditions: No Proposal: To operate a farmers’ market on-site two (2) days a week from 3:00pm to 8:00pm. Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Rural Area: Rural Area 3 Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas – preserve and protect agricultural, forestall, open space, and natural, historical and scenic resources/density (0.5 units/acre in development lots). Character of Property: The site is developed with a number of buildings including a residence, a greenhouse, and several agricultural related outbuildings. Use of Surrounding Properties: The site is surrounded by lots currently utilized for agricultural purposes. Factors Favorable: 1. The farmers’ market would preserve the rural and agricultural character of the area. 2. The farmers’ market is a agriculturally- related use that is to be encouraged, as stated in the Ordinance. Factors Unfavorable: Staff has identified no unfavorable factors. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit, with the following condition: 1. Site lay-out should be in general accord with the application plan. STAFF: Summer Frederick PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: September 21, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: Not scheduled SP 2010-19 Afton Farmer’s Market PETITIONS PROJECT: SP201000019 Afton Farmers' Market PROPOSED: To allow a farmers' market two (2) days a week from 3:00pm to 8:00pm. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); Entrance Corridor (EC) - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 10.2.2 (54) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes__X__No____ LOCATION: 9264 Critzers Shop Road, approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Route 151 (Critzers Shope Road) and Route 637 (Dick Woods Road). TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06900-00-00-01300 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall CHARACTER OF THE AREA The subject parcel is currently the site of a nursery business which sells various plant material, and related products. The surrounding parcels are primarily in agricultural uses, with some residential properties nearby. (See Attachment A, Location Map) SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL SP 2010-19, Afton Farmer’s Market. This proposal is to operate a farmers’ market two (2) days a week, between the hours of 3:00pm and 8:00pm. (See Attachment B, Special Use Permit Application with Plan) PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY SP2001-10: Afton Farm Market: Special Use Permit to allow for on -farm sales. Approved 07.11.2001 HO2004-224: Home Occupation Class A Permit: for office use. Approved June 4, 2004. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use Plan This property is located in Rural Area 3, and is designated Rural Areas in the current Land Use Plan. The purpose of the Rural Area designation is to preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/density (0.5 units/acre in development lots). The proposed use of a farmers’ market is agricultural in nature and so does not conflict with this purpose. STAFF COMMENT SP 2010-19. Regarding the provisions of Section 31.6.1 of the Zo ning Ordinance, staff notes the following: 31.6.1: Special use permits for uses as provided in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the board of supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, that the character of the district will not be changed thereby, Parcel 19 is an approximately 11-acre piece of land located with frontage on, and an entrance to Critzers Shop Road (SR 151), just south of its intersection with Rockfish Gap Turnpike (SR 250) (See Attachment A, Location Map). The surrounding properties on the same side of SR 151 are currently in agricultural use, and those parcels on the opposite side of SR 151 include both agricultural uses and residential lots. The proposed farmers’ market is a use that supports the agricultural uses of the Rural Area zoning district, and will not be a detriment to adjacent properties, nor will it change the character of the district. and that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, The stated intent of the Rural Area zoning district is: to preserve the county's active farms and best agricultural and forestal lands by providing lot areas designed to insure the continued availability of such lands for preferential land use tax assessment in order to enhance the economy, and maintain employment and lifestyle opportunities. In addition, the continuation and establishment of agriculture and agriculturally - related uses will be encouraged. A farmers’ market is a commercial use that directly s upports agricultural endeavors, and is and agriculturally-related use that is to be encouraged. with the uses permitted by right in the district, By-right uses in a Rural Area district include various types of agricultural and agriculturally-related uses. A farmers’ market use is an agriculturally –related use, so it will be compatible with, and supportive of the by-right uses in the district. with additional regulations provided in section 5, Section 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets lists the following regulations that apply to the proposed farmers’ market (Staff has commented on each provision in italics): a. Zoning clearance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, each farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market shall obtain approval of a zoning clearance issued by the zoning administrator as provided by section 31.5 before the use is established as provided herein: 1. Application. Each application for a zoning clearance shall include a letter or other evidence from the Virginia Department of Transportation establishing that it has approved the entrance from the public street to the proposed use and: (b) Farmers’ markets. For farmers’ markets, an approved site plan waiver as provided in section 32.2(b). The applicant will be required to apply for a Zoning Clearance if the Special Use Permit is approved. b. Structure size. Structures used in conjunction with a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market shall comply with the following: 3. Farmers’ markets. Any new or existing permanent structure may be used for a farmers’ market without limitation to its size. The applicant proposes to use structures already existing on -site for the proposed farmers’ market. c. Yards. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the following minimum front, side and rear yard requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. New permanent structures and temporary structures. The minimum front, side and rear yards required for any new permanent structure or temporary structure shall be as provided in the bulk and area regulations established for the applicable zoning district, provided that the minimum front yard on an existing public road in the rural areas (RA) zoning district shall be thirty-five (35) feet. The zoning administrator may reduce the minimum required yard upon finding that: (i) there is no detriment to the abutting lot; (ii) there is no harm to the public health, safety or welfare; and (iii) written consent has been provided by the owner of the abutting lot consenting to the reduction. 2. Existing permanent structures. If an existing permanent structure does not satisfy any minimum yard requirement under subsection 5.1.47(c)(1), the minimum yard required shall be the distance between the existing permanent structure and the street, road, access easement or lot line on May 5, 2010 and that distance shall not be thereafter reduced. An enlargement or expansion of the structure shall be no closer to a street, road, access easement or lot line than the existing structure. All existing structures meet current yard requirements as found in the Ordinance. d. Parking. Notwithstanding any provision of section 4.12, the following minimum parking requirements shall apply to a farm stand, farm sales use, and farmers’ market: 1. Number of spaces. Each use shall provide one (1) parking space per two hundred (200) square feet of retail area. 2. Location. No parking space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right-of-way. 3. Design and improvements. In conjunction with each application for a zoning clearance, the zoning administrator shall identify the applicable parking design and improvements required that are at least the minimum necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare by providing safe ingress and egress to and from the site, safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation on the site, and the control of dust as deemed appropriate in the context of the use. The zoning administrator shall consult with the county engineer, who shall advise the zoning administrator as to the minimum design and improvements. Compliance with the identified parking design and improvements shall be a condition of approval of the zoning clearance. The applicant has provided for the appropriate number of spaces, as required. All proposed parking spaces meet location and design requirements. (See Attachment B, Special Use Permit Application with plan) and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Staff believes that the proposed farmers’ market will provide a needed service to area agricultural businesses, as well as local residents. It is using a Rural Area zoned parcel and maintaining the rural, agricultural character of the area consistent with the County’s Comprehe nsive Plan. The Zoning Administrator, the County Engineer, a representative of Fire/Rescue, VDOT staff, Architectural Review Board staff, and Current Development staff have reviewed this proposal, have indicated no objection to the proposed farmers’ market use, and have made no recommendations for additional improvements to address health and safety considerations. SUMMARY SP 2010-19. Staff has identified the following factors that are favorable to this application for an farmers’ market: 1. The farmers’ market would preserve the rural and agricultural character of the area. 2. The farmers’ market is a agriculturally-related use that is to be encouraged, as stated in the Ordinance. Staff has identified no factors that are unfavorable to this request. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff recommends approval of SP2010-19, with the following condition: 1. Site layout shall be in general accord with the application plan submitted. ATTACHMENTS A. Location Map B. Special Use Permit Application with plan Return to PC actions letter ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 1 Albemarle County Planning Commission September 21, 2010 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, and meeting on Tuesday, September 21, 2010, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Ro ad, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Linda Porterfield, Ed Smith, Mac Lafferty, Duane Zobrist, Vice Chair; and Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. Other officials present were Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development; Julia Wiegand, Senior Planner; Summer Frederick, Senior Planner; 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. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Loach invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda . There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. Consent Agenda: Approval of Minutes: July 13, 2010 and July 27, 2010 Mr. Loach asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach noted that the consent agenda was approved. Public Hearing Items: SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market (Sign 48). PROPOSED: To allow a farmers' market two (2) days a week from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: Rural Areas (RA) - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots); Entrance Corridor (EC) - Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: 10.2.2 (54) Farmers' Markets; and 5.1.47 Farm Stands, Farm Sales, and Farmers Markets . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Area in Rural Area 3 - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 9264 Critzers Shop Road, approximately one-quarter mile from the intersection of Route 151 and Route 637. TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06900-00-00-01300. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall (Summer Frederick) Ms. Frederick presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for special use permit, SP-2010-00019, Afton Farmers’ Market. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 2 The proposal is to operate a farmers’ market two (2) days a week during the hours from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The applicant proposes to utilize existing structures and parking areas on site for the farmer’s market. Staff recommends approval of the Special Use Permit with the following condition: 1. Site lay-out should be in general accord with the application plan. Mr. Loach invited questions for staff. There being none, the public hearing was opened and th e applicant invited to come forward. Yvonne Harris, applicant, offered to answer questions. Ms. Porterfield asked if she intended to operate the farmer’s market on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. and if this would be seasonal. Ms. Harris replied yes, that it would be seasonal for every week between April and October, two weeks in December and maybe two weeks in March. Ms. Porterfield asked if they have existing lighting since it was going to be dark at 8 p.m. Ms. Harris replied yes. Ms. Porterfield asked if that lighting meets the code. Ms. Harris replied that she believed that the lighting meets the code. Their current business is open until 6 p.m. Ms. Porterfield asked if they were extending the hours. Ms. Harris replied that they were extending the hours on those two days to help people who work until 6 p.m. to be able to get fresh produce from a fresh market. Ms. Porterfield asked if everything is going to stay open until 8 p.m. including her other businesses. Ms. Harris replied yes, that the existing farm market was allowed to stay open until 8 p.m. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter brought before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Zobrist seconded for approval of SP-2010-17, Afton Farmer’s Market. Mr. Loach invited discussion. Ms. Porterfield noted her concern was that what is being presented for this request is different from the next one. She wondered if the motion should indicate the hours, days and extra seasonal time the farmers’ market is going to be opened. She asked staff if the lighting meets the code and whether the applicant needs to bring the lighting up to meet the current standards. . Ms. Frederick replied that at this time she could not answer the question about the current lighting since staff has not looked into that. Mr. Lafferty noted the hours of operation depend on the market, which depends on the geography of where it is located. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 3 Ms. Porterfield suggested the motion be clear that this is a special use permit for the market to operate from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays during the season. Mr. Lafferty noted that it was included in the information. Ms. Porterfield pointed out it is not in the conditions. Mr. Loach asked if there is a requirement in general that the lighting has to meet the code specifications. Mr. Fritz noted that the ordinance has requirements for lighting, but he did not know when this lighting was put in since the site was developed a number of years ago. If the lighting was installed prior to the current ordinance and installed in compliance with the ordinance at the time, then the lighting would be nonconforming and could continue. If new lighting was proposed, then it would have to meet the new standards. There is no requirement for lighting at all if no new lighting is proposed. Mr. Loach said they would need to provide enough light for their customers to see in order to operate a business, but he understood what was being said because of the seasons. If they were asking for these hours on these days he did not see any reason to put any seasonal limitations on it. He was not sure why they would do that. Ms. Porterfield said the question is if they don’t limit this, then the business could become 12 months a year and 7 days a week until 8 p.m. every night. She did not know if that is what they really want for something like this. There are two similar requests back to back and they are very different. As far as what is going into the motion she felt that it should be the same. Mr. Loach said in knowing the area, which was rural, that he did not think there was any detriment for the proposed operating hours because the market is set back far enough from the road. He did not see a problem because the condition of the two sites would vary. Ms. Porterfield pointed out that there are people who move to the rural areas for the dark skies. If they potentially have lighting that does not meet the lighting ordinances, it was problematic. Mr. Fritz pointed out if the current lighting does not meet the ordinance or if it was installed without the proper approvals, then it would be in violation and they could be required to remove it. Mr. Loach asked the applicant if they were installing any new lighting for this operation or are they using the existing lighting. Ms. Harris replied they were using the existing lighting that is already up on the buildings. Mr. Loach said the applicant would not have to add new lighting. Therefore, the current lighting would be under the old proviso. Mr. Fritz said that he had not gone to the site, but believed that was correct. Since the lighting was installed some time ago it was in compliance with the ordinance at the time because there was no limitation. Therefore, that lighting can continue. Any new lighting will have to meet current ordinance regulations. Mr. Smith noted that the current regulations applied only if the lighting was above a certain lumens. Mr. Fritz replied it was up to 3,000 lumens per fixture. Mr. Zobrist agreed that they should not make it any broader than what the applicant has asked for. He suggested changing the condition to state that the site layout and operation shall be in general accord with the application plan submitted since the applicant has told them what she is going to do. If they leave it wide open, they would not be sure what they had been approved for. He thought that Ms. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 4 Porterfield has a valid point that it should be restricted for the application for not only the site, but the operation also. Mr. Loach agreed that he did not want to extend it any further so that the applicant was only going to be able to operate during those specific hours under the seasons that she had asked for. Mr. Zobrist concurred. Mr. Loach said that they would leave it as what she is asking for. He asked Mr. Morris if he agreed. Mr. Zobrist suggested that the motion be amended to include the condition that the site layout and operation shall be in general accord with the application plan. Amended Motion: Mr. Morris amended the motion to include Mr. Zobrist’s suggested amendment and that it should be SP-2010-00019 and not 17. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the application plan does not actually have the hours and days of operation on it. Ms. Frederick noted that it has hours and days, but it does not have the seasons. Mr. Zobrist noted the application has hours and days. Mr. Kamptner asked where the hours and days are, and Ms. Frederick replied that it was on the actual application and noted in Attachment B. Mr. Loach noted that it was in the staff report that the applicant is proposing to operate a farmer’s market two (2) days a week from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Second: Mr. Lafferty seconded the motion. Ms. Porterfield asked if they were not going to go with the months. Mr. Loach assumed that the motion was as the application requests. Ms. Porterfield noted that they were not limiting the months, but it can be Tuesday and Thursday any time during the year from 3 to 8 p.m. Mr. Morris agreed. Mr. Kamptner clarified that the whole application will be attached to the action letter. Mr. Fritz noted that the application will be attached or staff will craft a condition so there is a single sentence to clarify that before they go before the Board of Supervisors. They are trying to make the Commission’s intent clear that it is for two days a week, from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m. and not seasonally limited. Mr. Kamptner pointed out just for the Commission’s information that they had an old special use permit where the applicant had asked for a particular use subject to how they described how they were going to operate that use. Because how they were going to operate that use was never put into a condition it became problematic. Therefore, if there are any desired limitations on the operation of the use it is the better practice to include that as a condition, which they have done here . It gets difficult to track as the years go by. The permit itself is for the use and there is nothing that binds the use to the application. Therefore, conditions are preferred. Mr. Zobrist said the Commission is binding them with this motion. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 5 Mr. Kamptner agreed that noting it in the modification as the Commission is doing here that they are addressing that issue. Motion: Mr. Morris moved and Mr. Lafferty seconded for approval of SP-2010-00019, Afton Farmer’s Market with the conditions recommended in the staff report, as modified, as follows: 1. Site layout shall be in general accord with the application plan submitted. 2. The farmers’ market shall be allowed two (2) days a week on Tuesday and Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Staff to work on the condition to clarify prior to Board of Supervisors meeting) The motion passed by a vote of 7:0 with the following conditions. Mr. Loach noted that SP-2010-00019, Afton Farmer’s Market will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions as amended. Return to PC actions letter COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: SP 2008-00056, Unity Church SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Request for a Special Use Permit to allow 54 more parking spaces to provide additional parking for church services, with conditions. STAFF CONTACT(S): Cilimberg, Wiegand LEGAL REVIEW: NO AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: YES BACKGROUND: On September 21, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this special use permit to allow additional parking at Unity Church. The Planning Commission recommended approval with nine (9) conditions. (See Attachment I) DISCUSSION: As part of their action, the Commission recommended revision of Condition #4 to better address what constitutes commencing construction for this special use permit. The new language is: 4. The lawful physical construction of the parking areas, pergola, playground, and labyrinth as shown on the Conceptual Plan referenced in Condition 2 above shall commence by [5 years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors] or the approval of the parking areas, pergola, playground, and labyrinth as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall expire and a new or amended special use permit shall be required for the parking areas to be expanded beyond the 84 spaces and for construction of the pergola, playground, and labyrinth as shown on SDP 200500046, as amended by SDP 200600077. The other conditions remain as recommended by staff. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of SP 2008-00056 with the following conditions: 1. The church sanctuary shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) seats; 2. The site shall be developed in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Application Plan for Unity Church,” Revision 4, prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated August 19, 2010 (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), and with the Architectural Review Board action of February 16, 2010, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: Number of parking spaces and location of parking areas Paving materials, as approved by the County Engineer Location of proposed facilities, including the pergola, labyrinth, and playground as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance; 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval; 4. The lawful physical construction of the parking areas, pergola, playground, and labyrinth as shown on the Conceptual Plan referenced in Condition 2 above shall commence by [5 years from the date of approval by the Board of Supervisors] or the approval of the parking areas, pergola, playground, and labyrinth as shown on the Conceptual Plan shall expire and a new or amended special use permit shall be required for the parking areas to be expanded beyond the 84 spaces and for construction of the pergola, playground, and labyrinth as shown on SDP 200500046, as amended by SDP 200600077; 5. Expansion of the church and/or establishment of a daycare or provision of afterschool care shall require approval of an additional Special Use Permit; 6. Approval of the Public Health Department shall be required prior to site plan approval; 7. The applicants shall provide plantings to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; 8. The property may not be further divided; and 9. There shall be no more than one (1) residential dwelling on the property. ATTACHMENTS: ATTACHMENT I: Planning Commission Action Memo for September 21, 2010 ATTACHMENT II: Staff Report, dated September 21, 2007 Planning Commission minutes Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 October 8, 2010 Dominion Engineering c/o Neal Wright 172 South Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: SP200800056 Unity Church TMP 06100-00-00-00400 Dear Mr. Wright: The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on September 21, 2010, by a vote of 7:0, recommended approval of the above -noted petition to the Board of Supervisors. Please note that this approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The church sanctuary shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) seats; 2. The site shall be developed in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Application Plan for Unity Church,” Revision 4, prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated August 19, 2010 (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), and with the Architectural Review Board action of February 16, 2010, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning A dministrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: Number of parking spaces and location of parking areas Paving materials, as approved by the County Engineer Location of proposed facilities, including the pergola, labyrinth, and playground as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the element above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 4. Construction of the parking areas and other items shown on the Conceptual Plan shall commence on or before 60 months after [insert date of approval by Board of Supervisors] or this specia l use permit shall expire. 5. Expansion of the church and/or establishment of a daycare not in Building 2 or for more than 25 children or provision of afterschool care shall require approval of an additional Special Use Permit. 6. Approval of the Public Health Department shall be required prior to site plan approval. 7. The applicants shall provide plantings to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; 8. The property may not be further divided; and 9. There shall be no more than one (1) residential dwelling on the property. Please be advised that the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors will review this petition and receive public comment at their meeting on November 3, 2010. Return to exec summary If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, ple ase do not hesitate to contact me at (434) 296-5832. Sincerely, Judith Wiegand Senior Planner Planning Division CC: Unity Church of Charlottesville 2825 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville VA 22901 SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 1 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: SP200800056, Unity Church Staff: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: September 21, 2010 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: Not yet scheduled. Owner: Unity Church of Albemarle Applicant: Neal Wright, Dominion Engineering, on behalf of Unity Church Acreage: 4.440 acres. Special Use Permit: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery TMP: 06100-00-00-00400 Location: 2825 Hydraulic Road, on the west side of the street, approximately 800 ft. north of the intersection with Whitewood Road. Existing Zoning and By-right use: RA -- Rural Areas: agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre) Magisterial District: Jack Jouett Conditions: Yes DA (Development Area): RA (Rural Areas): X Requested # of Dwelling Units: NA Proposal: To add 54 parking spaces for an existing church for a total of 134 parking spaces, some of which would be constructed of pervious paving material. Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre) Character of Property: The church property has several existing buildings and parking areas on it. A portion of the site is forested. Additional facilities, including a labyrinth, a playground, and a pergola , are proposed. Use of Surrounding Properties: The property to the north and west is residential, property to the south property is light industrial (used for warehousing and light manufacturing). Another church is located further to the south at the intersection of Hydraulic Road and Lambs Road (RT. 657). Across Hydraulic Road is the Development Area. Factors Favorable: Staff has identified two factors that are favorable to this application: 1. Adding parking spaces would reduce the need for attendees to park on the grass or in the roadway. 2. Adding parking spaces would permit all members to attend the same church service and would accommodate larger numbers of guests for weddings and other events. 3. Pervious paving materials would be used for approximately two-thirds of the new parking spaces. Factors Unfavorable: Staff has identified two factors that are unfavorable to this application. 1. Permitting parking above the maximum normally allowed for churches in the Rural Areas may set a precedent for similar requests. 2. Approval of this special use permit would allow some additional impervious surface in the water supply watershed. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit 200800056, with conditions. SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 2 STAFF PERSON: Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner PLANNING COMMISSION: September 21, 2010 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: Not Scheduled SP 2008-00056, Unity Church Petition PROJECT: SP200800056, Unity Church PROPOSED: Request to add 54 parking spaces to provide additional parking for church services. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 2825 Hydraulic Circle, approximately 800 ft. north of intersection with Whitewood Road TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100000000400 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett Character of the Area The property is in the Rural Areas, directly across Hydraulic Road from the Development Area. There are already several church buildings and parking areas on the property. Additional smaller facilities are proposed, including a labyrinth, a playground, and a pergola. (Attachment A) Specifics of the Proposal The church property now has 84 parking spaces (80 regular and 4 handicapped). In order to accommodate all those wishing to drive to church services, the church would like to add parking. To reach a total of 134 spaces, four of the existing spaces would be removed, 21 of the existing spaces would be restriped, and 54 new spaces would be added, of which 19 would be paved (including 1 handicapped space) and 35 would be constructed of pervious paving materia l. The total number of spaces after construction would be 134. No change in the number of seats permitted in the sanctuary is proposed. Planning and Zoning History The church property is in the Rural Areas and is zoned Rural Areas. Prior to December 1980, the property was zoned agricultural. SUB 198100142, November 5, 1981, staff signed an exempt plat creating this parcel. SP 199100071, approved May 13, 1992, allowed construction of a 150-seat interim sanctuary with offices within two years of the appro val date and construct ion of a 300-seat church with offices, fellowship hall, and educational facilities within four years of approval. The church office is the only part of this proposal that was co nstructed. SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 3 SP 199200009, approved May 13, 1992, allowed a daycare for 25 children. The daycare began in 1992 and continued until 1997. This special use permit for a daycare for up to 25 children located in Building 2 is still valid. SDP 199300046, a site plan was approved for a 300-seat church and three accessory buildings. This site plan expired. SP 200000002, approved May 17, 2000, permitted a 200-seat church. SP 200300053, approved October 13, 2004, permitted the church to increase from 200 to 250 seats. SP 200300086, approved May 11, 2004, extended the expiration date of SP 200000002. SDP 200400097, approved January 6, 2005, a preliminary site plan to construct a 6,889 square foot church. SDP 200500046, approved October 11, 2005, final site plan approved. On 12/14/2006, staff approved a letter of revision to this SDP to allow for parking changes. SDP 200600077, approved December 14, 2006, a minor amendment to the site plan. ARB 200800156, approved February 16, 2010, granted a Certificate of Appropriateness to the church (see Attachment E). Conformity with the Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property as Rural Areas, emphasizing the preservation and protection of agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources as land use options. Conservat ion of natural, scenic, and historic resources is a recognized purpose of the County’s Rural Areas. While churches provide a service to rural residents and the use is considered to be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan, this property is in the Ivy Creek Watershed, part of the South Fork Rivanna Water Supply Watershed, and additional parking beyond that required can impact such water resources emphasized for protection in the Rural Areas. To address this, the applicant proposes pervious paving for the majority of parking spaces. The church is located at the very edge of the Rural Areas and is directly across Hydraulic Road from the Development Area. Uses to the south of the church are industrial in nature and more like those usually found in the Development Area. Further, Hydraulic Road is a major thoroughfare that serves as a boundary between the Rural and Development Area; it is not a two -lane road located within the Rural Areas (and further from the Development Area). For these reasons, staff believes that permitting additional parking at the church will have minimal impact on the Rural Areas. The property is within the Albemarle County Service Authority Jurisdictional Area for water service only. STAFF COMMENT: Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance: SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 4 31.2.4.1: Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property, The church has owned and used this site since 1982. The church co-exists with both the adjacent residential and industrial properties. Adding additional parking with the proposed screening in the locations proposed is not expected to have any detrimental impact on adjacent properties as the additional parking is to accommodate trips currently occurring to the site and no church expansion is proposed. As of the date of this writing, staff has not heard of any opposition from neighbors to the proposed special use permit. that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and This church has existed in this district for over 20 years. The proposed additional parking would be screened from view of the Entrance Corridor (Hydraulic Road) and from the property to the south (the property closest to the additional parking). The Conceptual Plan has been reviewed by the staff to the Architectural Review Board, and a Certificate of Appropriateness was granted on February 16, 2010 (see Attachment E). that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance, Section 18, Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Rural Areas zoning: “This district (hereafter referred to as RA) is hereby created and may hereafter be established by ame ndment of the zoning map for the following purposes: -Preservation of agricultural and forestal lands and activities; -Water supply protection; -Limited service delivery to the rural areas; and -Conservation of natural, scenic, and historic resources.” There would be no increase in seats in the church, so there would not be any additional impact on agricultural or fo restal lands and activities. Pervious paving material would be used for many of the added spaces, which would have less impact on the water supply watershed by avoiding additional runoff from those pervious spaces. There would be no increase in service delivery or need for Jurisdictional Area change in the Rural Areas from the additional parking. The church would add landscaping to screen the parking closest to Hydraulic Road (an Entrance Corridor) so the extra parking will not have a negative impact on natural, scenic, or historical resources. Therefore, staff believes that adding parking would not have a negative impact on the four purposes listed above. The church is located on Hydraulic Road, an Entrance Corridor (EC). To address the EC issue, the church proposes to extend the parking lot that is located toward the rear of the property, thereby keeping some of the new parking in the rear. This would minimize the impact on the Entrance Corridor and preserve the rural appearance of the property when viewed from Hydraulic Road. The new parking area that would be closest to Hydraulic Road would be screened with landscaping to comply with Architectural Review Board (ARB) requirements. with uses permitted by right in the district, The subject property and the adjacent properties on the west side of Hydraulic Road are zoned RA, Rural Areas. The adjacent property across Hydraulic Road is in the Deve lopment Area and is zoned accordingly. Staff is of the opinion that adding parking to the existing church facilities would not affect the uses permitted by right in the Rural Areas district. SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 5 with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance, There are no supplementary regulations in Section 5.0 for churches. and with the public health, safety and general welfare. The church has requested additional parking in order to be able to accommodate all those wishing to attend the same church service and to allow larger groups of attendees for weddings and other events to park at the church. Church officials have indicated that they prefer to have enough parking for everyone to attend the same service, rather than holding two services. Current special use permit conditions allow the church to have a maximum of 250 seats. As the number of attendees approaches this number, church officials have noted that there are not enough regular parking spaces to accommodate all the cars. Some attendees e nd up parking on the grass and along onsite roadways. Staff has visit ed the site on several Sundays and verified that the parking spaces are all full and cars are parked elsewhere on the site. Staff also noted that there are no nearby uses where parking co uld be shared. Adding parking spaces would lessen the need for attendees to park on the grass and along the onsite roads, thereby permitting easier access for emergency vehicles. The additional parking would not require additional approvals or changes to comply with VDOT regulations (see Attachment C). In reviewing this request for additional parking, staff was concerned that the property is in the Rural Areas and within the Water Supply Watershed (see Attachment D). The church has agreed to use pervious paving for 35 of the 54 new spaces in order to avoid much of the additional runoff that would result if all the new spaces were paved. The 19 new spaces that will be paved are extensions of the existing parking areas, while the pervious pavers are being used in new areas and areas that are expected to be least often used. For example, the paving for the 24 new spaces that are near Hydraulic Road will be pervious. Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA") This application is su bject to the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"). One key provision of RLUIPA states: No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution – (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (italics added) 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1). RLUIPA also requires that land use regulations: (1) treat a religious assembly or institution on equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions; (2) not discriminate against any assembly or institution on the basis of religion or religious denomination; and (3) not totally exclude religious assemblies, or unreasonably li mit religious assemblies, institutions or structures, from the locality. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b). Staff believes that the review and approval of this special use permit are in compliance with these regulations. SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 6 SUMMARY: Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this application: 1. Adding parking spaces would reduce the need for attendees to park on the grass or in the roadway. 2. Adding parking spaces would permit all members to attend the same church service and would accommodate larger numbers o f guests for weddings and other events. 3. Pervious paving materials would be used for approximately two-thirds of the new parking spaces. Staff has identified two factors that are unfavorable to this application: 1. Permitting parking above the maximum normally allowed for churches in the Rural Areas may set a precedent for similar requests. 2. Approval of this special use permit would allow some additional impervious surface in the water supply watershed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the findings contained in this staff report, particularly the fact that the proposed parking is to accommodate vehicles already coming to the site and the proposal for a majority of the spaces to be paved with pervious materials, staff recommends approval of Special Use Permit 200800056, Unity Church, subject to the following conditions of approval: Original Conditions are from SP 200300053 (approved 10/13/2004), changes for SP 200800056 are shown in boldface italic type (additions) and strikethrough type (deletions): This property is subject to SP2003-00053 SP200800056 and the fo llowing conditions of approval: 1. The church sanctuary shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) seats; 2. Construction of the two hundred fifty (250)-seat sanctuary shall commence within thirty (30) months o f the approval of this permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the4 authority granted by this permit shall thereupon terminate; 2. The site shall be developed in general accord with the cConceptual pPlan entitled “Application Plan for Unity Church,” Revision 4 (“6/28/04 Comments), prepared by Muncaster Dominion Engineering, and dated August 19, 2010 (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), and with the Architectural Review Board action of February 16, 2010, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: Number of parking spaces and location of parking areas Paving materials, as approved by the County Engineer Location of proposed facilities, including the pergola, labyrinth, and playground as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the element above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. SP2008-00056 PC September 21, 2010 Staff Report Page 7 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 4. Construction of the parking areas and other items shown on the Conceptual Plan shall commence on or before 60 months after [insert date of approval by Board of Supervisors] or t his special use permit shall expire. 5. Expansion of the church and/or establishment of a daycare not in Building 2 or for more than 25 children or provision of afterschool care shall require approval of an additional Special Use Permit. 6. Approval of the Public Health Department shall be required prior to site plan approval. . Adjustments to the number of parking spaces approved by the zoning administrator and a rearrangement of the parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board shall be deemed to be in general accord with the conceptual plan. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities, or structures must be determined by the zoning administrator to be in general accord with the conceptual plan, the staff report, and the Arc hitectural Review Board action of August 2, 2004; [superceded] 7. The applicants shall relocate the twenty-two (22)-space parking lot shown north of the driveway nearer to the traffic circle; [no longer relevant] 8. The applicants shall provide plantings to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; 9. Location of water meters and water lines on the site shall be adjusted to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority; [dropped because ACSA indicated the church has complied with this condit ion] 10. The property may not be further divided; and 11. There shall be no more than one (1) residential dwelling on the property. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Location Map Attachment B – Concept Plan Attachment C – VDOT Comment Letter, dated November 19, 2008 Attachment D – Map showing Comprehensive Plan Areas & Water Supply Watershed boundaries Attachment E – ARB Certificate of Appropriateness, dated February 16, 2010 Return to exec summary LAMBS RDHYDRAULIC RDWHITEWOOD RD OAK FOREST CIR WOODGATE CT SACHEM PLROSLY N H EIGHTS RD TINTERN CT¡657 ¡743 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, August 2010. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 100 20050Feet SP 2008-56Unity Church Roads Driveways Buildings Streams Water Body Parcels Parcel of Interest 61-4 ± From: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E. [Joel.DeNunzio@VDOT.virginia.gov] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 8:46 AM To: Judith Wiegand Subject: FW: Unity Church Entrance - Hydraulic Road Albemarle Attachments: Unity VDOT ltr.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Judy, I have reviewed the letter and the design exception for this site and determined that the previous exception for the turn lane still stands since there is not a proposed increase in the traffic for this site. No improvements to the entrance will be necessary for the addition of parking on the site. Thanks Joel Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer 434-293-0011 Ext. 120 joel.denunzio@vdot.virginia.gov From: Neal Wright [mailto:nwright@ddrva.com] Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 3:20 PM To: DeNunzio, Joel D., P.E.; jwiegand@albemarle.org; unityrevdon@aol.com Subject: Unity Church Entrance - Hydraulic Road Albemarle Joel, Per our conversation, here is the letter from the Unity Church requesting that VDOT maintain its prior position in respect to the Curch's entrance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me by reply email or on the phone at 979-8121. I am copying Judy Wiegand with the County in this email. If you wish to note VDOT acceptance of the current entrance configuration. Thank you, Neal South Fork Rivanna River Rivanna River RURAL AREA 1 NEIGHBORHOOD 1LAMBS RDHYDRAULIC RDWHITEWOOD RD OAK FOREST CIR WOODGATE CT ROSLY N H EIGHTS RD TINTERN CT¡657 ¡743 Prepared by Albemarle CountyOffice of Geographic Data Services (GDS). Map created by Elise Hackett, August 2010. Note: The map elements depicted are graphic representations and are not to be construed or used as a legal description.This map is for display purposes only. Aerial Imagery 2007 Commonwealth of Virginia Parcels shown reflect plats and deeds recorded through December 31, 2009 0 100 20050Feet SP 2008-56Unity Church Roads Parcels Parcel of Interest Watersheds Comprehensive Plan Areas 61-4 ± COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126 February 16, 2010 Justin Shimp Dominion Engineering & Design, LLC 172 Pantops Drive Charlottesville, VA 22911 RE: ARB 2009-104 Unity Church (Tax Map 61, Parcel 4) Dear Mr. Shimp; I have reviewed your revised submittal for the above-referenced project submitted on February 16, 2010, which consisted of Sheet C6, dated 2/16/10. The revisions included in this latest submission address all outstanding conditions of ARB approval. You may consider this letter your Certificate of Appropriateness. This approval is predicated on the fact that the design and materials, as proposed and exhibited for review, will be used. The acceptance of approval implies that the applicant has agreed to execute the design as indicated on the site plan, attachments, materials, samples, and other submittal items presented. Any change in the approved design or materials will require an amendment to the plan and must be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board. Please note the following: 1. Changes made to the site or architectural plans after issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness can delay the signing of mylars and the approval of building permits. It is in the applicant’s best interest to notify ARB staff of such changes and to initiate the review of amendments to ARB-approved plans to avoid future delays. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 434-296-5832 x 3029. Sincerely, Eryn Brennan Senior Planner cc: Unity Church 2825 Hydraulic Road Charlottesville, VA 22901 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 1 SP-2008-00056 Unity Church (Sign 6). PROPOSED: Request to add 54 parking spaces to provide additional parking for church services. ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre in development lots) SECTION: 10.2.2.35 Church building and adjunct cemetery. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas - preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 2825 Hydraulic Circle, approximately 800 ft. north of intersection with Whitewood Road TAX MAP/PARCEL: 06100-00-00-00400. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett (Judy Wiegand) Ms. Wiegand presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report for special use permit, SP-2008-00056, Unity Church. The purpose of the special use permit is to permit an expansion of parking at an existing church for a total of 134 parking spaces some of which will be paved with pervious material. This special use permit would not involve a change in the number of seats or the size of the sanctuary. The church has been located on Hydraulic Road since 1982. Hydraulic Road is the boundary between the Development Areas and the Rural Areas where this church is located. The Comprehensive Plan designates this parcel and surrounding areas as Rural Areas. Churches are compatible with that designation. The current zoning is Rural Areas. The church did a parking study. They looked at six Sundays back at the end of 2008 and early 2009 and found the following information: • Average number of cars parked on Sunday: 138 • Sunday counts for Six Sundays: 152, 147, 153, 135, 117, 123 – On four of these Sundays, they had more than 134 cars. – The average is also above 134 – Does not include 10-15 additional cars for youth service in an accessory building • ITE Trip generation parking required (for 250-seat church): 131.25 spaces A county staff member went by at the end of 2008 on four Sundays and noticed that cars were parked on the grass and in the entry way or the circle area in the middle of the property. Church Parking: Existing & Requested Existing Spaces 84 (4 handicapped) Spaces to be removed -4 Proposed Spaces-paved 19 (1 handicapped) Proposed Spaces-pervious 35 TOTAL SPACES 134 Factor Favorable 1. Adding parking spaces would reduce the need for attendees to park on the grass or in the roadway. Staff discussed with the church the idea of having two services, but sinc e they can get all of their people in the sanctuary at one time they would prefer to have everyone at one service. 2. Adding the parking spaces would permit all the members to attend the same church service and would accommodate larger numbers of guests for weddings and other events. 3. Pervious paving materials would be used for approximately two-thirds of the new parking spaces. Factors Unfavorable 1. Permitting parking above the maximum normally allowed for churches in the Rural Areas may set a precedent for similar requests. Staff considered that and decided because this church is right ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 2 at the edge of the rural areas next to the development areas and also has its entrance on a major street, Hydraulic Road, that this was less of a problem here and was a disting uishable situation from a church that is well into the rural areas as perhaps on a small two -lane road. 2. Approval of this special use permit would allow some additional impervious surface in the water supply watershed. There are 19 additional parking spaces that would be paved. Staff recommends approval of this Special Use Permit subject to the following conditions: The original conditions are from SP-2003-00053 (approved 10/13/2004), and the changes for the current special use permit SP-2008-00056 are shown in boldface italic type (additions) and strikethrough type (deletions): This property is subject to SP2003-00053 SP200800056 and the following conditions of approval: 1. The church sanctuary shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) seats; 2. Construction of the two hundred fifty (250)-seat sanctuary shall commence within thirty (30) months of the approval of this permit or it shall be deemed abandoned and the4 authority granted by this permit shall thereupon terminate; 2. The site shall be developed in general accord with the cConceptual pPlan entitled “Application Plan for Unity Church,” Revision 4 (“6/28/04 Comments), prepared by Muncaster Dominion Engineering, and dated August 19, 2010 (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), and with the Architectural Review Board action of February 16, 2010, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: – Number of parking spaces and location of parking areas – Paving materials, as approved by the County Engineer – Location of proposed facilities, including the pergola, labyrinth, and playground as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the element above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 4. Construction of the parking areas and other items shown on the Conceptual Plan shal l commence on or before 60 months after [insert date of approval by Board of Supervisors] or this special use permit shall expire. 5. Expansion of the church and/or establishment of a daycare not in Building 2 or for more than 25 children or provision of aft erschool care shall require approval of an additional Special Use Permit. 6. Approval of the Public Health Department shall be required prior to site plan approval. 7. Adjustments to the number of parking spaces approved by the zoning administrator and a rearrangement of the parking spaces to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board shall be deemed to be in general accord with the conceptual plan. Any expansion of, or addition to, the uses, activities, or structures must be determined by the zoning administrator to be in general accord with the conceptual plan, the staff report, and the Architectural Review Board action of August 2, 2004; 8. The applicants shall relocate the twenty-two (22)-space parking lot shown north of the driveway nearer to the traffic circle; 9. The applicants shall provide plantings to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; 10. Location of water meters and water lines on the site shall be adjusted to the satisfaction of the Albemarle County Service Authority; 11. The property may not be further divided; and 12. There shall be no more than one (1) residential dwelling on the property. She noted the following reasons for taking some of the prior conditions out: ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 3 - Condition 1 updated to show the sanctuary shall not exceed 250 square fe et. - Condition 2 is the standard condition about general accord with the conceptual plan. Staff updated the earlier conceptual plan to the standard format. Staff asks for the design of development such as number of parking spaces, location and paving mat erials that would be approved by the County Engineer. These are the ones staff would pay particular attention to during review of a site plan. - Condition 3 was proposed to assist the ARB with their review since the property is in the Entrance Corridor. The ARB has looked at it. - Condition 4 allows 5 (five) years to start the project. It is the standard. This is the condition staff wants to change. - Condition 5 is a rewording of the earlier condition where they were allowed a daycare under a previous special use permit for up to 25 children so long as it was in building two (2). This condition states that if the applicant wants more than 25 children or someplace else, then they need to come back for another special use permit. - Condition 6 is there because the church has a septic system and the public health department has to approve that. Part of the paving is going to be over the drain field and the public health people have said that is not a problem. - Condition 7 is basically outdated because it also addresses parking space. - Condition 8 is crossed out and has been done. - Condition 9 is in regards to the plantings that are to support their work with the ARB. - Condition 10 – Albemarle County Service Authority has said they have taken care of this. - Conditions 11 and 12 are conditions from previous special use permits that should be continued to protect the Rural Area. Ms. Wiegand noted that they need to go back to condition 4. Mr. Cilimberg said that if condition 4 is one that the Commission wants to include in their action they will probably have a revised version that essentially covers the same ground. Condition 4 will be an updated version of what they are using for standard conditions when someone asks for more than the two years that they automatically get with a special use permit. That can be done before the Board meeting. Ms. Porterfield asked if all of the conditions will be renumbered, and Ms. Wiegand replied yes. Mr. Franco asked what happens to SP-2003-53. Mr. Kamptner replied that it would be superseded by this new special use permit and new conditions that apply. Mr. Franco asked if that needs to be specified and how does condition 4 relate to that. Mr. Kamptner replied that condition 4 will have to be revised to reflect that a num ber of these structures and items shown on the conceptual plan already exist. Mr. Franco asked if it was superseded or does this action void the other special use permit. Mr. Zobrist noted that this action would amend the special use permit. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 4 Mr. Kamptner noted that it just takes the place of the prior special use permit. Mr. Franco asked what happens if it is not commenced within five years and the other one just comes back up. Mr. Kamptner replied that is what needs to be clarified in condition 4 b ecause the standard condition deals best with new special permit uses and when there is an amendment to an existing use. Ms. Porterfield asked if the five years is for anything that has not been built yet. Ms. Wiegand replied that it was for what is on the conceptual plan. Ms. Porterfield noted that there are three items on the conceptual plan that have not been constructed yet. So they now have five years to do those. That gives them extra time from the last one. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the issue raised will be clarified in that condition. Ms. Porterfield said that it is not just the parking lot, but for the rest of the things. Mr. Zobrist asked where the idea came from that there is a normal limitation on parking for churches in the Rural Areas. This has come up before. Churches are churches and it does not matter where they are. He asked if there is a statute that says that. Mr. Loach said that he had the same question. They approved the capacity for the sanctuary and have 15 more parking spaces. He asked if ordinances are broken now when they are parking more cars than that. Ms. Wiegand replied that they wanted to construct that. Mr. Loach said that they are not breaking any rule because they have more cars than they can park. Mr. Zobrist said that there is just a minimum number and they had to waiver it to go down to the ones they had because they were below that required for 250. Mr. Cilimberg said that the parking requirement is for the size of the church. In this case they are t rying to provide more parking to deal with their demand. Mr. Zobrist said that he remembers this when it was before the Commission before. They downsized the parking requirement because the Commission at that time was always looking at downsizing the req uired number. He did not think there was an upper limit. He questioned if there was a statute. He asked if they can take this unfavorable factor out of it since he did not think that was unfavorable. Mr. Cilimberg replied that was part of staff’s anal ysis. If he did not agree, that was fine. But that is not part of the conditions. Mr. Zobrist said that he understands that it is not part of the conditions. But, he wanted to know why the staff is bothering with this if there is not a limitation. He asked why there is a factor unfavorable if there is no limitation on parking. They went through this before with Mr. Edgerton since he always wanted to limit churches in the Rural Areas to less parking and less size because they were rural churches and th at is what it is meant for. Mr. Cilimberg said that it was above the maximum normally allowed for churches. Mr. Zobrist noted that there was no normally allowed that he was aware of or no statute. He questioned if that is correct. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 5 Mr. Morris asked Mr. Kamptner if by law the County even has the right to put a maximum number of parking spaces for a church. Mr. Kamptner replied under the general zoning authority yes. Under the RLUPA requirements they would need to look at it on a case by case basis. It m ay be a perfectly legitimate kind of restriction in a particular case. Mr. Loach said the question he would have in this case is not the issue of how much can one park at a church, but the issue of the water quality and it being in the watershed. It would be more applicable if they were going to restrict parking spaces one way or the other. That said, are they improving things by putting in these impervious parking spaces, and by doing that are they improving the water quality. The staff report says this property is in the Ivy Creek Watershed and part of the South Fork Rivanna Watershed . . . and additional parking beyond that required can impact the water resources emphasized for protection. The question is not can, but will this actually improve the s ituation by the way it is planned, or is there a better way to do it. Ms. Wiegand noted that the reason staff asked for the pervious pavers is those are further out in most cases and less likely to be parked on. In the Rural Areas they wanted run off to go into the ground rather than running off into storm sewers or something. Mr. Loach said he could see what she was saying, but if they go back to the slide with the numbers they have been averaging it seems that they are almost at or above the maximum of what they are asking for. So essentially while they may be further out it looks like it is going to be used. There was one slide that showed the statistics. Mr. Zobrist pointed out that the church was built with more than the required number of parking spaces to start with. Ordinarily the County would be saying that they have to have 131 parking spaces. But, here it was lowered below that because the Commission wanted a lower number if it was possible. He asked Mr. Morris if that was correct. Ms. Porterfield noted that the Commission had heard other applications for the land on this side of the road. One request was for a school. One of the reasons the school was turned down was because of the run off. If they were looking at anything with this church in limiting the amount of parking, it would probably have to be in the same vein as the turn down on the school because of the fact it is more the run off. Mr. Loach said essentially if they can’t limit them to whatever they are parking now on the gr ass or whatever, shouldn’t they do something to improve it as much as possible with the pervious pavers so when they do park at least they are not making things worse, but are making things better for the size of the church. Ms. Porterfield said that definitely makes sense and definitely should be in the minutes indicating why they are looking at this. Mr. Loach noted that prior they would probably have taken another look and said yes, the runoff is important and it should be part of the discussion. Mr. Cilimberg noted that in a general situation with the extra parking beyond the available surface parking that when they get into the grassed areas and other areas that they have the potential for erosion. There is no real control associated with that which is built into the parking. This gives additional parking area, which will fall under certain requirements in its design, and the pervious parking actually is a step beyond that. So that is what improves the situation over what might exist now. Mr. Smith asked if everything drains to the bio-filter. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he was not sure in this plan. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 6 Mr. Lafferty noted that he had some questions about that. It looks like there are some pipes in the drainage area on the maps and the detail is hard to read. In the lower right hand corner of the top drawing it looks like there is some drainage that actually drains into the catch basin. But there is a pipe that looks like it goes off site. It is on the drainage area map, which is an architectural d rawing in Attachment B labeled C-8. The pipe looks like it goes through the retention pond and then goes off site. Ms. Wiegand noted that the applicant was here with their engineer who could answer that question. Mr. Loach opened the public hearing an d invited the applicant to come forward and address the Planning Commission. Katurah Roell, representative for Unity Church, said that he would be happy to answer any questions. The whole site drains to a bio-filter and then once it shifts through ultimately drains off-site into the watershed. Mr. Lafferty noted that he was concerned about it. It looks like a pipe actually installed that goes up to collectors in the additional parking lot being put in. Mr. Roell replied that is right. He referred to the site plan noting that their dais around the circle and on the existing parking lot that does collect the current runoff and that does run to the bio -filter in the upper right hand corner. Initially they proposed grass pave, but the County preferred that they use pervious paving material. Secondly, the other portion of the parking lot that is being increased that the reason it is paved is because that is the area of the septic field. Since they are not in the development area they cannot tap into the sewer in Hydraulic Road. So they have to put impervious pavement over top of the septic field area. Mr. Franco noted that on the bottom right corner of the drawing it actually is a mound there. Mr. Lafferty acknowledged the mound, but that there was also a pipe that goes from the collectors in the middle of the parking lot on Sheet C-6. Mr. Smith pointed out that was the sanitary sewer coming from the subdivision. There are two man holes. Mr. Franco noted that was storm water coming from the other side of the street. It is dumping behind the proposed parking lot in a little drainage swale that then goes to bio-filter. Mr. Cilimberg said if they look at Sheet C-5 they will see the proposal in terms of this drainage. Sheet C-5 shows the additional parking area, the grading to direct the runoff, and also the pipes that collect the parking on the left that sends it to the bio-filter. Mr. Roell noted that was correct. Most of the paving will be pervious paving in order to have direct penetration into the ground. There being no further questions for the applicant, Mr. Loach invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter brought before the Planning Commission for further discussion and action. Motion: Ms. Porterfield moved and Mr. Zobrist seconded for approval of SP-2008-00058, Unity Church, with the conditions (as will be renumbered) recommended in the staff report, as amended with the appropriate changes made to condition #4 by the County Attorney to reword condition 4 to handle the situation of extending the entire site plan. 1. The church sanctuary shall not exceed two hundred fifty (250) seats; ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 21, 2010 DRAFT MINUTES - SP-2010-00019 Afton Farmers’ Market, SP-2010-00016 Forest Lakes Farmers Market, and SP-2008- 00056 Unity Church 7 2. The site shall be developed in general accord with the Conceptual Plan entitled “Application Plan for Unity Church,” Revision 4, prepared by Dominion Engineering, and dated August 19, 2010 (hereinafter, the “Conceptual Plan”), and with the Architectural Review Board action of February 16, 2010, as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in accord with the Conceptual Plan, development shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development: Number of parking spaces and location of parking areas Paving materials, as approved by the County Engineer Location of proposed facilities, including the pergola, labyrinth, and playground as shown on the Conceptual Plan. Minor modifications to the Plan which do not conflict with the element above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 3. All outdoor lighting shall be only full cut-off fixtures and shielded to reflect light away from all abutting properties. A lighting plan limiting light levels at all property lines to no greater than 0.3 foot candles shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator or their designee for approval. 4. Construction of the parking areas and other items shown on the Conceptual Plan shall commence on or before 60 months after [insert date of approval by Board of Supervisors] or this special use permi t shall expire. 5. Expansion of the church and/or establishment of a daycare not in Building 2 or for more than 25 children or provision of afterschool care shall require approval of an additional Special Use Permit. 6. Approval of the Public Health Department shall be required prior to site plan approval. 7. The applicants shall provide plantings to the satisfaction of the Architectural Review Board; 8. The property may not be further divided; and 9. There shall be no more than one (1) residential dwelling on the property. The motion carried by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Loach noted that SP-2008-00058, Unity Church will go before the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined with a recommendation for approval with the conditions in the staff report. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Ordinance Amendment – Chapter 10, Offenses- Miscellaneous SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: A public hearing to consider an ordinance to comprehensively amend Chapter 10, Offenses- Miscellaneous. STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Elliott, Davis, and Parrent; and Ms. Kim LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: In 1998, the Board of Supervisors re-codified the entire Albemarle County Code including Chapter 10, Offenses- Miscellaneous. This chapter was subsequently amended by the Board in July 2005 to add §10-123, Prohibited Activities on Public Roadways and Medians. In order to properly cite state law references in this Chapter of the County’s Code and in recognition of several modifications to Virginia Code since 1998, it is appropriate for the Board to consider a comprehensive update to Chapter 10 at this time. DISCUSSION: The attached ordinance (Attachment A) updates Chapter 10, Offenses - Miscellaneous. The proposed changes encompass primarily housekeeping items; however, several substantive modifications are also submitted for consideration by the Board. The housekeeping changes amend the wording of existing provisions to mirror current Virginia Code language as well as the state law references to reflect correct Virginia Code sections. The substantive changes in the draft ordinance are as follows: Section 10-107 Firearms - Discharging within residential districts. Would add exemptions to discharging firearms in residential districts similar to those found in the ordinances of Fairfax, Chesterfield and Prince William Counties, and would update the definition of “residential district” by including the Neighborhood Model District (NMD) and enumerating the other districts. Section 10-118 Sunday closings – Applicability of state law within county. Would repeal this section, as the Virginia Code section on Sunday closings has been repealed. Section 10-124 Urinating or Defecating in Public. Would add this section to prohibit urinating or defecating in public within public view, and make an offense punishable as a class 4 misdemeanor. The Police Department and the Commonwealth’s Attorney requested this section be added in order to supplement existing Virginia Code options for charging such conduct. BUDGET IMPACT: Staff anticipates very limited additional enforcement by police officers under the proposed ordinance and, therefore, anticipates no budget impact. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that after the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS A – Draft Ordinance Return to regular agenda Draft: 10/18/10 1 ORDINANCE NO. 10-10(1) AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 10, OFFENSES – MISCELLANEOUS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 10, Offenses – Miscellaneous, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: By Amending: Sec. 10-100 Assault; assault and battery. Sec. 10-102 Damaging signs, markers, etc., on highways. Sec. 10-103 Disorderly conduct in public places. Sec. 10-104 Drinking alcoholic beverages or offering alcoholic beverages to another in public places; possession of open alcoholic beverage containers in public places. Sec. 10-105 Drinking or possessing alcoholic beverages in or on public school grounds. Sec. 10-106 Drunkenness in public, profane swearing. Sec. 10-107 Firearms--Discharging within residential districts. Sec. 10-109 Standing or walking with loaded rifle or shotgun. Sec. 10-110 Hunting; prohibited with firearms near highways generally. Sec. 10-111 Shooting in, or along or near road or in street. Sec. 10-115 Obstructing justice by threats or force. Sec. 10-117 Peeping or spying into structure occupied as dwelling. Sec. 10-119 Trees, shrubs, etc.--Unlawful destruction, injury, etc. Sec. 10-120 Trespass--After having been forbidden to do so. Sec. 10-121 Trespass--At night, upon church or school property. By Adding: Sec. 10-124 Urinating or Defecating in Public By Repealing: Sec. 10-118 Sunday closings--Applicability of state law within county. CHAPTER 10 OFFENSES--MISCELLANEOUS State law reference--Crimes and offenses generally, Tit. 18.2, Code of Virginia. Sec. 10-100 Assault; assault and battery. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to commit an a simple assault or an assault and battery upon any other person. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. B. In addition, if any person commits a battery against another knowing or having reason to know that such other person is a full-time or part-time teacher, principal, assistant principal, or guidance counselor of any public or private elementary or secondary school and is engaged in the performance of his duties as such, he shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor and the sentence of such person upon conviction shall include a sentence of 15 days in jail, two days of which shall be a mandatory minimum term of confinement. However, if the offense is committed by use of a firearm or other weapon prohibited on school property pursuant to Virginia Code § 18.2-308.1, the person shall serve a mandatory minimum sentence of six months. C. As used herein, ―simple assault‖ or ―assault and battery‖ shall not be construed to include the use of, by any teacher, teacher aide, principal, assistant principal, guidance counselor, school security officer, school bus driver or school bus aide, while acting in the course and scope of his official capacity, any of the following: 1. incidental, minor or reasonable physical contact or other actions designed to maintain order and control; Draft: 10/18/10 2 2. reasonable and necessary force to quell a disturbance or remove a student from the scene of a disturbance that threatens physical injury to persons or damage to property; 3. reasonable and necessary force to prevent a student from inflicting physical harm on himself; 4. reasonable and necessary force for self-defense or the defense of others; or 5. reasonable and necessary force to obtain possession of weapons or other dangerous objects or controlled substances or associated paraphernalia that are upon the person of the student or within his control. In demonstrating whether a person was acting within the exceptions provided in this subsection, due deference shall be given to reasonable judgments that were made by a teacher, teacher aide, principal, assistant principal, guidance counselor, school security officer, school bus driver, or school bus aide at the time of the event. (Code 1967, § 13-3; Code 1988, § 13-1; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 18.2-57. Sec. 10-102 Damaging signs, markers, etc., on highways. It shall be unlawful for a person to willfully or maliciously displace, remove, destroy or injure any milestone, guide sign or other highway sign or signal or any historical marker or any inscription thereon lawfully within a highway. (Code 1967, § 16-1; Code 1988, § 13-6; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 33.1-345. Sec. 10-103 Disorderly conduct in public places. A. It shall be unlawful for any person who, with the intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof: 1. in any street, highway, public building, or while in or on a public conveyance, or public place, engages in conduct having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, such conduct is directed; provided, however, such conduct shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words or to include conduct otherwise made punishable under this chapter; or 2. willfully, or being intoxicated whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts any funeral, memorial service, or meeting of the governing body of the county or a division or agency thereof, or of any school, literary society or place of religious worship, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the funeral, memorial service, or meeting or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed; provided, however, such conduct shall not be deemed to include the utterance or display of any words or to include conduct otherwise made punishable under this chapter.; or 3. willfully, or while intoxicated, whether willfully or not, and whether such intoxication results from self-administered alcohol or other drug of whatever nature, disrupts the operation of any school or activity conducted or sponsored by a school, if the disruption (i) prevents or interferes with the orderly conduct of the operation or activity or (ii) has a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the person or persons at whom, individually, the disruption is directed. B. The person in charge of any such building, place, conveyance, meeting, operation or activity may eject therefrom any person who violates any provision of this section, with the aid, if necessary, of any person(s) who may be called upon for such purpose. C. A person violating any provision of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. (4-21-76; Code 1988, § 13-7; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Authority of county to adopt, Va. Code § 18.2 -415. Draft: 10/18/10 3 Sec. 10-104 Drinking alcoholic beverages or offering alcoholic beverages to another in public places; possession of open alcoholic beverage containers in public places. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to take a drink of alcoholic beverages or offer a drink thereof to another person, whether accepted or not, in any public place. Any person violation this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. B. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess an open or opened container, can, cup, glass or bottle containing an alcoholic beverage in any county public park or playground, on county-owned property or on any public street or sidewalk adjoining a public street in the county. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. C. Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from drinking alcoholic beverages or offering a drink thereof in any public place, or from possessing an open or opened container, as described above in paragraph (A), in any area for any purpose approved and licensed by the Virginia Alcoholic Beverage Control (―ABC‖) Board pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 4.1-308 (B), and (C) and (D). The types of ABC licenses referred to herein include, but are not limited to: 1. retail restaurant ABC licenses; 2. banquet-special event ABC licenses; and 3. private banquet ABC licenses. D. As used herein, ―alcoholic beverage‖ and ―public place‖ shall have the same meanings and definitions set forth in Virginia Code § 4.1-100. (Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Authority of county to adopt, Va. Code § 4.1-128(B); similar provisions, Va. Code § 4.1-308. Sec. 10-105 Drinking or possessing alcoholic beverages in or on public school grounds. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess or drink any alcoholic beverage in or upon the grounds of any public elementary or secondary school during school hours or school or student activities. In addition, no person shall drink and no organization shall serve any alcoholic beverage in or upon the grounds of any public elementary or secondary school after school hours or school or student activities, except for religious congregations using wine for sacramental purposes only. Any person violating this section shall be guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor. (Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Authority of county to adopt, Va. Code § 4.1-128(B); similar provisions, Va. Code § 4.1-309. Sec. 10-106 Drunkenness in public, pProfane swearing and intoxication in public. It shall be unlawful for any person to profanely curse or swear in public, or to be intoxicated in public, whether such intoxication results from alcohol, narcotic drug or other intoxicant or drug of whatever nature. A law-enforcement officer may authorize the transportation, by police or otherwise, of public inebriates to a court-approved detoxification center in lieu of arrest; however, no person shall be involuntarily detained in such center. Any person who engages in such conduct shall be deemed guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. (Code 1967, § 13-9; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 13-8; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Similar provision, Va. Code § 18.2-388. Sec. 10-107 Firearms--Discharging within residential districts. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm within the boundaries of any residential district within the county; provided, however, that no person discharging a firearm within such a district in defense of person or property as otherwise permitted by law shall be deemed to have violated this section. The provisions of this section shall not apply to: Draft: 10/18/10 4 1. a law-enforcement officer, as defined by Virginia Code § 9.1-101, in the performance of his official duties, or an animal control officer, as defined by Virginia Code § 3.2-6555, in the performance of his official duties; 2. any person whose discharge of a firearm is justifiable or excusable at law in the protection of life or as otherwise permitted by law; 3. any person discharging a firearm at a shooting or firing range established in accordance with applicable state and county laws; or 4. any person discharging a firearm or starter gun with a blank cartridge or other ammunition not resulting in the expulsion of a projectile or projectiles. B. Any person violating this section shall be liable for a penalty of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for each such violation. C. For purposes of this section, "residential district" shall mean any district described as Village Residential - VR, Residential R-1, Residential R-2, Residential R-4, Residential R-6, Residential R-10, Residential R-15, Neighborhood Model - NMD, Planned Unit Development - PUD or Planned Residential Development - PRD on the official zoning map of the county. (9-19-74; 6-10-81; Code 1988, § 13-9; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--For state law as to authority of county to adopt this section, see Va. Code § 15.2 -1209. Sec. 10-109 Standing or walking with loaded rifle or shotgun firearm. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to carry or have in his possession, for the purpose of hunting, while on any part of a public highway within the county a loaded rifle or shotgun firearm when such person is not authorized to hunt on the private property on both sides of the highway along which he is standing or walking. B. Any person violating this section shall be liable to a fine not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for each such violation. C. All law-enforcement officers authorized to act as such within the county shall have the power to enforce this section, including but not limited to all duly appointed and acting game wardens. D. ―Loaded rifle or shotgun firearm,‖ as used in this section, is defined as a rifle or shotgun firearm with ammunition within the action chamber, magazine or clip which is within or on the rifle or shotgun firearm. ―Firearm‖ means any weapon that will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel single or multiple projectiles by the action of an explosion of a combustible material; or the frame or receiver of any such weapon. E. The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons carrying loaded firearms in moving vehicles or for purposes other than hunting, or nor to persons acting at the time in defense of persons or property. (3-11-81; Ord. of 9-15-93; Code 1988, § 13-9.2; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--State law as to authority of county to adopt this section, Va. Code § 18.2-287 15.2-1209. Sec. 10-110 Hunting; prohibited with firearms near highways generally. It shall be unlawful for any person to be engaged in the hunting or attempting to hunt with a firearm of any game bird or game animal within fifty (50) one hundred (100) feet of any primary or secondary highway in the county. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 3 misdemeanor. For the purpose of this section, the term ―hunt‖ shall not include the necessary crossing of highways for the bona fide purpose of going into or leaving a lawful hunting area. (Code 1967, § 13-10; Code 1988, § 13-11; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) Draft: 10/18/10 5 State law reference--State law authorizing county prohibit hunting with firearms within one hundred yards of highways and defining the term "hunt," see Va. Code § 29.1-526. Sec. 10-111 Shooting in, or along or near or across road or in street. No person shall discharge any firearm, crossbow or bow and arrow in or across any road or within the right-of- way thereof, or in a street of any town, whether the town is incorporated or not. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. The provisions of this section shall not apply to firing ranges or shooting matches maintained, and supervised or approved, by law-enforcement officers and military personnel in performance of their lawful duties. (Code 1967, § 13-21; Ord. of 5-4-94; Code 1988, § 13-18; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--For similar state law, see Va. Code § 18.2-286. Sec. 10-115 Obstructing justice by threats or force. A. If any person without just cause knowingly obstructs a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer employed pursuant to Virginia Code § 3.2-6555 in the performance of his duties as such or fails or refuses without just cause to cease such obstruction when requested to do so by such judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or law-enforcement officer, or animal control officer, he shall be guilty of a class 2 1 misdemeanor. B. If any person, by threats or force, knowingly attempts to intimidate or impede a judge, magistrate, justice, juror, attorney for the Commonwealth, witness, or any law-enforcement officer, or any animal control officer employed pursuant to Virginia Code § 3.2-6555 lawfully engaged in his duties as such, or to obstruct or impede the administration of justice in any court, he shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. C. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes any materially false statement or representation to a law-enforcement officer or an animal control officer employed pursuant to Virginia Code § 3.2-6555 who is in the course of conducting an investigation of a crime by another is guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. (4-13-88; Code 1988, § 13-15; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 18.2-460. Sec. 10-117 Peeping or spying into structure occupied as dwelling or enclosure. A. No person shall unlawfully enter upon the property of another, in the nighttime, and secretly or furtively peep or attempt to so peep, into or through or spy through a window, door or other aperture of any building, structure or other enclosure of any nature occupied or intended for occupancy as a dwelling, whether or not such building, structure or enclosure is permanently situated or transportable and whether or not such occupancy is permanent or temporary, or to do the same, without just cause, upon property owned by him and leased or rented to another under circumstances that would violate the occupant’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. B. No person shall use a peephole or other aperture to secretly or furtively peep, spy or attempt to peep or spy into a restroom, dressing room, locker room, hotel room, motel room, tanning bed, tanning booth, bedroom or other location or enclosure for the purpose of viewing any nonconsenting person who is totally nude, clad in undergarments, or in a state of undress exposing the genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast and the circumstances are such that the person would otherwise have a reasonable expectation of privacy. C. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a lawful criminal investigation or a correctional official or local or regional jail official conducting surveillance for security purposes or during an investigation of alleged misconduct involving a person committed to the Department of Corrections or to a local or regional jail. Draft: 10/18/10 6 D. As used in this section, ―peephole‖ means any hole, crack or other similar opening through which a person can see. E. A violation of this section is a class 1 misdemeanor. (Code 1967, § 13-17; Code 1988, § 13-17; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--For similar state law, see Va. Code § 18.2-130. Sec. 10-118 Sunday closings--Applicability of state law within county. The provisions of Virginia Code § 18.2-341 shall have no force or effect within the county. (1-16-75; Code 1988, § 13-19; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--For state law as to authorize of county to adopt this section, see Va. Code § 18.2-342. Sec. 10-119 Trees, shrubs, etc.--Unlawful destruction, injury, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person to pick, pull, pull up, tear, tear up, dig, dig up, cut, break, injure, burn or destroy, in whole or in part, any tree, shrub, vine, plant, flower or turf found being or growing upon the land of another, or upon any land reserved, set aside or maintained by the state Commonwealth as a public park or as a refuge or sanctuary for wild animals, birds or fish, without having previously obtained the permission, in writing, of such other person or his agent or of the superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary to do so, unless the same is done under the personal direction of such owner or his agent, tenant or lessee or superintendent or custodian of such park, refuge or sanctuary. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor; provided, that the approval of the owner, his agent, tenant or lessee, or the superintendent or custodian of such park or sanctuary afterwards given in writing or in open court shall be a bar to further prosecution or suit. (Code 1967, § 13-22; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 13-20; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--For similar state law, Va. Code § 18.2-140. Sec. 10-120 Trespass--After having been forbidden to do so. If any person, without authority of law, goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by such persons or by the holder of any easement or other right-of way authorized by the instrument creating such interest to post such signs on such lands, structures, premises or portion or area thereof at a place or places where it or they may be reasonably seen, or if any person, whether he is the owner, tenant or otherwise entitled to the use of such land, building or premises, goes upon, or remains upon such land, building or premises after having been prohibited from doing so by a court of competent jurisdiction by an order issued pursuant to Virginia Code §§ 16.1-253, 16.1-253.1, 16.1-253.4, 16.1- 278.2 through 16.1-278.6, 16.1-278.8, 16.1-278.14, 16.1-278.15, or 16.1-279.1, 19.2-152.8, 19.2-152.9 or 19.2-152.10 or an ex parte order issued pursuant to Virginia Code § 20-103, and after having been served with such order, he shall be guilty of a class l misdemeanor. This section shall not be construed to affect in any way the provisions of Virginia Code §§ 18.2-132 through 18.2-136. (Code 1967, § 13-23; 4-13-88; Code 1988, § 13-21; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law references--For similar state law, Va. Code § 18.2-119; as to authorityze of county to prevent trespass, Va. Code § 15.2-1218. Sec. 10-121 Trespass--At night, upon church or school property. A. It shall be unlawful for any person who, without the consent of some person authorized to give such consent, goes or enters upon, in the nighttime, the premises or property of any church or upon any school property for Draft: 10/18/10 7 any purpose other than to attend a meeting or service held or conducted in such church or school property. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 3 misdemeanor. B. It shall be unlawful for any person, whether or not a church member or student, to enter upon or remain upon any church or school property in violation of (i) any direction to vacate the property by a person authorized to give such direction or (ii) any posted notice which contains such information, posted at a place where it reasonably may be seen. Each time such person enters upon or remains on the posted premises or after such direction that person refuses to vacate such property, it shall constitute a separate offense. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 1 misdemeanor. C. For purposes of this section: (i) ―school property‖ includes a school bus as defined in Virginia Code § 46.2-100 and (ii) ―church‖ means any place of worship and includes any educational building or community center owned or leased by a church. (Code 1967, § 13-24; Code 1988 § 13-22; Ord. 98-A(1), 8-5-98) State law reference--Similar provisions, Va. Code § 18.2-128. Sec. 10-124 Urinating or Defecating in Public. A. It shall be unlawful for any person to urinate or defecate within public view upon any street, highway, sidewalk, ground, public place or place where others are present, except in a bathroom, restroom or other facility designed for such purposes. B. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a class 4 misdemeanor. State Law References—Authority to enact section, Va. Code § 15.2-1200. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development __________________________________________________________________________________ Memorandum TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner DATE: October 27, 2010 RE: SP2009-34 Re-Store ‘N Station For your consideration, attached please find the proposed conditions for the above mentioned project. These conditions were drafted by staff to implement the consensus position of the Board at its October 13, 2010 meeting. If the special use permit is adopted with these proposed conditions, any future expansion of the footprint or number of gas pumps would require an amendment of the special use permit. After approval of the special use permit, this project will still require approval of the site plan by the Planning Commission and approval of a certificate of appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board. The site plan approval process will address the technical issues related to site development and will assure compliance with all County zoning, stormwater, and erosion requirements. The public hearing for this matter was closed on October 13th and no additional public hearing is required. If the proposed conditions capture the Board consensus, staff recommends approval of the SP2009-34 with the nine (9) conditions. CONDITIONS FOR RE-STORE ‘N STATION SPECIAL USE PERMIT 1. The applicant shall install and maintain a meter on the well head to monitor water consumption. Prior to installation, the model of the meter shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with the County Engineer. Results of daily water consumption shall be made available within forty-eight (48) hours of a request from the Zoning Administrator; 2. Water consumption from any well shall not exceed 1,625 gallons per day in the aggregate; 3. The applicant shall install and maintain a tamper-proof, flow restriction device limiting water flow to not more than 1,625 gallons per day. Prior to installation, the model of the flow restriction device shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with the County Engineer; 4. The total building footprint square footage shall not exceed 3,000 square feet; 5. The hours of business operation shall not exceed sixteen (16) hours per day; 6. There shall be not more than ten (10) nozzle dispensers with not more than eight (8) nozzles for four (4) pump stations for gasoline and not more than two (2) nozzles for one (1) pump station for diesel fuel. In addition, there shall be not more than two (2) nozzle dispensers for one (1) pump station with not more than one (1) nozzle for off-road diesel fuel and not more than one (1) nozzle for kerosene fuel ; 7. Rainwater shall be collected from roof tops of the pump station canopies and the building, stored in a lined underground storage tank, and utilized for on-site landscaping purposes only; 8. Overnight parking on-site shall not be permitted. The applicant shall post signs indicating no such overnight parking in such places designated by the Site Plan Agent as a condition of final site plan approval; and, 9. Development of the site shall be in general accord with the submitted preliminary site plan dated December 6, 2009. Permitted modifications may include those required by the Architectural Review Board, those necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional landscaping/screening approved by the Site Plan Agent. County of Albemarle MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of Supervisors FROM: Meagan Hoy, Senior Deputy Clerk DATE: November 3, 2010 RE: Vacancies on Boards and Commissions Attached please find an updated listing of vacancies on boards and commissions through December 2010 provided for informational purposes only. The following Boards and Commissions have been advertised and applications were received as follows: Acquisition of Conservation Easements (ACE) Committee: One vacancy. No applications received. Historic Preservation Committee: Two vacancies. Bruce Boling Ross Stevens Steve Thompson Barbara Venerus The following interview has been scheduled: Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee: One vacancy. David Mitchell @ 1:00 p.m. Matthew Lucas (not available) The following reappointments require action by the Board: Rivanna Solid Waste Authority: Michael Gaffney Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority: Michael Gaffney 1 MEMBER TERM EXPIRES NEW TERM EXPIRES WISH TO BE RE-APPOINTED? DISTRICT IF MAGISTERIAL APPOINTMENT ACE Appraisal Review Committee Joseph Samuels 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 No To be advertised ACE Appraisal Review Committee Ross L. Stevens 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible No Action Required ACE Committee Joseph Samuels 8/1/2010 8/1/2013 No Advertised, no applications recv'd Albemarle County Service Authority John C. Martin 12/31/2011 Resigned, White Hall No Action Required ARB Charles Lebo 11/14/2010 11/14/2014 Yes Action Required ARB Paul Wright 11/14/2010 11/14/2014 Eligible No Action Required Cville Area Community Foundation Gv. Board Alan Culbertson 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required Community Mobility Committee Ms. Frances Hooper 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Eligible No Action Required Eqalization Board Alan Collier 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Rivanna No Action Required Eqalization Board David Cooke II 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Jack Jouett No Action Required Eqalization Board Virginia Gardner 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, White Hall No Action Required Eqalization Board Rosa Hudson 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Scottsville No Action Required Eqalization Board Kathy Rash 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Rio No Action Required Eqalization Board John C. Lowry 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible, Samuel Miller No Action Required Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee Morgan Butler 7/8/2010 7/8/2012 Ineligible Advertised, Interview Scheduled Historic Preservation Committee Judd Bankert 6/4/2010 6/4/2013 No Advertised, 4 Recv'd Historic Preservation Committee Lynn Rainville 6/4/2011 Resigned Advertised, 4 Recv'd Housing Committee David Paulson 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required Housing Committee Jana Crutchfield 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Ineligible No Action Required Housing Committee Martha deJarnette 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required Planning Commission Julia Monteith 12/31/2010 12/31/2011 Eligible No Action Required Public Defender Office Citizens Adv. Com.Marilyn Minrath 12/31/2010 12/31/2013 Eligible No Action Required Public Recreational Facilities Authority Jay Fennell 12/13/2010 12/13/2013 Eligible No Action Required Public Recreational Facilities Authority John deKoven Bowen 12/13/2010 12/13/2013 Eligible No Action Required Public Recreational Facilities Authority Glen Michael 12/13/2010 12/13/2010 Eligible No Action Required Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Michael Gaffney 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Yes, Joint City/County Action Required Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Reed Muelman 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Eligible No Action Required Rivanna Solid Waste Authority Cit. Adv. Comm.Jeffery Greer 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Ineligible, Joint City/County No Action Required Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority Michael Gaffeny 12/31/2010 12/31/2012 Yes, Joint City/County Action Required Revised 10/25/10 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Update SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Quarterly Report on the Economic Vitality Action Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, and Graham, and Ms. Catlin, Ms. Stimart, and Ms. S. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The Board of Supervisors adopted an Economic Vitality Action Plan (“Plan”) on August 4, 2010, following extensive public discussion and review. That plan establishes a quarterly schedule for reporting back to the Board on the progress and activities of the Action Plan and staff will present the first such report at this meeting. This item is related to one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan Goals - FY 10/11- FY 11/12 – Goal 3: By June 30, 2012, the County and its partners will complete the first two year’s activities identified in the County’s Economic Vitality Action Plan. DISCUSSION: The Board’s adoption of the Economic Vitality Action Plan on August 4, 2010 was the latest action in the County’s economic development efforts over the past five years. Other actions previously taken include participating as a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Thomas Jefferson Partnership for Economic Development, identifying economic vitality as an objective in the County’s strategic plan, updating the Economic Development Policy in the Comprehensive Plan, implementing the Resource Utilization Study recommendations, and adopting the 2010 Albemarle County Action Plan in January, 2010. In June, 2010, the Board reaffirmed its commitment by naming economic development as one of Albemarle County’s Strategic Action Plan Goals - FY 10/11- FY 11/12. As was stated very clearly throughout the drafting and adoption process, the Plan is grounded in and works within the guidance and framework of the Comprehensive Plan. The major efforts of staff since the Plan was adopted on August 4 have included (1) translating the objectives into a three-year work plan, (2) identifying meaningful measurements that will provide a good overall view of the County’s economic situation and will indicate how the plan is progressing, and (3) establishing the basic functions of a more focused, proactive economic development effort. Board members were clear in their desire to see initial efforts focus on the County as a “convener, facilitator and catalyst” through establishing relationships, building networks, and linking resources to meet the needs of businesses. The early objectives of the Plan are aimed at building those community relationships toward economic vitality. 1. Three Year Work Plan A copy of the adopted Plan (Attachment A) and an overview of the Three Year Work Plan (Attachment B) are attached for the Board’s information. The following highlights relate to the five objectives in the Plan: First Year Highlights – September 2010 – September 2011 Objectives 1 & 2 – All action items will be complete, including initial components of small business assistance with development review, although many tasks initiated as part of these objectives will be ongoing through the three years of the plan. Objective 3 – The target industry study will be underway; a more structured business retention program will be implemented; and initial components of entrepreneurial/small business assistance will be in place. Objective 4 – The Comprehensive Plan update process will be underway, including the Southern Urban Area master plan and evaluation of potential of early consideration of interstate interchange policy; Zoning Ordinance change for Light Industry (LI) uses will be completed, County-wide voluntary rezoning will be completed AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Update November 3, 2010 Page 2 Objective 5 – The Community roundtables will be complete; the findings will be presented to the Board. Second Year Highlights – September 2011 – September 2012 Objectives 1 & 2 – Continued visibility, outreach, and assistance efforts will be underway. Objective 3 – The target industry study will be completed, including integration with the Comprehensive Plan update as appropriate; a program for outreach/assistance to small businesses will be in place; beginning work on identifying demand occupations/workforce alignment will be underway; continued business retention efforts will be underway. Objective 4 – The Comprehensive Plan update will be substantially completed, including additional LI designations. Objective 5 – Staff will consider roundtable findings and Board guidance as part of a Comprehensive Plan update; identification of strategies and action items will be completed. Third Year Highlights – September 2012 – September 2013 Objectives 1 & 2 – Visibility, outreach, and assistance efforts will be ongoing. Objective 3 – Demand occupations will be identified and aligned with target industry study; workforce training possibilities will be developed. Objective 4 –Examination of LI options will be ongoing. Objective 5 – Implementation of approved strategies and action items will be underway. 2. Identifying Metrics/Measuring Progress As stated in the Plan, it is critical that the County regularly monitor and assess the economy and the local business climate in order to be proactive and to perform effectively in promoting economic vitality. Staff has researched other communities and talked to stakeholders about what measures would be meaningful to give a general sense of the overall economic health of the community, and what indicators woul d let staff know that the Plan is having the desired effect. Attachment C is a list of possible measurements that staff has identified across a variety of related areas, including tax data, jobs/income data, business activity, development activity, rural economic activity, and outreach. Many of the measurements are already being tracked as part of the County’s Quarterly Economic Indicators Report, and others are still being evaluated as to their effectiveness as meaningful measures. While many of the measures are very long term and may not show much variance from quarter to quarter, or even year to year as the national economy continues to struggle, staff has included other shorter term measures that will indicate more incremental progress in meeting the objectives of the Plan. The final list of measurements will be presented to the Board at the next quarterly update on the Plan, and will be provided quarterly from that point forward. 3. Initial Actions/Establishing Basic Functions A listening tour is underway involving face to face meetings with local, regional and state partners (Attachment D is a list of completed partner meetings, others are planned/ongoing). Phase I of the website enhancement is complete – staff is moving into Phase ll, which will add more information and functionality to the Business portal of the site. Staff is scheduling quarterly roundtables with business community and Community Development staff. The first roundtable to focus on small business issues is scheduled in November. Staff continues to make progress in simplifying and creating certainty in development review by making careful regulatory adjustments that balance streamlining processes with maintaining quality and opportunities for public input. A summary of recent efforts is provided in Attachment E. The zoning text amendment for revision of Light Industrial uses is scheduled for a work session with the Planning Commission in November. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact associated with this update. Longer range objectives of the Plan are expected to result in positive financial benefits to the County. AGENDA TITLE: Economic Vitality Action Plan Update November 3, 2010 Page 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Board is not required to take any action on this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Adopted Economic Vitality Action Plan Attachment B – Three Year Work Plan Attachment C – Proposed Measurements Attachment D – Partner Meeting Summary Attachment E – Development Review Process Improvement Summary Return to regular agenda 1 Attachment A Economic Vitality Action Plan – Adopted August 4, 2010 by the Board of Supervisors PREAMBLE: The Economic Development Policy of the County‟s Comprehensive Plan 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 and natural resource protections. While this Plan is focused on accomplishing specific action items within the next three years, the County recognizes the need for a long term commitment to economic vitali ty. This Plan is intended to establish a sustainable pathway for the long term health of our local economy. 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. The County‟s commitments to education, infrastructure and natural resource protection form s 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 strives to manage growth in a manner that best uses its infrastructure dollars and protects and preserves the area‟s abundant natural resources as well as those industries depending on those natural resources. With these commitments, the communit y strives to manage growth without sacrificing the quality of life. This Action Plan builds on these 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 as outlined below. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN This Action Plan is intended to work within the guidelines and stated goals and objectives of all relevant chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, including those listed below. While it is redundant to repeat all related sections of these chapters within this Action Plan, it is important to note the objectives and strategies of this plan will adhere to the important protections provided in these chapters: Natural Resources and Cultural Assets Rural Area Plan Land Use Plan PRIMARY GOAL: Increase the County‟s economic vitality and future revenues through economic development by expanding the commercial tax base and supporting the creation of quality jobs for local residents. This Plan is developed for the benefit and economic well being, first, of current local residents and existing local businesses. 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 rev enues* *Multi-family properties included in calculation of residential real estate 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. 2 Agricultural/rural economy metrics. Other metrics that reflect job data, number of businesses, etc. Benchmark levels will be determined to enable measurement of the short term and long term effectiveness of the specific objectives and strategies of this Plan. A timetable will be developed for reporting back to the Board of Supervisors on a quarterly basis. 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) and other leadership of the Commonwealth that Albemarle County is committed to working with businesses to promote the Commonwealth‟s and 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 Within the 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 balancing 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 and economic experts 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 business community‟s issues and concerns and for the business community to hear other perspectives. 3 Beginning in the fourth quarter of 2010, provide the business 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. Establish a more standard notification process regarding proposed changes to ordinances including the process for receiving input on proposed changes. II. 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”) STRATEGIES 1. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCES TO REDUCE COMPLEXITY OF PLAN APPROVAL – Recognizing a complex plan review can create barriers to new enterprises, eliminate unnecessary requirements and provide for simplified administrative decisions without compromising environmental safeguards or other community values as defined by County policies: 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). 2. ASSIST SMALL ENTERPRISES IN REACHING COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS – Recognizing that small enterprises often lack the experience and knowledge to efficiently address County requirements, 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 strategy #1, include consideration of how staff assistance can be provided 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. III. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, strategically work with UVA, UVA Real Estate Foundation and private and non -profit sector employers that provide or will provide a diverse array of quality career ladder employment opportunities for our resident workforce, with a particular focus on supporting existing local enterprises while not excluding new entrepreneurs and enterprises. 4 (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, including partnership with the University of Virginia‟s entrepreneurial community and other entrepreneurial organizations such as Charlottesville Business Innovation Council (CBIC): o Actions In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, UVA, 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 supports companies and entrepreneurs that achieve Albemarle County‟s business development objectives: o Actions Determine target enterprises; work with a broad-based task force to determine the region‟s target enterprise sectors. These enterprise targets will be the primary focus of the entrepreneurial support, existing business services, site selection assistance, and workforce development efforts. The selection criteria should include consideration of fiscal and ecological impacts on the County (including whether the industry can help the County satisfy its infrastructure needs), transportation impacts and the likelihood that a prospective enterprise will remain in this area. Strongly cultivate home-grown businesses. In partnership with the Chamber, TJPED, SBDC, the CBIC and others, 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 enterprises 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 tool s 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 negative issues. 3. CONNECT 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 Working with the Workforce Center, PVCC, and the County school division 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 Align targeted enterprises and demand occupations with student awareness, education and participation in County public schools, PVCC and UVA Career Pathways 5 IV. Consistent with the established goals of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, remove obstacles and expand options for industrial land users. (Supports Objective II 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, clarity and certainty 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. 2. CONSIDER OPTIONS FOR INCREASING INDUSTRIAL INVENTORY WITHIN AREAS DESIGNATED AS DEVELOPMENT AREAS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - o Action 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. Continue pursuing strategies to stop the conversion of properties zoned light industry (LI) to commercial, office and other uses that are not “core” industrial uses. As part of future master plans and updates to the County‟s Land Use Plan, include consideration of designating more land within existing development areas for industrial uses. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes will be carefully considered. 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 lower impact industrial and rural-serving uses at those intersections located in the rural areas but are also served by highway access. The environmental and community impacts of these proposed changes will be carefully considered. V. Work with stakeholders to promote agriculture, the local agricultural industry (at a scale compatible with the county’s rural areas) 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- “To support agricultural land uses and to create additional markets for agricultural products through creative economic 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 1. ASSESS CURRENT PROGRAMS AND INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY AND TOURISM – Continue working with partners to evaluate strengths and weaknesses: o Action Within the next year, County staff in cooperation with appropriate agencies, organizations and individuals will complete a series of roundtables with individuals and groups that have an interest in agriculture, local agriculture industry and tourism in the County. These roundtables will also consider 6 innovative, sustainable rural businesses such as wetland banking and voluntary carbon banking. 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 OBJECTIVES FOR AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 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 AGRICULTURE, LOCAL AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY 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 agriculture, local agricultural industry and tourism in the Comprehensive Plan and Strategic 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. 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 Pulse©, to identify workforce training needs and promote workforce training opportunities. Adopted 08/04/2010 Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Major Milestones by Action Plan Objective – Sept 10 – Sept 13 By September, 2011 By September, 2012 By September, 2013 Objective 1 – Improving Business Climate and Image All actions items in this objective complete Continued visibility, outreach and interaction efforts Continued visibility, outreach and interaction efforts Objective 2 – Simplify/Create Certainty in the Development Review process All actions items in this objective complete (ordinance items to the BOS) Initial components of small business assistance with development review in place Continued assistance to small businesses with development review process Continued assistance to small businesses with development review process Objective 3 – Supporting Quality Employment Opportunities Process/approach for target industry study approved by Board of Supervisors, funding identified, peer jurisdiction review complete More structured, targeted business retention program implemented Initial components of entrepreneurial/small business assistance in place Target industry study complete, integrated with Comp Plan update as necessary, beginning work on identifying demand occupations/workforce alignment Continued business retention program More focused program for entrepreneurial/small business assistance in place Demand occupations identified and aligned with target industry study, workforce training possibilities developed Continued business retention program Continued support for small businesses Objective 4 Increased Options for Industrial Land (LI) Users Zoning ordinance change for LI uses completed Countywide voluntary rezoning completed Comprehensive Plan update process underway, including southern urban land use planning and evaluation of interstate interchange policy Comprehensive Plan update process completed for Planning Commission Objective 5 Economic Development that Recognizes Importance of Rural Economy Roundtables completed, findings presented to the Board of Supervisors Home occupation ordinance revisions complete for rural area home-based businesses Consider roundtable findings and Board guidance as part of Comprehensive Plan update Identify strategies and action items, begin implementation of approved strategies Continue implement of approved strategies Attachment B Go to next attachment Return to exec summary *indicates measure already contained in Quarterly Economic Indicators Report Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Measure Frequency Source TAX DATA Sales Tax* Quarterly S. Allshouse Transient Occupancy Tax* Quarterly S. Allshouse Meals Tax* Quarterly S. Allshouse Annual Retail Sales Annual R. Walters Total Assessed Value of Taxable Land Annual R. Walters Ratio Commercial Tax/Residential Property Tax Annual R. Walters Machinery/Tools Tax Annual R. Walters BPOL Annual R. Walters Bank Franchise Annual R. Walters Public Service Annual R. Walters JOBS/INCOME DATA Unemployment Rate* Quarterly S. Allshouse Weighted Average Weekly Wage* Quarterly S. Allshouse Total Number of Jobs in the County* Quarterly S. Allshouse Per Capita and Family Income Annual S. Allshouse VEC jobs/private industry vs. public sector Annual S. Allshouse Workforce Center # of visits, # of people served Quarterly S. Stimart GENERAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY Total # of Businesses in the County* Quarterly S. Allshouse New Businesses/Business Licenses Issued Quarterly K. Hoy Small Bus Dev Center # of client hours/# of people trained Quarterly S. Stimart REAL ESTATE MARKET Single Family Homes for Sale* Quarterly S. Allshouse Monthly Average of Single Family Homes Sold* Quarterly S. Allshouse # of Months supply of Unsold Single Family Homes Sold* Quarterly S. Allshouse FHFA Price Index for the CVille MSA* Quarterly S. Allshouse Quarterly Residential Foreclosure Rate* Quarterly S. Allshouse Commercial Vacancies/Days on the Market* Quarterly S. Allshouse DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Value of New Commercial Building Permits* Quarterly S. Allshouse Residential Building Permits* Quarterly S. Allshouse Commercial Building Permits* Quarterly S. Allshouse Home Occupation Zoning Clearances Quarterly S. Stimart Commercial Certificates of Occupancy/Zoning Clearances Quarterly S. Stimart OUTREACH # of New/Expanding Business Announcements Quarterly S. Stimart Satisfaction Survey Quarterly S. Stimart/M. Graham Visits with Existing Businesses Quarterly S. Stimart AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY To be determined during upcoming roundtables Attachment C Attachment D Partner Meetings/Common Themes As an early action item associated with Objective 1 – Improving Business Climate and Image, staff has been conducting a “listening tour” involving meetings with local, regional and state partners/ s takeholders in the economic vitality effort. The following is a list of groups that staff has met with to date, and these meetings will continue as part of our outreach efforts. Partners/Stakeholders: Albemarle County Public Schools Blue Ridge Home Builders CAAR/Commercial Real Estate Brokers & Agents Charlottesville Albemarle Visitors and Convention Bureau Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce Free Enterprise Forum Natural Heritage Committee Piedmont Environment Council Piedmont Workforce Network Sierra Club Small Business Development Center Thomas Jefferson Economic Development Partnership University of Virginia Real Estate Foundation University of Virginia Office of the Vice President for Research/Economic Development Virginia Economic Development Partnership Common Themes: support for the target enterprise study including broad community involvement importance of regular review of metrics appreciation of and support for continued balanced development review process improvement importance of rural economy desire for continued engagement, participation, two-way dialogue appreciation for the County’s more refined approach to economic development Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Attachment E Recent Measures to Simplify and Create Certainty in Development Review Architectural Review Board (ARB) changes: The adopted amendment provides for an administrative review and approval of simpler applications, reducing approval times from months to weeks. This was done by creating countywide permits where staff simply verifies compliance rather than requiring the application to be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board. Farmers’ Markets, Farm Stands, Farm Sales: The adopted amendment provides for simplified review and approval, plus expanding the circumstances under which these activities are allowed. Farm Wineries: The Board adopted numerous changes to the zoning ordinance regarding farm wineries to assure consistency of County regulations with the Code of Virginia and better reflect the intent of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. In effect, these changes give Albemarle county-based farm wineries more opportunities to market their locally-grown and produced wines and achieve greater economic viability. Ministerial applications: With Board agreement, staff is currently modifying the site plan and subdivision review processes with the goal of reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations. Our goals include shortening approval times and cost of development review while maintaining opportunities for public information and input and maintaining community quality. Legislative Applications: Staff, in response to Board directives, is in the process of developing recommendations for changes to the County’s legislative review process with an emphasis on improving efficiency and removing impediments to decisions. Particular emphasis is being placed on clearly establishing process expectations for pre-application conferences, application content and interaction with and input from the public. Sign ordinance: Using information gathered from the sign industry, business community, local elected and appointed officials, and other groups, staff is bringing forward possible amendments to the sign ordinance that attempt to balance that input with the County’s interest in maintaining its standards for the entrance corridors. These changes will potentially affect window signs, wall signs, temporary signs and planned developments. Return to exec summary COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Five-Year Financial Plan Work Session SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Work Session on the County’s Five-Year Financial Plan STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker and Foley, and Ms. L. Allshouse LEGAL REVIEW: No AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: No REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The November 3rd work session is the first of several conducted on an annual basis to develop and approve a Five- Year Financial Plan for the County. This process is not designed to be an approval of the coming fiscal year’s operating budget, but will help create a framework within which the next fiscal year’s budget development will take place. On October 12, 2010, the Board of Supervisors held a preliminary Five-Year Financial Plan work session. At that work session, two general government departments provided overviews of their budget development, operations, and budgeting processes and staff presented information regarding short and long-range issues facing general government identified by the County’s Leadership Council. The Board of Supervisors held a similar preliminary Five- Year Plan work session with the School Board on October 13, 2010. BUDGET IMPACT: The five year financial planning process informs thinking on future fiscal year planning and the priorities of the Board and provides a framework for the annual budget process. DISCUSSION: At the November 3rd work session, staff will present the latest information on revenues and expenditures and will present an initial balanced Financial Plan for the Board’s review and discussion. The information will include specific assumptions used by staff to balance the Five-Year Financial Plan. A second session to review and discuss the plan is also scheduled for November 10th. Both of these sessions are schedule during regular Board meeting days. A joint Board/School Board work session is being planned for November 11, 2010 in order for the Board of Supervisors and the School Board to continue the discussion initiated at the Joint Board members’ October 13, 2010 work session. Additional Five-Year Financial Plan Board work sessions are scheduled for December 1 and December 8, 2010. The purpose of these work sessions is for the Board to provide direction on future priorities for funding given the financial projections over the next five years. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Board provide direction to staff regarding what potential changes, if any, it desires to see in the Five-Year Financial Plan at this time. Adoption of a final Plan will be requested at a future work session. Return to regular agenda COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Review the currently proposed Watershed Implementation Plan for the Chesapeake Bay with respect to what it means for Albemarle County STAFF CONTACT(S): Messrs. Tucker, Foley, Davis, Graham, Shadman, and Harper LEGAL REVIEW: Yes AGENDA DATE: November 3, 2010 ACTION: INFORMATION: X CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes REVIEWED BY: BACKGROUND: The purpose of this worksession is to educate the Board with respect to a new federal mandate to reduce pollutant discharges in waterways that is expected to affect Albemarle County, along with its citizens and businesses, sta rting in 2012. The presentation will also include a description of the Piedmont Regional Pilot Project, an effort to facilitate a coordinated local response to the requirements. Staff will seek guidance from the Board on whether there is interest in preparing a County response to various state and federal documents open for public comment. DISCUSSION: History: Since a 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the District of Columbia, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the states in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (Bay) have implemented various programs to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay so that it meets the requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The primary issue with the Bay has been excessive algae growth resulting from excessive amount s of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) washing into the Bay due to various activities and land uses including agricultural and forestry activities, stormwater runoff and septic tank leachate associated with land development, industrial and wastewater discharges, and atmospheric deposition from within and outside the watershed. Excessive algae growth leads to low levels of dissolved oxygen and poor water clarity which, in turn, diminishes conditions for healthy aquatic life. Despite significant progress over the past two decades, the Bay remains significantly impaired and failed to meet a 2010 deadline for pollutant reductions stipulated in a 2000 agreement. In addition, the EPA reached settlement earlier this year in a 2009 lawsuit filed by Bay advocacy groups – including the Chesapeake Bay Foundation – claiming that the EPA failed to take adequate measures to protect and restore the Bay. As part of the settlement and due to the failure of earlier, voluntary restoration programs, the EPA is required to establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Bay. A TMDL, sometimes referred to as a “pollution diet”, establishes limits for the amount of nutrients and sediment allowed to flow into the Bay. The TMDL will be realized through the development and execution of Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) that include pollution limits for point sources (wastewater treatment plants and urban stormwater systems) and non-point sources (agricultural lands). The overall process includes two -year implementation milestones through the year 2025 and will be strictly enforced by the EPA. WIPs are being developed in phases by each watershed state government and must receive approval by the EPA. Phase I WIPs must be completed and approved no later than December 2010 per the attached schedule (Attachment 1). The Phase II WIP will specify the reductions required by each locality, including Albemarle County. Current Situation: The EPA and Virginia are now in the process of calculating the TMDL and completing the Phase I WIP. The documents are now available for public comment. Staff has included the summary from Virginia’s draft WIP and the EPA’s response to that draft (Attachments 2 and 3). Staff has also provided graphs of the historical nutrient levels in the James River watershed along with the 2017 and 2025 targets per the TMDL (Attachment 4). This information leads staff to believe the TMDL will require a number of expensive programs that will directly or indirectly impact most County residents. Staff notes that neither the EPA nor Virginia has developed a cost-benefit analysis of the WIP or TMDL nor have they identified potential funding sources for any required local programs or recommended a federal or state responsibility for cost sharing. In the absence o f any financial assurances, staff is forced to assume that a significant part of the associated costs will be the responsibility of local governments, businesses, and property AGENDA TITLE: Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan November 3, 2010 Page 2 owners. The EPA has estimated that Virginia’s share of the overall cost of retrofitting 50% of its localities’ impervious area and stormwater treatment activities will be $10 billion. Anticipated County Impacts: While the Phase I WIP provides a broad picture of what will be required at the regional level (James River watershed), staff will not have specific guidance for what is expected of Albemarle County until the Phase II WIP is completed in 2011. Based on the Phase 1 WIP and the EPA’s response, staff has prepared a chart summarizing the major strategies that are anticipated to affect the County, its residents, and businesses (Attachment 5). Staff believes it is likely the currently proposed TMDL would result in a County expense of $5-10 million per year between 2012 and 2017 and a slightly lesser amount for the years of 2018 to2025. That estimated amount represents only the County government’s share of the cost with additional costs to be borne by County businesses and property ow ners. Staff notes this is an initial projection and subject to considerable change dependant on what the Phase II WIP requires. Beyond 2025, there would be ongoing operation and maintenance costs that staff is unable to estimate at this time. Finally, staff notes that the Bay TMDL supplements rather than replaces existing TMDL requirements for local streams and rivers. This is important with respect to the Rivanna and Hardware Rivers, as both have already been found to have impairments due to sediment and bacteria. Regional Pilot Project: The Rivanna River Basin Commission, working in cooperation with the EPA and Virginia, has implemented a Piedmont Regional Pilot Project (“Project”) to assist local affected groups through the WIP development process. The Project is detailed in the attached interim report (Attachment 6). As noted, the Project is focused on engaging local governments and other groups during the WIP development process, providing the findings back to the EPA and Virginia, deve loping creative strategies for responding to WIP requirements. The Project is to include an analysis in the development of the Phase II WIP as to whether a regional approach to address the mandates should be considered. Staff believes a regional approach may have advantages, but it is too soon to analyze its advantages and disadvantages. Staff will continue to monitor and evaluate the Project as Virginia begins work on the Phase II WIP. Response to TMDL and WIP: While the draft Bay TMDL and Phase I WIP are in a public comment period, neither plan includes sufficient detail to identify County-specific concerns. General comments, such as the lack of a cost / benefit analysis or the identification of funding sources, are being addressed by a number of groups such as VACO, VML and the Local Government Attorneys Association of Virginia. The Piedmont Regional Pilot Project will provide comments regarding the community’s concerns, and this presentation will provide the Board an opportunity to note its con cerns. The comment period closes on November 8, 2010. Finally, staff notes the TMDL and WIP are not discretionary acts. The establishment of a TMDL is a requirement of the Clean Water Act, which is being enforced by a consent decree. While County staff can engage the EPA and Virginia on the specifics of the TMDL and the validity of the model used to establish the TMDL, staff should expect the EPA to remain focused on meeting the required deadlines for completing the TMDL and implementing the plan. BUDGET IMPACT: As noted under the Anticipated County Impacts, it is too early to accurately project the budget impacts but staff is concerned that the Chesapeake Bay TMDL will result in a new and expensive mandate. Per the schedule provided in Attachment 1, staff anticipates the mandate will not translate into County expenditures before January 2012 and major expenditures will probably not be required until FY 2013. Staff does anticipate significant additional expenditures to be required beyond FY 2013 under th e currently proposed TMDL and WIP. RECOMMENDATIONS: This work session is for information and no Board action is required. Comments or concerns may be conveyed to the EPA and Virginia through the Piedmont Regional Pilot Project or directly to the EPA and Virginia. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – Chesapeake Bay TMDL Milestones Attachment 2 – Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan, Phase 1, September 2010, pages 1 -17 (Complete WIP available at: http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/soil_and_water/documents/vatmdlwipdrft.pdf ) Attachment 3 – EPA September 24, 2010 Evaluation of Virginia WIP, Phase 1 Attachment 4 – James River Nutrient Loads, Historical and TMDL’s 2017 and 2025 Targets Attachment 5 – Staff Analysis of Albemarle County Impacts in Phase 1 WIP Attachment 6 – Piedmont Regional Pilot Project, September 2, 2010 Interim Report Return to regular agenda Attachment 1 EPA Milestones for Completion of Chesapeake Bay TMDL 2010 July 1 - EPA assigns nitrogen and phosphorous allocations to the six watershed states and the District of Columbia by major river basin, and includes a temporary reserve for any shift in loads that may occur from two model updates (nutrient management effectiveness and suburban land characteristics). August 15 - EPA assigns sediment allocations to the states and the District by major river basin. September 1 - The states and the District complete their draft Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans. September 24 - EPA issues a draft Bay TMDL for 45-day public comment. September 24- November 8 - Bay TMDL public comment period includes a series of public meetings and webinars throughout the watershed. November 29 - The states and the District complete their final Phase I Watershed Implementation Plans. December 31 - EPA establishes the Bay TMDL. 2011 June 1 - The states and the District submit their draft Phase II Watershed Implementation Plans. The Phase II plans will include finer-scale load distributions as described in EPA's November 4, 2009 letter and any updates resulting from the Bay watershed model revisions. November 1 - The states and the District submit their final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plans. December - EPA modifies the Bay TMDL, if necessary. December 31, 2011 - The first set of two-year milestones is completed. Future Actions Prior to 2017, EPA reviews the full suite of the partnership’s Bay models based on the best available science and decision-support tools and considers whether updated models should be developed to support Phase III implementation plans and potential modifications to Bay TMDL allocations. In 2017, the states and the District submit draft Phase III Watershed Implementation Plans by June 1 and final plans by Nov. 1 with a focus on ensuring that all practices are in place by 2025 as need to fully restore the Bay and its tidal waters. EPA modifies the Bay TMDL, if necessary, in December 2017. Attachment 1 EPA Milestones for Completion of Chesapeake Bay TMDL Go to next attachment Return to exec summary COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA Chesapeake Bay TMDL Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan Revision of the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Tributary Strategy September 2010 Public Review Draft i Preamble to Virginia’s Draft Phase 1 Watershed Implementation Plan The Chesapeake Bay is truly a national treasure and an ecological wonder. As Virginians, we have an obligation to protect this incredible resource, and we are all committed to ensuring a clean and vibrant Chesapeake Bay for future generations to enjoy and cherish. Virginia Governor Robert F. McDonnell recognizes the work of all federal and state agencies involved and thanks these dedicated teams for their hard work. What follows is the Phase I Draft Watershed Implementation Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia. A broad group of stakeholders have been involved in the development of this draft, but the public at large has not had the opportunity to react to the significant issues and responsibilities contained in this document, so it is truly a draft. We will listen closely to the public over the next two months and this document will transform as we have the opportunity to consider the many comments we are sure to receive. This is a plan, and only a plan. Governor McDonnell has expressed directly to the Administrator of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, his concerns about the process, cost, legality, allocations, and compressed timing in the development of this plan. Having only received our nitrogen and phosphorous allocations July 1, and sediment allocation August 13, it is difficult to develop a comprehensive plan such as this that may have an impact through 2025. EPA asserts that it must develop the Bay TMDL by December 2010 pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree entered in the case American Canoe Association et al. v. the United States EPA, 54F. Supp. 2d 621 (E.D. Va. 1999). We note, however, that Virginia was not a party to that case, and the Consent Decree established a deadline of May 2011 for the EPA to establish TMDLs for certain identified Virginia waters and pollutants if Virginia had not done so itself. We also note that, although the EPA repeatedly refers to its “expectation” that Bay jurisdictions will develop WIPs and submit them to the EPA for approval, EPA in its December 2009 letter to the Commonwealth indicated the extensive actions it is willing to take to compel Virginia to develop and implement an “appropriate” WIP and meet the EPA’s compressed timeline. It is important to emphasize that this plan is being developed during the worst economy in a generation. This draft plan takes into account the billions of dollars Virginians have already invested in Chesapeake Bay water quality to date. Full implementation of this plan will likely cost billions of new dollars which could be unfunded mandates on the state, localities, private industries and homeowners. For example, Virginia’s largest industry, agriculture, alone may face huge new costs (estimated $800 million) for conservation practices like livestock exclusion stream fencing. In these austere times, we cannot guarantee additional funding will be provided by our General Assembly. It is our position that the success of the draft WIP may be largely subject to the provision of sufficient federal funding to assist in covering these massive costs. Virginia will move forward with the implementation of this plan with a clear focus on flexibility and cost-effectiveness. For instance, it is our fundamental belief that an expanded nutrient credit exchange program will afford the same approach to other sectors, particularly urban stormwater and septic systems, and it will allow for decisions to be made across sectors in an orderly and ii cost-effective manner. Therefore, Virginia will rely on principles of adaptive management, taking advantage of new technology and low cost methods to achieve our goals. A significant concern is the nearly absolute reliance on modeling rather than looking directly at outcomes in the Bay. While this model has seen years of development it continues to experience fundamental flaws that call its credibility into question. Similarly we are convinced that the manner in which it has been used for this Bay-wide TMDL assumes a level of precision far beyond what the model is capable of and without regard for the economic consequences. This “inputs based” rather than “outputs based” approach hurts the credibility of the overall effort. We have also taken steps that propose a different approach for the James River. Because of its geographic location, the James has less impact on the water quality of the mainstem of the Chesapeake Bay than any other river. The James also is unique because of the chlorophyll standards that were adopted in 2005 with the concurrence of EPA. We believe that because sufficient new information is available for the James River, we should take the time necessary to review the James River numeric chlorophyll standards to ensure that they reflect the best science and regulatory approaches. Therefore, we have included a detailed plan to accomplish this review and amend standards if necessary prior to the scheduled revision of the TMDL in 2017. Our plan demonstrates that we will meet the 2017 target loads prescribed by EPA in all basins, including the James. Based on all these issues, Virginia reserves the right to unilaterally adjust this plan based on new information such as conservation efforts currently implemented but not accounted for in this model, adverse economic impacts on business, funding availability from federal sources in particular, and improved scientific methodologies. Our work will not end with the submission of this draft Watershed Implementation Plan. We will continue to work with stakeholders and with the public to ensure that our implementation improves water quality in a manner that is sensible, fair and cost effective as this process unfolds over the next 15 years. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1. VIRGINIA’S PLAN: OVERVIEW.................................................................... 1 Background and Approach to WIP Development ...................................................................... 1 Guiding Principles for Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan........................................... 2 Role for an Expanded Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program........... 3 Overview of the Existing Nutrient Credit Exchange Program............................................... 3 Need for an Expanded Nutrient Credit Exchange Program.................................................... 4 A Proposed Framework for an Expanded Nutrient Credit Exchange Program...................... 5 Public Participation................................................................................................................... 10 Use and Limitations of the Chesapeake Bay Model................................................................. 10 Stakeholder Engagement and the Stakeholder Advisory Group............................................... 11 Source Sector Strategies ........................................................................................................... 11 Wastewater............................................................................................................................ 11 Onsite/Septic......................................................................................................................... 12 Agriculture............................................................................................................................ 13 Urban Stormwater................................................................................................................. 13 James River............................................................................................................................... 14 Four Part James River Strategy............................................................................................. 15 SECTION 2. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 18 SECTION 3. DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE I WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PLANS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ............................................................................................... 20 3.1. Webinars and Public Meetings.......................................................................................... 20 Webinars............................................................................................................................... 20 Public Meetings .................................................................................................................... 20 3.2. Expert Panels ..................................................................................................................... 20 3.3. Stakeholder Advisory Group............................................................................................. 21 3.4. Websites and Technology Based Outreach........................................................................ 23 3.5. Presentations to Interest Groups........................................................................................ 24 SECTION 4. INTERIM LOAD TARGETS AND FINAL NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT ALLOCATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………26 4.1. Process for Developing WLAs and LAs............................................................................ 26 4.1.1. Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s).................................................... 26 4.1.2. Industrial Stormwater.................................................................................................. 26 4.1.3. Construction General Permit....................................................................................... 29 4.1.4. Confined Animal Feeding Operations........................................................................ 29 4.1.5. Significant Wastewater Facilities ............................................................................... 29 4.1.6. Non-significant Municipal Facilities.......................................................................... 30 4.1.7. Non-significant Industrial Facilities ........................................................................... 30 4.2. Table of Target Loads by Sector and Segment.................................................................. 30 SECTION 5. WASTEWATER............................................................................................... 38 5.1. Current Programs and Capacity......................................................................................... 38 Combined Sewer System...................................................................................................... 42 5.2. Accounting for Growth...................................................................................................... 44 Combined Sewer System...................................................................................................... 45 5.3. Gap Analysis...................................................................................................................... 45 iv Combined Sewer System...................................................................................................... 46 5.4. Strategy to Fill Gaps.......................................................................................................... 46 5.5. Contingencies..................................................................................................................... 47 Combined Sewer System...................................................................................................... 47 5.6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols..................................................................................... 48 Combined Sewer System...................................................................................................... 49 5.7 Outstanding Issues That Need To Be Addressed................................................................ 49 SECTION 6. AGRICULTURE.............................................................................................. 51 6.1. Current Programs and Capacity......................................................................................... 51 Agricultural BMP Cost-Share Program................................................................................ 51 Agricultural BMP Tax Credit Program................................................................................. 52 Agricultural Stewardship Act ............................................................................................... 52 Biosolids VPA Regulations.................................................................................................. 52 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act........................................................................................ 53 Nutrient Management Training and Certification Program..................................................54 Nutrient Management Plan Requirement for State Owned Lands........................................ 54 Poultry Waste Permits........................................................................................................... 55 Precision Nutrient and Pesticide Application Equipment Tax Credit .................................. 55 Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Animal Waste Permits........................... 56 Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA) Animal Waste Permits..............................................56 Virginia Revolving Loan Fund............................................................................................. 56 6.2. Accounting for Growth...................................................................................................... 57 6.3. Gap Analysis...................................................................................................................... 57 6.4. Strategy to Fill Gaps.......................................................................................................... 58 6.5. Contingencies..................................................................................................................... 66 6.6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols..................................................................................... 66 SECTION 7. URBAN/SUBURBAN STORMWATER......................................................... 67 7.1. Current Programs and Capacity......................................................................................... 67 Erosion and Sediment Control Program............................................................................... 67 Industrial Stormwater............................................................................................................ 67 MS4 Permit Program............................................................................................................ 68 Construction General Permit................................................................................................. 70 Nutrient Management Training and Certification Program..................................................71 Stormwater Management Program....................................................................................... 71 Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act and Regulations ............................................................. 71 Virginia Land Use Authorities and Requirements - Title 15.2 –Chapter 22 - Planning, Subdivision of Land and Zoning........................................................................................... 73 7.2. Accounting for Growth...................................................................................................... 74 7.3. Gap Analysis...................................................................................................................... 76 7.4. Strategy to Fill Gaps.......................................................................................................... 76 7.5. Contingencies..................................................................................................................... 79 7.6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols..................................................................................... 80 SECTION 8. ONSITE WASTEWATER............................................................................... 81 8.1. Current Programs and Capacity......................................................................................... 82 8.2. Accounting for Growth...................................................................................................... 87 8.3. Gap Analysis...................................................................................................................... 88 v 8.4. Strategy to Fill Gaps.......................................................................................................... 89 8.5. Contingencies..................................................................................................................... 90 8.6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols..................................................................................... 90 SECTION 9. FOREST............................................................................................................ 91 9.1. Current Programs and Capacity......................................................................................... 91 Virginia Silvicultural Water Quality Law............................................................................. 91 Water Quality Complaint System.........................................................................................91 Education and Technical Assistance..................................................................................... 91 9.2. Accounting for Growth...................................................................................................... 92 Traditional Growth Expectations.......................................................................................... 92 New Growth Potential on the Horizon.................................................................................. 92 Monitoring and Inspections with Growth............................................................................. 92 9.3. Gap Analysis...................................................................................................................... 93 9.4. Strategy to Fill Gaps.......................................................................................................... 93 9.5. Contingencies..................................................................................................................... 94 9.6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols..................................................................................... 94 SECTION 10. RESOURCE EXTRACTION........................................................................... 95 10.1. Current Programs and Capacity....................................................................................... 95 10.2. Accounting for Growth.................................................................................................... 96 10.3. Gap Analysis.................................................................................................................... 96 10.4. Strategy to Fill Gaps........................................................................................................ 96 10.5. Contingencies................................................................................................................... 96 10.6. Tracking and Reporting Protocols................................................................................... 96 SECTION 11. OTHER MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS........................................................ 97 Shoreline Erosion Advisory Service..................................................................................... 97 Virginia Clean Marina Program............................................................................................ 97 No Discharge Zone Program ................................................................................................ 98 Wildlife Management ........................................................................................................... 99 SECTION 12. PHASE II IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH............................................. 101 APPENDIX 1– TARGET LOAD AND REDUCTION TABLES BY SOURCE-SEGMENT FOR 2017 AND 2025.......................................................................................................................... 103 APPENDIX 2 JAMES RIVER CHLOROPHYLL STUDY ...................................................... 104 1 SECTION 1. VIRGINIA’S PLAN: OVERVIEW This preliminary or Phase I Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP) has been developed by the Commonwealth of Virginia as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as an implementation plan for the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Background and Approach to WIP Development The Chesapeake Bay TMDL WIP is a continuation of work begun with Virginia’s Tributary Strategies in 2005. Adoption of the tributary strategies resulted in significant progress in a number of areas of point and nonpoint pollution control including: o Establishment of first in the Chesapeake Bay watershed cap on nutrient loads from significant point source dischargers. o Established nutrient credit exchange program that has been successful in ensuring orderly and cost-effective upgrades of sewage treatment plants. o Expansion of nutrient management on a wide variety of land uses. o Accelerated and focused agricultural cost-share program, including special emphasis given to “priority practices.” o Consolidated and strengthened stormwater management program o Improved oversight and implementation of local erosion and sediment control and Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act programs o Improved reporting of agricultural best-management programs to ensure full credit is given o Improved reporting of stormwater management practices. This plan charts out actions necessary to achieve the Chesapeake Bay TMDL allocations between now and 2025 with the greatest emphasis on actions planned between now and 2017. It incorporates the principles of adaptive management so that the success or failures of actions can be evaluated and adjustments to programs and strategies are made. This plan incorporates the experience of tributary strategy development along with new knowledge and new tools. The WIP addresses shortcomings in available data or in our ability to analyze data where this is an issue. The actions proposed will be based on the best available science and data, but we expect the base of knowledge and information to expand and to make adjustments accordingly in consultation with affected stakeholders and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Virginia is also bound by the provisions of state law that require cost evaluations along with a benefit analysis for implementation plans. Adjustments will be considered based on cost effectiveness and other key factors. Although the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is often discussed and thought of conceptually as a single TMDL, it is comprised of 92 segments. Virginia contributes drainage to 39 segments within the watershed. All 39 segments are listed as impaired for excessive nutrients and sediments. The WIP contains pollution loads allocated or assigned to different source sectors of nitrogen, phosphorus and suspended solids. These sectors include wastewater treatment plants, agriculture, 2 forest, urban stormwater, onsite/septic and air sources that contribute to the nutrient and sediment (also referred to in this document as total suspended solids or TSS) problems of the Chesapeake Bay. The plan also provides broad strategies proposed to meet those allocations. In accordance with federal expectations, those strategies and contingencies included in the plan are intended to meet reasonable assurance requirements for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. This is a plan and does not confer any additional regulatory or legal authority to governmental agencies. Any programs or strategies that are not currently authorized by state law may be pursued through the legislative process or through the Virginia Administrative Process Act. Guiding Principles for Virginia’s Watershed Implementation Plan x Equity: This plan seeks to approach each sector with significant but achievable actions in a way that all sectors share in meeting TMDL allocations. x Cost-effectiveness: This plan charts out actions and timeframes in a manner that emphasizes cost effective practices. It plans actions in a step-wise fashion over time to allow for less costly actions to be taken first, before more expensive actions are conducted. This plan also proposes an expanded use of the Nutrient Credit Exchange or other offset mechanism to allow for flexibility in meeting reduction targets and TMDL allocations. x Credit Past Progress: Nutrient and sediment reduction in the Chesapeake Bay watershed does not begin with this plan. Nutrient reduction has been taking place in a significant fashion for more than a decade. This plan recognizes the significant progress made and the relative progress among sectors. x Reasonableness and Feasibility to Implement: This plan attempts to set high expectations for practices that are likely to be implemented across all sectors, not simply those that are theoretically possible but are not reasonable to expect given significant technical, legal or financial barriers. x Meeting EPA’s Reasonable Assurance: EPA has advised that any plans submitted must meet the so-called “reasonable assurance” test. While there is some uncertainty to the meaning of that term, this plan includes necessary references to existing authority and means of implementation. For example, in cases where action requires additional legal authority, Virginia will chart a path for seeking such authority. x Incorporating Future Actions: Allocations will be set at a level that presumes expected reductions from new and enhanced programs with the recognition that if such programs fail, the plan will be revisited and alternatives pursued. x Course Correction in 2017: The plan is written knowing that new information and technologies will be available in the future, especially post-2017. EPA has established 2017 as an important date on the path to full implementation by 2025. It will be an opportunity to evaluate the significant actions that have taken place and re-evaluate the TMDL allocations 3 based on changing conditions, new science and new technology. Therefore, this plan is less specific for actions in the post 2017 timeframe. x Determine Best Use of Trading, Credits and Nutrient Exchanges: EPA has encouraged the states to consider exchanges of allocations between basins, and Nitrogen and Phosphorus exchanges within a basin to provide a more reasonable, cost-effective WIP for the Commonwealth. We have therefore included the use of the existing Nutrient Credit Exchange program to ensure that targets are met over the 15 year implementation period of the TMDL. See the next section for a full description of the proposal for a broader use of the nutrient credit exchange program. x High Expectation for Federal Lands: Federal facilities in Virginia have made great strides in Chesapeake Bay protection. This plan presumes, as articulated in Executive Order 13508, that federal lands will receive treatment at extremely high levels. Role for an Expanded Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program In 2005 the Commonwealth took a major step in protecting the Chesapeake Bay by establishing the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Nutrient Credit Exchange Program (Code of Virginia at §62.1- 44.19:12). The General Assembly determined that adoption and utilization of a watershed general permit and market-based point source nutrient credit trading program would assist in: (a) meeting pollution reductions and cap load allocations cost-effectively and as soon as possible in keeping with the 2010 timeline and objectives of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, (b) accommodating continued growth and economic development in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and (c) providing a foundation for establishing market-based incentives to help achieve the nonpoint source reduction goals. An investment of over $1.5 billion in implementing this program over the past five years has enabled the Commonwealth to achieve significant reductions in nutrient loads discharged to the Chesapeake Bay from Virginia’s municipal and industrial wastewater treatment facilities. The Commonwealth is recognized nationally for having one of the most robust, comprehensive, and successful credit exchange programs. Additional information about this program can be found at the following websites: http://www.deq.virginia.gov/vpdes/nutrienttrade.html http://www.theexchangeassociation.org/Default.htm In 2009, the General Assembly expanded the Commonwealth’s nutrient offset program by amending the Code of Virginia to allow for a stormwater nonpoint nutrient offsets program for new development. Overview of the Existing Nutrient Credit Exchange Program The diagram below illustrates the relationship of the current nutrient credit exchange program to the major source sectors of nutrients receiving allocations under the TMDL: 4 ChesapeakeBay NutrientCredit Exchange Program Wastewater Sell Buy Agriculture Sell StormWater New Development Buy SourceSectorsNotinProgram • Storm Water– Existing Development • On Ͳ SiteSystems Forest Land– New Sell Existing Program Sell Dashedlines:Agricultureandnew Forestlandcanonlyselltonewor expanding;StormWateronlyfor NPS x Wastewater – full participation in program; have options of either installing additional nutrient removal facilities or buying credits; facilities performing better than their allocations may sell credits in the market. x Storm Water [New Development] – participation in program is limited to new development and to securing non-point source offsets when on-site practices cannot achieve sufficient pollution reductions. x Agriculture and Forest Land – may sell credits to new or expanding wastewater treatment facilities or new development if the agriculture lands or newly created forest area meet established “baselines” of management practices. x Storm Water [Existing Development] and On-Site Systems – not currently allowed to participate in program. Need for an Expanded Nutrient Credit Exchange Program When the Chesapeake Bay TMDL is issued, about half the land area of the Commonwealth will be under nutrient and sediment load allocations that cap the discharge of these pollutants from point and non-point sources. Unless changed, these pollutant allocations will become permanent pollutant caps on each of the major Virginia Bay river basins that all the source sectors, added together, cannot exceed. In order to help meet the challenging pollution reduction requirements imposed by the Bay TMDL, this Phase 1 WIP recommends the Commonwealth expand the nutrient credit exchange program to better ensure that future nutrient and sediment reduction 5 actions are as equitable and as cost-effective as possible among all of the source sectors. An expanded program also allows local decision-makers to consider nutrient and sediment generating potential as they face development, land use, and capital planning challenges. A Proposed Framework for an Expanded Nutrient Credit Exchange Program General Assembly action is needed to expand the program to allow full participation of wastewater, storm water, and on-site systems in the program. The source sector allocations included in this Phase 1 WIP are based upon a functioning and viable expanded nutrient credit exchange program. The 2025 TMDL nutrient allocations are shown in the tables at the end of this section. For implementation purposes in Virginia, the allocations for the three source sectors directly involved in the proposed expanded program - - wastewater, storm water and on-site systems - - are shown in aggregate since an expanded credit exchange would provide attainment options outside of sole reliance on sector specific best management practices (BMPs). Other source sector tables in this WIP present the allocations by individual source sector; these are being submitted to EPA for purposes of model verification that the TMDL allocations are attained. We recognize that the individual source sector allocations in those tables are much lower than can be feasibly attained relying solely on the BMPs applied in that sector. Attainment of these allocations is envisioned using the expanded offset options that would be part of a revised nutrient credit exchange. The framework for an expanded nutrient credit exchange program is shown in the diagram below. ChesapeakeBay NutrientCredit Exchange Program Wastewater Sell Buy Agriculture Sell StormWater New&Existing Development Buy Forest Land– New Sell OnͲSite Systems Buy Expanded Program Sell Buy x Wastewater – increases the potential market for sellers to provide credits to sectors whose costs are much higher. 6 x Storm Water – provides additional source of cost-effective offsets, particularly for localities to exchange between their wastewater and storm water systems. x Agriculture and Forest Land – expands market for selling credits if land area managed meets baseline criteria. x On-Site Systems – as new systems are installed, localities have options to secure credits, either within locality boundaries or through broader credit exchange. Benefits of an Expanded Program x Pollution reductions will be achieved at a potentially lower cost. x An expanded program allows for the citizens of the Commonwealth to determine the priority for what nutrient reduction actions need to be taken and by when. x An expanded credit exchange program spreads out financial investments over a longer period, thereby allowing Virginia to invest limited resources over the short term in sectors where most needed. x An expanded credit exchange also provides greater flexibility for decision making at the local level among the wastewater, storm water and on-site sectors. The specific details of an expanded nutrient credit exchange will be developed through the legislative and regulatory processes of the Commonwealth. Sector Nutrient Allocations for 2025 Based Upon Expanded Credit Exchange The following tables present the nutrient allocations for each major river basin by major source sector. 7 Table 1.1: VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL ALLOCATIONS NITROGEN - 2025 [Million Pounds/Year] THESE SECTOR ALLOCATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED/ADJUSTED IN 2017 Source Sector Potomac Rapp York James E Shore VA TOTAL Agriculture 6.979 2.787 1.548 4.171 0.906 16.391 Urban Runoff1 2.269 0.167 0.329 1.100 0.050 3.915 Wastewater1 3.756 0.593 1.193 14.770 0.082 20.394 On-Site1 0.597 0.322 0.487 0.440 0.076 1.922 Forest 4.122 1.898 1.764 5.993 0.162 13.939 Non-Tidal Dep 0.102 0.073 0.089 0.316 0.032 0.612 Total 17.825 5.840 5.410 26.790 1.308 57.173 Draft 17.462 5.840 5.410 23.4804 1.2103 53.4004 Allocations 17.825 1.308 1Allocations for these source sectors can be attained through expansion of the VA Nutrient Credit Exchange Program 2For Potomac, a portion of the TP allocation is transferred to the TN allocation using 1:5 ratio [added 365,000 lbs/yr of TN] 3For E Shore, a portion of the TP allocation is transferred to the TN allocation using 1:5 ratio [added 98,000 lbs/yr of TN] 4 Refer to James River Strategy section of the WIP for Virginia's approach to conform with EPA's draft July 1 TMDL allocations by 2025; allocation adjustments will be made, as warranted, in 2017 following completion of scientific review of chlorophyl standards 8 Table 1.2: VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY TMDL ALLOCATIONS PHOSPHORUS - 2025 [Million Pounds/Year] THESE SECTOR ALLOCATIONS WILL BE REVIEWED/ADJUSTED IN 2017 Source Sector Potomac Rapp York James E Shore VA TOTAL Agriculture 0.638 0.555 0.175 0.678 0.100 2.146 Urban Runoff1 0.267 0.079 0.025 0.150 0.009 0.380 Wastewater1 0.280 0.069 0.199 1.276 0.008 1.832 On-Site1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Forest 0.204 0.185 0.131 0.555 0.015 1.090 Non-Tidal Dep 0.008 0.007 0.010 0.031 0.002 0.058 Total 1.397 0.895 0.540 2.690 0.134 5.656 Draft 1.4702 0.900 0.540 2.3404 0.1603 5.4104 Allocations 1.397 0.140 1Allocations for these source sectors can be attained through expansion of the VA Nutrient Credit Exchange Program 2For Potomac Basin, a portion of the TP allocation is transferred to the TN allocation using 1:5 ratio [removed 73,000 lbs/yr from TP] 3For E Shore, a portion of the TP allocation is transferred to the TN allocations using 1:5 ratio [removed 19,600 lbs/yr from TP] 4 Refer to James River Strategy section of the WIP for Virginia's approach to conform with EPA's draft July 1 TMDL allocations by 2025; allocation adjustments will be made, as warranted, in 2017 following completion of scientific review of chlorophyl standards 9 Table 1.3: VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY TARGET LOADS NITROGEN - 2017 [Million Pounds/Year] Source Sector Potomac Rapp York James E Shore VA TOTAL Agriculture 7.750 3.006 1.841 4.680 1.112 18.389 Urban Runoff1 2.730 0.425 0.471 2.700 0.054 6.380 Wastewater1, 3 3.312 0.551 0.977 11.441 0.078 16.359 On-Site1 0.724 0.383 0.578 1.110 0.076 2.871 Forest 4.122 1.898 1.764 5.993 0.162 13.939 Non-Tidal Dep 0.102 0.073 0.089 0.316 0.032 0.612 Total 18.740 6.336 5.720 26.240 1.514 58.550 Target Loads2 18.740 6.300 5.810 26.240 1.545 59.040 1Allocations for these source sectors can be attained through expansion of the VA Nutrient Credit Exchange Program 2Draft Target Loads for each basin set at 60% of 2025 Allocations; each sector may vary. 3 Wastewater loads are expected to be below 2025 allocations which will aid in meeting the Commonwealth's 2017 target loads 10 Table 1.4: VIRGINIA CHESAPEAKE BAY TARGET LOADS PHOSPHORUS - 2017 [Million Pounds/Year] Source Sector Potomac Rapp York James E Shore VA TOTAL Agriculture 0.775 0.617 0.205 0.800 0.110 2.507 Urban Runoff1 0.288 0.091 0.092 0.563 0.009 1.044 Wastewater1, 3 0.254 0.06 0.142 0.775 0.007 1.238 On-Site1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Forest 0.204 0.185 0.131 0.556 0.015 1.091 Non-Tidal Dep 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.000 0.060 Total 1.531 0.963 0.580 2.724 0.141 5.940 Target Loads2 1.610 0.980 0.580 2.724 0.141 6.035 1Allocations for these source sectors can be attained through expansion of the VA Nutrient Credit Exchange Program 2Draft Target Loads for each basin set at 60% of 2025 Allocations; each sector may vary. 3 Wastewater loads are expected to be below 2025 allocations which will aid in meeting the Commonwealth's 2017 target loads Contingency If the General Assembly decides that an expanded the nutrient credit exchange program as envisioned in this Phase 1 WIP is not suitable for the Commonwealth, then the basis for the source sector allocations included in this WIP is no longer supported and those allocations will be adjusted and modifications will be made to the WIP to provide reasonable assurance of attainment. Public Participation Public participation in the TMDL process was initiated through five EPA sponsored public meetings held on December 14-17, 2009. More than 600 people attended Virginia meetings held by the EPA to provide information on the Chesapeake Bay TMDL development. EPA representatives reviewed the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and EPA expectations. Representatives from the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) gave an overview of Virginia’s approach to developing the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plan. Virginia staff has also presented updates in EPA’s periodic webinars held during 2010. Public announcements and requests have been distributed through several internet based applications. DCR, DEQ and EPA’s websites serve as the primary information portal for the process in Virginia. Use and Limitations of the Chesapeake Bay Model The TMDL is developed using the Chesapeake Bay model which allows for evaluation of implemented and proposed actions. While meeting the requirements of the model are important 11 in order to meet the technical elements of the TMDL, our focus is on implementing practices and programs that result in real environmental improvement. We will use the model as a management tool, but we will tailor our actions within real scientific, economic, social and political frameworks. The Chesapeake Bay watershed model is not a perfect representation of actual conditions on the landscape. Rather, it is a rough approximation. As such, we will continue to work with EPA to improve the model and use an adaptive management approach to adjust strategies as necessary based on those improvements. EPA has already committed to fix two known flaws that could result in changes to the strategies articulated in this document. We will also continue to provide EPA with our best information to ensure that the proper uses and limitations of the model are understood by citizens and stakeholders. Stakeholder Engagement and the Stakeholder Advisory Group The Secretary of Natural Resources formed an advisory group to assist in developing Virginia’s plan to implement the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. The Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) provides a forum for discussion during the development of the Chesapeake Bay TMDL and the WIP. Virginia’s approach to engaging a wide variety of interested parties through the SAG resulted in critical feedback on the model inputs, outputs, and the abilities to implement a host of practices across Virginia’s bay watershed. The SAG met on December 17, 2009 and February 26, June 15 and August 24, 2010. Members reviewed and advised on sector pollutant load reductions and the sector allocations that will be used to meet the interim and final goals. The SAG’s construct was adjusted to include four source sector Workgroups. These workgroups evaluated additional scoping scenario inputs and model results and discussed and proposed various approaches to further address the allocations for agriculture, forest, urban sources, septic systems and wastewater. Workgroups met two times each and included Onsite/Septic (July 15 and 26), Wastewater Treatment (July 6 and 19), Urban/Suburban Stormwater (July 12 and 28) and Agriculture and Forestry (July 8 and 21). Source Sector Strategies For each of the source sectors, it is presumed that existing programs and authority will continue. Wastewater TMDL waste load allocations (WLAs) for Significant Municipal and Industrial Facilities are set in two existing regulations: Water Quality Management Planning Regulation (9 VAC 25-720) and Chesapeake Bay Watershed General Permit Regulation (9 VAC 25-820). These are enforceable provisions that “cap” the dischargers’ total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and sediment loads (TSS), and allow for nutrient credit exchange to achieve compliance with regulatory requirements. Allocations for sediment loads will be set at technology levels since wastewater is an insignificant portion of the sediment load. WLAs for Non-significant Municipal and Industrial Facilities will be set at levels consistent with the procedure outlined in the Code of Virginia, which establishes the 2005 loads as the levels that cannot be exceeded in the future. Combined Sewer System allocations should be set for communities with combined sewer systems (CSS) at Long Term Control Plan (LTCP) levels with adjustments for future urban stormwater retrofits that may reduce the amount of loadings from CSS. 12 For existing small dischargers expanding to less than 40,000 gallons per day (gpd): x Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to set allocations based on existing design capacity. For small dischargers less than 1,000 gpd (SFH, Single Family Homes) and new industrial dischargers less than 40,000 gpd: x Provide allocations in TMDL for all existing and new SFH under 1,000 gpd and industrial dischargers less than 40,000 gpd x Consider revisions to the Code requiring new SFH and industrial facilities less than 40,000 gpd to secure offsets for all of their discharged loads. Onsite/Septic Set the onsite/septic TMDL allocation based on 2009 progress as determined by the Chesapeake Bay Program model with the following adjustments: the projected number of connections of existing systems to sewage treatment plants and estimated numbers of tanks that will be pumped within areas in Eastern Virginia designated as Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (pumpout once every five years) and estimated level in areas not subject to the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (pumpout once every 15 years.) This plan attempts to reduce the rate of growth in this sector and proposes to offset new loads through an expansion of the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program. x Implement amendments to Virginia Department of Health regulations for alternative systems (currently under revision) x Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to require all new and replacement systems in the Chesapeake Bay watershed to utilize either: (1) “shallow-placed” systems capable of reducing nitrogen loss (2) denitrification technology to reduce nitrogen loss x Consider requirements for additional nitrogen reducing technologies in certain defined sensitive areas x Consider revisions to the Code of Virginia to encourage the use of community onsite systems x Expand the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program to include on-site systems and allow offsets of new septic loads or participation in offsetting increased nitrogen loads from additional on-site systems from other areas within the Chesapeake Bay watershed x Explore the feasibility of establishing tax credits or other financial incentives for upgrade/replacement of existing conventional systems with nitrogen reducing systems x Explore the use of grants or other methods to defray expenses on low and moderate income households x Encourage the use of “Betterment Loans” for repairs to existing systems. 13 Agriculture Allocations are set for unregulated agricultural operations at levels resulting from significantly expanded implementation of conservation and nutrient management plans addressing the application of nutrients, tillage methods, cover crops, retention or establishment of buffers and exclusion of livestock from streams. It is the expectation of this plan that these practices will be widely implemented on agricultural lands. WLA allocations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are set according to EPA guidance and adjusted to reflect Virginia data with the WLA based on full implementation of practices such as adequate waste storage and barnyard runoff controls. x Implement nutrient management plans on most crop and hay acres. x Implement 35’ grass or forest buffers between cropland and perennial surface waters. x Achieve near total stream exclusion of livestock overtime. x Improve tracking of voluntary agricultural and forestry BMPs. x Account for all current mandated practices in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) and permits required for certain poultry operations. x Provide cost-share funding to achieve significant acreage of cover crops and other incentive based practices. x Increase installation and management of animal waste management systems for confined livestock. x Expand available technical assistance to support adoption of agricultural practices. Urban Stormwater Loads from stormwater will be expressed as both waste load allocations (for regulated activities) and load allocations (for unregulated stormwater). Allocations for newly developed land will be set at a level that results in no increase above allowable 2025 average nutrient loads per acre from previous land uses; unless offsets are obtained in the event on-site controls will not fully achieve allowable loads. Allocation for existing urban areas is based on high levels of implementation of management practices described below. These post 2017 activities presume an expansion of the Nutrient Credit Exchange Program and therefore the urban sector loads have been “bundled” with the wastewater and onsite septic loads for the purposes of this plan. x Revise Virginia’s Stormwater Management Regulations to prevent loads increases from new development (currently under revision). x Restrictions for application of non-agricultural fertilizers and reporting from “for-hire” applicators. x Encourage all municipal/county owned nonagricultural lands receiving nutrients to develop, implement and maintain nutrient management plans. x Consider controls on certain do-it-yourself non-agricultural lawn and turf fertilizers. x Incorporate requirements within Virginia’s Stormwater Management Regulations (under revision) that redevelopment meet reductions in nutrient and sediment loads. 14 x Implement additional BMPs on existing pervious and impervious lands through future permits and wider adoption of stormwater utility fees or other funding mechanisms. x Implement a significantly expanded urban nutrient management program. James River This plan proposes a different approach for the James River given its unique qualities and the chlorophyll standards that apply only to the James. In 2005 the State Water Control Board adopted several regulations to address the nutrient and sediment impairments in Virginia’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal rivers, including the James River. In March 2005, the State Water Control Board adopted water quality standards to protect the Chesapeake Bay and tidal rivers; these standards included five new designated uses, numeric criteria for dissolved oxygen, submerged aquatic vegetation and water clarity, and a narrative chlorophyll criterion. Action on numeric chlorophyll criteria for the tidal James River was delayed to give further consideration to public comments and to develop nutrient loading and cost alternative analyses. The Board considered the James River chlorophyll criteria at their June 2005 meeting, and adopted criteria at their November 2005 meeting. Concurrent with these actions, the Board also amended the Virginia Water Quality Management regulation to include nitrogen and phosphorus allocations for 125 significant wastewater dischargers throughout the Bay watershed that would, along with needed actions by non-point sources, achieve all of the new water quality standards. Determining the appropriate numeric chlorophyll criteria for the tidal James River was particularly challenging and the rulemaking process included an additional step of using consideration of attainability to help determine the proper criteria since the other lines of evidence did not clearly point to specific and defensible criteria levels. EPA worked with Virginia on these regulations and approved them as meeting the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Virginia immediately began an aggressive program to implement nutrient reductions from point and nonpoint sources, including expenditures and commitments to add nutrient removal facilities at wastewater treatment plants, alone exceeding $1.5 billion. Of this amount, over $400 million has been directed to the James River basin. Localities and industries in the James River basin have developed their regulatory compliance plans and made long-term funding commitments based on the approved regulations. Recent determinations by EPA during the Chesapeake Bay TMDL development process call into question the conclusions and agreements reached during Virginia’s 2005 rulemaking process for the chlorophyll criteria. The draft nutrient allocations for the James River basin issued by EPA on July 1, 2010 are significantly more stringent than the levels that formed the basis for the state regulatory actions taken in 2005 for the chlorophyll criteria and the wastewater treatment plant allocations. Achieving these more stringent allocations would require estimated additional expenditures of between $0.5 to 1.0 billion to the restoration costs in the James basin. In addition, technological advancements since 2005 in field monitoring for the chlorophyll parameter provide a much greater understanding of the concentrations and variability of chlorophyll in the tidal James River. These advancements include “data-flow” monitoring which 15 provides thousands of data points during a single monitoring cruise. Additional scientific research has since taken place, providing a greater understanding of the impact of algae blooms on aquatic life. Also, EPA has recently issued criteria to protect against Harmful Algal Blooms that should be evaluated for application in the tidal James River. The Commonwealth views the draft nutrient allocations included in EPA’s July 1, 2010 letter for the James River basin to be at the lower end of a range of nutrient loads allocations needed to protect the aquatic life uses in the tidal James River. The Commonwealth concludes that additional scientific study is needed to provide a more precise and scientifically defensible basis for setting the final nutrient allocations. Four Part James River Strategy Part1: Continue Pollution Reduction Actions During Stage 1 of TMDL Implementation to Achieve the 60% Reduction Target by 2017 x The Commonwealth will continue aggressive implementation of the nutrient and sediment reduction practices outlined in other sections of this WIP. x EPA’s expectation is that by 2017 Virginia will attain 60% of the reductions needed to achieve the July 1, 2010 draft nutrient allocations in the James River basin. Tables shown in another section of this WIP assign target loads to each of the major sectors to illustrate how the Commonwealth will meet the 60% target in the James by 2017. x The capacity in these wastewater treatment plants to serve future growth will be used post- 2017. The expansion of the nutrient credit exchange program will allow local decision- makers to determine how future nutrient reductions are best achieved equitably and cost- effectively among the source sectors in their communities. Source sector allocations included in this Phase 1 WIP reflect this more flexible approach available through an expanded credit exchange program. x By attaining the 60% target in the James, the Commonwealth will achieve the James River Basin portion of the overall nutrient loading reductions needed to achieve the dissolved oxygen standards for the Chesapeake Bay. Part 2: Conduct Additional Scientific Study to Determine the Most Appropriate Chlorophyll Criteria for the Tidal James River; and Initiate Rulemaking under the Virginia Administrative Process Act to Amend Water Quality Standards, as Needed x New information must be evaluated to ensure the Commonwealth’s chlorophyll criteria for the tidal James River are appropriately protective of the river’s designated uses and are based on the best scientific information and data currently available. This new information includes: application of Harmful Algae Bloom criteria; analysis of data-flow monitoring information to better understand the size and duration of algal bloom events; scientific research; and other information supplied by citizens and stakeholders. x In order to conduct a thorough review of available information, and to allow sufficient time for the collection of additional data-flow information in the tidal James River during various hydrologic seasons, we believe a three-year time period is needed to complete this study. 16 x In response to creditable findings from the three-year study, DEQ will ask the State Water Control Board to begin the rulemaking process under the Virginia Administrative Process Act to consider amending the chlorophyll criteria in the Water Quality Standards [9 VAC 25-260-310.bb.]. The time estimate for completing the Virginia rulemaking process is 18 to 24 months. x The schedule described above, not to exceed five years, allows for production of revised chlorophyll criteria well within the time period for Stage 1 implementation of the Bay TMDL. x As part of the review of the chlorophyll criteria, we will review the modeling framework used in predicting chlorophyll response to changes in nutrient and sediment inputs to the James River. The usefulness of the model can be improved by providing information on algae bloom events, both temporally and spatially, instead of long-term average chlorophyll concentrations. x Attached to this Strategy is a draft Study Plan for this review and update of the James River site-specific numeric chlorophyll water quality criteria. DEQ welcomes comments on this draft plan as part of WIP review. Part 3: Petition EPA to Amend TMDL Allocations for the James River Basin, as needed, in response to revised Water Quality Standards x If revisions to the chlorophyll standards for the tidal James River are adopted, the Commonwealth will petition EPA to amend the TMDL nutrient allocations assigned to the James River basin. x These revised basin allocations will form the basis for Virginia’s Phase 3 WIP for the James River basin. Part 4: Virginia Implements Necessary Management Actions during Stage 2 to Achieve TMDL Allocations Prior to 2025 x As stated previously, the Commonwealth believes that additional scientific study is needed to determine the proper chlorophyll standards for the tidal James River; and, the July 1 draft nutrient allocations are at the lower end of the range of loads needed to achieve the aquatic life use in the tidal James River. x In recognition of this position, this Phase 1 WIP presents specific sector allocations and programs needed to meet the higher end of the range of nutrient loads we believe are needed to achieve the aquatic life use in the tidal James River. x The Commonwealth remains concerned that the need to achieve additional reductions to meet the lower end of the nutrient load range has not been adequately justified. However, in the interest of providing a WIP without any gaps, additional management steps are identified that the Commonwealth would consider implementing after 2017 to meet EPA’s July 1 draft nutrient allocations. x These additional management steps include using a combination of the actions described below. Other actions would be considered based on new technologies and approaches developed in the future as well as the experience the Commonwealth gains during implementation of Stage 1 actions. 17 x Restoration of Oysters and other filter feeders Increasing Virginia’s stock of natural filter feeders, such as oysters, not only provides a valuable fishery but will also help clean the James River by filtration. Various studies and EPA’s modeling have demonstrated that increasing the biomass of filter feeders may produce improvements. Virginia is committed to increasing the population of these natural filters and believes credit for filter feeder restoration and the associated nutrient removal should be recognized in implementing the James River TMDL. x Reduction in Air Deposition Modeling has estimated that atmospheric sources account for about one third of the nitrogen that reaches the Bay, and that much of this load originates from outside the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As described in general terms in EPA’s July 1 letter, additional nitrogen reductions realized through more stringent air pollution controls at the jurisdictional level, beyond minimum federal requirements, may be credited to individual jurisdictions. x Implementation of Alternative Technologies To achieve the additional nutrient reductions included in the draft TMDL equitably and cost-effectively, the Commonwealth will evaluate, and implement as appropriate and warranted, emerging alternative technologies that are shown to be effective. Examples of potential technologies that are being given serious consideration include Algal Turf Scrubber® and floating wetlands. x Alternatives Identified During Stage 1 Cost-Benefit Study The Commonwealth will be conducting a cost-benefit study to help inform the review of equitable and cost-effective sector allocations during the Phase 2 WIP process. As part of this James River strategy, the Commonwealth will build on this cost-benefit study to include evaluations of additional mechanisms and technologies that will be key to attaining the TMDL allocations in the James River during Stage 2 implementation. The James River component of this project will also provide cost- benefit information that will be useful during the Virginia rulemaking process directed at amending the chlorophyll standards. x Once the scientific study and water quality standards rulemaking are completed, and nutrient allocations needed to meet these standards are established, the Commonwealth will review the sector allocations and propose needed adjustments in the Phase 3 WIP to meet the final James River basin allocations. In addition, these management approaches will be reviewed, along with other options, to develop equitable and cost-effective management actions to meet the TMDL allocations by 2025. A detailed proposal for the scientific investigation of the chlorophyll standard is contained in Appendix 2 Summary Virginia WIP Evaluation September 24, 2010 Summary: EPA Evaluation of Virginia Draft Watershed Implementation Plan Rating for Gap-Filling Strategies: Serious Deficiencies WIP Numbers Compared to 7/1 and 8/13 Allocations: N 6% over; P 7% over; TSS 12% under Backstop Allocations in Draft TMDL that will remain if final Phase I WIP not strengthened:  Moderate level backstop allocations for Virginia point sources o WWTPs: 4 mg/L TN and .3 mg/L TP and design flow for significant municipal plants consistent with most aggressive WIP proposal (Maryland ENR Strategy) o MS4s: 50% of urban MS4 lands meet aggressive performance standard through retrofit/ redevelopment; 50% of unregulated land treated as regulated, so that 25% of unregulated land meets aggressive performance standard; designation as necessary o Construction: Erosion and sediment control on all lands subject to Construction General Permit o CAFO production areas: Waste management, barnyard runoff control, mortality composting. Precision feed management for all animals. Same standards apply to AFOs not subject to CAFO permits EXCEPT no feed management on dairies; designation as necessary o Additional adjustments to agriculture nonpoint sources as necessary to exactly meet July 1 and August 13 nutrient and sediment allocations Overall  VA proposes to achieve nutrient reductions through expanded Nutrient Credit Exchange (NCE), but key deficiencies in this strategy exist including: o Relies on septic systems and urban stormwater to purchase credits, but no regulatory driver to create timeline for credit demand; and o WIP is not transparent on how low the allocations for stormwater and septic systems are, and therefore extent that state expects homeowners and urban areas to purchase credits  Does not include legislative and regulatory changes that would support high implementation rates despite proposals presented to Virginia’s WIP Stakeholder Advisory Group  Does not meet nitrogen and phosphorus allocations in James River that are necessary to meet current chlorophyll-a standard; does meet interim 2017 target Agriculture: Serious Deficiencies in Gap-Filling Strategies Key Areas for Improvements  VA removed all regulatory drivers that could compel increased implementation of priority practices. Lack of regulatory driver may make action levels difficult to meet (eg, ambitious goals for fencing 95% of streams and enhanced nutrient management on 86% of acres)  States that “The state will consider broader incentives and other mechanisms for nutrient management plans,” and “Prior to 2017, further actions will be taken to increase the quantity and distribution of private certified planners,” but offers no further details.  There is no discussion of onsite inspections or audits to verify farms receiving cost-share have implemented BMPs  No commitment to make refinements to P management approach to address P saturated soils in animal agriculture dominated regions such as the Shenandoah Valley 1 Summary Virginia WIP Evaluation September 24, 2010 Opportunities for Strengthening Draft WIP, State Programs, and/or Authorities  Consider revising NMP regulations to include practices in WIP input deck and/or agricultural implementation measures recommended in the May 2010 502 Guidance  Consider expanding VPA program to address small dairies  Consider greater engagement with poultry integrators to find solutions to manure management, with an emphasis on alternative uses of manure Stormwater: Serious Deficiencies in Gap-Filling Strategies Key Areas for Improvement  There is an almost total reliance on existing permitting program and proposed stormwater regulations. Reductions cannot be achieved without significantly more robust requirements  Need clear, enforceable new and redevelopment performance standards if assuming no increases or net decreases from new and redevelopment. To prevent increases in loads from new development both within and outside MS4-regulated areas, a strong performance standard must be applied. The performance standard is expected to be most effective when based on a volume or flow metric, and formulated as a retention (not detention) standard with the environmental objective of stable hydrologic condition  Little discussion of retrofits except as contingency and no discussion of regulating additional discharges through residual designation authority or state mechanism. EPA expects to see details on retrofits and expanded authority if Virginia is expecting load reductions from existing regulated and unregulated stormwater, particularly down to E3 levels. Achieving these load reductions necessitates a solid retrofit program including an enforceable performance standard for all retrofits with an objective of stable hydrology in receiving streams. A retrofit program will likely include implementation of management measures on the ground, as well as stream restorations.  EPA expects programs that address new development outside MS4 areas to establish a mechanism (state rules, construction general permit, residual designation authority) to apply appropriate standards to this wider universe of discharges  Must have stringent requirements, enforceable standards and clear baselines for stormwater before trading EPA would find a stormwater trading program to be acceptable Wastewater: Some Deficiencies in Gap-Filling Strategies Key Areas for Improvement  The WIP recognizes that direct control of N from small onsite systems is difficult. However, expanded NCE suggests having onsites be the driver of purchasing credits. Given this disconnect and lack of easily administered regulatory driver for onsites, EPA has no assurance of adequate demand to promote credit generation to meet 2017 and 2025 targets  WIP onsite section makes no mention that VA is pushing septic loads to E3 and will require homeowners to purchase credits to meet these WLAs and LAs  WIP does not describe how VA counties will organize to purchase or sell credits for onsite systems or urban stormwater on NCE within a set time period such as a permit cycle 2 Attachment 4 Proposed “Pollution Diet” TMDL For the James River 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 1985 2002 2009 2017 2025Million pounds per yearNitrogen TMDL for James River 1985 2002 2009 2017 2025 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1985 2002 2009 2017 2025Million Pounds per yearPhosphorous TMDL for James River 1985 2002 2009 2017 2025 Attachment 5 Page 1 Staff Analysis of Albemarle County Impacts Virginia WIP, incorporating EPA’s September 24, 2010 Comments Sector Strategy Responsibility Anticipated County Impacts Staff Comments Agriculture Exclusionary Fencing for 95% of streams and rivers Farmers / Property Owners High, if County is mandated to enforce May be wrapped into an expanded Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, passing enforcement to County Nutrient Management Plans Farmers / Property Owners Low, presume TJSWCD would manage these plans May be wrapped into an expanded Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, passing enforcement to County 35’ Buffers for all streams and rivers Farmers / Property Owners High if County is mandated to enforce May be wrapped into an expanded Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, passing enforcement to County Aggressive BMPs for Concentrated Animal Feed Operations(“CAFOs”) Farmers/Operato rs Low Anticipate CAFOs will continue to be regulated by Virginia’s DEQ. Not a common activity in Albemarle. Onsite / Septic Require all new and replacement onsite systems to include onsite treatment for removal of nitrogen Property Owners Low Anticipate Virginia Dept of Health will regulate. While County costs will be low, this will prove very expensive for property owners and may prove impossible for replacements where people have limited income Require maintenance inspections and annual report for new onsite systems Property Owners Low Anticipate Virginia Dept of Health will regulate. Annual cost to property owners may be in range of several hundred dollars Provide credit exchange in lieu of expensive on-site Unknown Low Assumes there will be credits to purchase, which has not yet been shown to be possible Attachment 5 Page 2 Sector Strategy Responsibility Anticipated County Impacts Staff Comments Urban Stormwater Require 50% of impervious land be retrofitted with high quality BMPs County Very High Initial estimates of cost are in the range of $5-10 Million per year, which does not include ongoing maintenance cost for BMPs. Anticipate this would also require property condemnation to build facilities in many cases. Eliminate or highly regulate home use of lawn fertilizers County High Anticipate County’s MS4 permit would require County to regulate fertilizer use by homeowners Require nutrient management plans for all municipal properties County High Anticipate County’s MS4 permit would require County to assure compliance with State approved plans for all County property Require very high quality BMPs for all new development and redevelopment Property Owners High to Very High Requires most development to install “state of the art” stormwater facilities that provide a net reduction from current runoff. Increases complexity of plan review, inspections, and ongoing maintenance Wastewater Treatment Plants Require major plants to operate at lower discharge limits RWSA Low County direct, potentially high for citizens paying utility fees May require additional and very expensive upgrades to sewage treatment plant. Will likely mean RWSA no longer has credits that can be sold to other plants Require small plants and homes with discharge permits to buy offset credits or install new systems Property Owners, small utilities Low County direct, potentially high for those using plants. Still questionable whether there will be credits to purchase and whether property owners would be required to replace existing package treatment plants with new and expensive upgrades Provide credit exchange in lieu of expensive upgrades Unknown Low Assumes there will be credits to purchase, which has not yet been shown to be possible Go to next attachment Return to exec summary Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 1 Local Pilot Project: Interim Report, September 2, 2010 Name of project: Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for Chesapeake Bay TMDL (PRPP) – (formerly called the Rivanna Regional Pilot Project) Location: Service area of the Thomas Jefferson Planning District (City of Charlottesville, counties of Greene, Albemarle, Louisa, Nelson, Fluvanna), Virginia State and local Contacts: Susan Block (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) – Susan.block@dcr.virginia.gov Rick Hill (Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation) – Rick.Hill@dcr.virginia.gov Leslie Middleton (Rivanna River Basin Commission) – middleton@rivannariverbasin.org Executive Summary The Piedmont Regional Pilot Project (formerly the Rivanna Regional Pilot Project) has formed a Steering Committee that includes representation from the Thomas Jefferson PDC, the Thomas Jefferson SWCD, the Rivanna River Basin Commission, The Nature Conservancy, three members of the Virginia Stakeholders Advisory Group, and two elected officials. DCR staff representatives attend most meetings, which are coordinated and facilitated by the Institute for Environmental Negotiation. TetraTech is providing technical support by interpreting the Chesapeake Bay model in the context of the project region. The Rivanna River Basin Commission provides overall coordination and serves as the liaison to EPA and Virginia DCR. The Pilot Project is focused on identifying strategies for local engagement that may be useful in developing Phase II WIPs. The project focuses on local governments, but will be engaging special interests through focus group meetings to provide timely and accurate information about the Bay TMDL and to solicit constructive ideas and strategies for implementing the TMDL at the local level. Input from four focus groups will be compiled in a draft report that will then be presented to each of the governing bodies of Greene, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Nelson, and Louisa counties and the City of Charlottesville. Local governing bodies will be encouraged to add additional comments to the report, which will then be forwarded to EPA and DCR. The timeline for this project was to submit the report by mid December 2010. However, with the public comment period on the Bay TMDL closing on November 8, 2010, we are attempting to move the schedule forward so that any relevant input from this pilot project can be considered in the final TMDL. Original Pilot Project Description: The Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC) will utilize local water quality and land use data coupled with a local stakeholder process to identify additional local data needs, identify resource gaps, and develop pollution reduction strategies across multiple local government boundaries and overlapping service areas. RRBC will work with the Thomas Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 2 Jefferson Planning District Commission, Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Culpeper SWCD, and the local StreamWatch program. RRBC further proposed that this pilot project would also provide as specific deliverables an evaluation of the transferability of this process to other piedmont watersheds; design of long-term local monitoring program to asses effectiveness of implementation plan between 2011-2025; locally derived capacity evaluation and resource gap analysis; locally derived pollution reduction strategies; and locally designed stakeholder engagement process with documentation of lessons learn and transferability. Revised Pilot Project Description and Update: The PRPP Steering Committee has crafted a stakeholder involvement process that is now underway and will continue through November 2010 that supports Virginia state agencies, especially DCR, with identifying strategies for development of the Phase II WIP. The Steering Committee hopes that this project will: (1) Provide accurate information regarding the Chesapeake Bay TMDL to different groups of stakeholders in our region who will be affected by the Bay clean-up process; (2) Solicit feedback, suggestions, and concerns using focus groups, all of will be forwarded to EPA to improve understanding of local implementation challenges; (3) Provide feedback to Virginia DCR staff charged with developing the Phase II WIPs; (4) Ascertain the interest on the part of local elected officials to consider a watershed or regional (PDC or SWCD) response to the Bay TMDL; (5) Evaluate how the emerging Chesapeake Bay TMDL regulatory requirements can be used to leverage public support and political will for cleaning up local (Piedmont) streams. With no funding available to support steering committee member staff time, the scope of this pilot project has been adjusted to make the best use of contractor support and to focus on the stakeholder involvement process that will support the above goals. In addition, early on, the pilot project was expanded from just the Rivanna River watershed to include the entire region of the Thomas Jefferson PDC, thus including all of Greene, Albemarle, Fluvanna, Nelson, and Louisa Counties and the City of Charlottesville. An early (and important) decision was to rename the pilot project so that it did not convey a watershed-based body, especially one like the Rivanna, which is dominated by the urban ring of Charlottesville/Albemarle and is generally perceived as having more resources to respond to the Bay TMDL. Thus, the name of the project is now the Piedmont Regional Pilot Project (PRPP) for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. However, we will throughout this project continue to evaluate the appropriate scale for watershed implementation planning – and know that the Bay model also recognizes local government boundaries within segment-sheds. We hope to develop some consensus about which local agencies are best suited to lead which aspects of local implementation. Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 3 PRPP Steering Committee and Project Regional Focus The Steering Committee coalesced after the Rivanna River Basin Commission (RRBC) hosted meetings with Virginia state agency representatives and EPA in December 2009 and January 2010. Steering Committee members represent local governments (Thomas Jefferson PDC, RRBC, the Bay Program’s LGAC); the Virginia Stakeholder Advisory Group (representing RRBC, LGAC, and the Southern Environmental Law Center); and the two SWCDs that overlap the project area (Culpeper and Thomas Jefferson SWCD). To assure local government perspective, we invited two Supervisors into the group (one for Nelson and one from Greene). The Steering Committee is: Connie Brennan Nelson County Board of Supervisors Bill Kittrell The Nature Conservancy Leslie Middleton* Rivanna River Basin Commission Rick Parrish* Southern Environmental Law Center Alyson Sappington Thomas Jefferson SWCD Carl Schmitt Greene County Board of Supervisors Sally Thomas* CBP LGAC Steve Williams Thomas Jefferson PDC * Virginia SAG members The Institute for Environmental Negotiations is providing facilitation and meeting management support Steering Committee and focus group meetings. TetraTech is providing map products and local TMDL information for the meeting and, separately undertaking data analysis to support the pilot project. Local Engagement Process The Steering Committee decided that regardless of whether a PDC or SWCD or watershed group might take the lead on certain aspects of implementation in Phase II, it is the local governments and other jurisdictions that the Commonwealth will be relying on for strategy implementation. For the State to meet the expectations of the EPA and the Bay TMDL successful execution of strategies at the local scale will have to occur. With that in mind, we decided to start1 by engaging representatives of the six local governments in a small focus group (two elected officials from each local government2) that will provide current and accurate information about the Bay TMDL and provide a forum for exploring the following questions: • What is your current understanding of the Bay TMDL and its potential impacts on local governments? 1 We held a preliminary meeting on July 22 for the staff and executives of the six localities in recognition of the pivotal role that staff plays in supporting any such process. 2 This allowed us to eliminate the need for public notice and be able to keep the meetings small to facilitate frank discussion. Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 4 • What information do you already have and where is this information coming from? • How would you like to get future information and updates? • What are your concerns about the Bay TMDL? • What can you identify at this time that could help you in preparing for the Bay TMDL (i.e. resources, staff, information, data)? • How can the Bay TMDL be used to achieve other goals? • What role would you like to play in development of a local WIP? We will provide factual background about the Bay TMDL and current information about the process of developing the TMDL and associated Phase I and Phase II WIPs. We are encouraging attendance at this (and all the focus group meetings) by those who are not part of the choir, i.e. not perceived as being environmentalists, and who we think will be forthright in expressing their concerns. At this first focus group, the Steering Committee will present the timeline of the pilot project, including our plan to return to each local elected body at the conclusion of our outreach efforts to present our findings to them. The focus group for local elected officials will take place on September 8, 2010. (Please see Figure 1 for a flow chart and schedule of the PRPP.) At the same time, we are planning for a series of special interest (stakeholder) focus groups for the following four groups: agriculture (including forestry, viticulture, row crop and pasture); development (building, construction, economic/business); permit holders (treatment plant operators, MS4, waste and water authorities)3. These focus groups will again be by invitation – and we are using our local knowledge to identify and specifically invite individuals who are well connected in their various groups and will be candid about their concerns while also, hopefully, helpful in providing practical ideas. These focus groups include an invitation to an early continental breakfast.4 All meetings are scheduled for 8 am to 10 am to avoid breaking up the workday as much as possible. The meeting schedule is: August 31 Agriculture September 24 Permit holders (tentative) October 7 Building/development (tentative) The meetings are being facilitated, and extensive meeting notes will be prepared and sent back to participants with the invitation for corrections or further comments. These meeting notes will serve as the basis for the final report. We will also post large regional watershed maps showing all the existing impaired streams in our project area (courtesy of 3 We understand that the focus groups are not totally aligned with sector groups, as defined by Virginia DEQ and DCR, and there may be “lessons learned” by grouping special interests in this way. 4 Expenses for conducting the focus groups (refreshments and materials) are being covered by a $2500 mini-grant from Virginia DCR). Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 5 TetraTech) to help participants understand that our local waters already have impairments that need addressing. During October and November, the Steering Committee will then return to each of the six localities for a work session or substantial presentation to each elected body. The purpose of these follow-up meetings is to present the findings from the focus groups so that the elected bodies may be better informed moving forward. We hope that we can schedule these follow-up meetings before the end of the public comment period for the Bay TMDL, but this is not assured at this time. We have also included our colleagues at Virginia DCR in the planning process – which we believe is helpful for communication both ways. Data Analysis for Project Area: Because the Chesapeake Bay Model is not well understood by many people (and has a somewhat impaired reputation at the local level), we have asked TetraTech to provide some preliminary data compilation and analysis based on the 5.3 model that may provide some insight into the structure of the model. We have asked for some preliminary analysis of existing allocations (sub-watershed and possibly even county level) and comparison to the loads as set by our existing TMDLs, where applicable (i.e. for sediment). This may help us get a preliminary assessment of how a possible county-level allocation might compare to those set by the existing local TMDLs. There is, of course, a big caveat here, because county or regional allocations are not to be established until Phase II (2011) -- and most of our regional streams are listed because of bacteria and sediment, not N and P. However, this kind of analysis may help us in our consideration of the regional (PDC) approach -- vs developing WIPs based on locality, SWCD, or watershed. Tetra Tech has begun development of a tabular dataset that will provide a linkage between watersheds in the Thomas Jefferson Planning District and simulated watersheds in CBP’s watershed model. This linkage will allow for 29 sources of sediment and nutrients in the CBP model to be summarized at the District, county, or more detailed subwatershed level. Once the modeling data are obtained for the District, the linkage may need to be expanded based on existing TMDL or assessment efforts, which likely considered slightly different datasets than the CBP model. TMDL reports, for example, may have used different sources of land use data. If this is the case, additional linkage between the land use types will need to be developed to “crosswalk” the terminology. [In addition, land cover/use categories from the watershed model will be compared with those of the Rivanna and Vicinity Land Cover Map that provides high quality land use data for four of the six localities in the study area. See http://www.rivannariverbasin.org/Rivanna- maps-tools.php.] Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 6 Preliminary Lessons Learned: 1. Dedicated funding for watershed implementation planning will be needed. Originally, RRBC proposed that this pilot project would also provide as specific deliverables an evaluation of the transferability of this process to other piedmont watersheds; design of long-term local monitoring program to asses effectiveness of implementation plan between 2011-2025; locally derived capacity evaluation and resource gap analysis; locally derived pollution reduction strategies; and locally designed stakeholder engagement process with documentation of lessons learned and transferability.5 With no funding available to support steering committee member staff time, the scope of this pilot project has been adjusted to make the best use of contractor support that is being provided. EPA needs to be mindful that Phase II WIP development will require significant resources to support local staff time and expenses so that local government and local and regional agencies can dedicate efforts to focus on plan development, public engagement, and implementation and tracking of progress. 2. Making the case for local water quality and local water quality data may be essential for eliciting buy-in of local governments and affected stakeholders. Already, it is apparent that there is significant mistrust of the Chesapeake Bay watershed model – and, on principal, any process that is driven by a model. It will be helpful if EPA and its state partners can assist their local partners with enough information, resources, and tools so that local staff can “look under the hood” and understand the inner workings of the model, especially the inputs. In addition, where local data is more accurate than data that has been used in the model, there should be a mechanism for using local data in development and implementation of local and regional pollution reduction strategies. The possibility that local water quality may be protected and restored may be the most compelling reason for many localities in the Piedmont (or anywhere above the fall line or even for those not contiguous with the Bay) to embrace the requirements for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay. 3. Good and timely information from EPA and the state agencies about the process of developing the Bay TMDL and state WIP has been an essential for the pilot project steering committee members to feel moderately assured that their efforts are congruent with the Bay TMDL development. Having Virginia DCR staff available and present at Steering Committee meetings has provided important flow of information both ways. In addition, it has been extremely helpful that the Steering Committee consists of three members of the Virginia SAG. 4. Though EPA has suggested that “local governments, SWCDs or watershed groups” may take a lead role in implementing the Phase II WIPs, this will likely Piedmont Regional Pilot Project for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL Interim Report, September 2, 2010 7 vary from region to region. An early decision of the pilot project was to expand the project region beyond watershed boundaries to include all of the Thomas Jefferson PDC, all of the Thomas Jefferson SWCD, all of the Rivanna watershed, and a small portion (Greene County) of the Culpeper SWCD. This region is primarily in the Upper James watershed, but portions of the planning district drain to both the Rappahannock and the York. (See Figure 2.)